|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 585 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1103 - ITAT PANAJI
Reopening of assessment - deduction u/s 80IB(4) - Held that:- We find that the AO has confirmed that the activities undertaken by the Assessee qualifies to be regarded as manufacture and allowed the claim of the Assessee for A.Y. 2004-05. The principles of consistency would apply and hence it is not open for the Department to question the validity of the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) for the impugned assessment year by holding that the activities undertaken by the Assessee cannot be regarded as manufacture more particularly when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ].
-
2013 (9) TMI 1101 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty u/s 158BFA(2) - Held that:- Having confirmed the addition made by the AO on account of estimated gross profit merely on the basis that the entries found in the ledger account found in the possession of the third party pertains to the assessee and not on the basis of any material found in the possession of the assessee during the search, penalty under sec. 158BFA(2) of the Act was not leviable. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition on the basis of peak credit - Held that:- The appellant submitted before the A.O. that cash withdrawal from the bank was re-deposited in the bank account. The A.O. did not find any discrepancy between cash withdrawal from the bank and cash available in the cash book on a particular date. The appellant had not claimed any expenditure on account of interest payment. The appellant had filed the confirmation of the persons from whom loans were given. The appellant neither paid interest nor earned any income on account of interest on advance. This aspect has not been doubted by the A.O. There is no limit in cash withdrawing and redepositing in the bank account. The assessee has offered a plausible and satisfactory explanation before the A.O. for each financial transaction. He had not brought on record any evidence which proves that cash withdrawal had been invested somewhere else and cash balance in the cash book is artificial. Thus, we confirm the order of the CIT(A).- Decided against revenue
-
2013 (9) TMI 1098 - ITAT MUMBAI
Tds u/s 194I - on–deduction of TDS and levy of interest under section 201(1) / 201(1A) - Held that:- Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in coming to the conclusion that the payment made by the assessee to MMRDA is not in the nature of rent within the ambit of section 194–I. Consequently, the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is treated dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1097 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We delete the entire penalty levied consequent to the disallowances/additions on which the quantum appeal now is admitted by the High Court. It is needless to mention that it is not required at this stage to discuss or deliberate the grounds of appeals separately on merit.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1096 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... en paid as per the period prescribed therein. The phraseology used in Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act clearly removes from its purview cases where tax has been short-deducted. Therefore, the inference drawn by the CIT(A) is borne out of a plain reading of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Moreover, the decisions of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. JCIT 146 TTJ 644 (Pune); and, also the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Chandabhoy & Jassobhoy vide ITA No.20/Mum/2010 dated 08.07.2011 support the aforesaid premise. Thus, in the present case the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are not attracted as this is a case of short-deduction of tax at source under Section 194C of the Act and not a case of non-deduction of tax at source. The disallowance out of Die Repairs and Motor Rewinding Expenses is hereby set-aside. 19. Resultantly, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1095 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition to assets - Held that:- The evidences in the form of bills which were submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A), there is no specific finding of CIT(A) of its examination and conclusion. We therefore of the view that this issue needs to be examined afresh.
Addition for purchase of computer software - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that the software were technical software with specific purpose and therefore cannot be held to be capital assets. He has further noted that it was in relation to expenditure on training with licence to the main software having single use. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record.
Disallowance of expenses - Held that:- We find that while deleting the addition CIT(A) has given a finding that all the expenditure were billed and properly vouched. He has further noted that the Assessee has also deducted appropriate TDS wherever applicable and Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defect in the claim of expenditure. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) and therefore we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A).
Addition on unexplained creditors - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the A.O. We also find that there is no finding of CIT(A) with respect to examination of creditors and their genuineness. We therefore feel that this aspect needs to be examined afresh. We therefore restore the matter to the file of CIT(A) for him to pass speaking order, after considering the submissions of the Assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Addition on account of unsecured loan - Held that:- We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted on the basis of evidence in the form of copy of passport, permanent resident card, copy of account showing money receipt through banking channels and confirmation from the party, that the onus has been discharged by the Assessee. He has further noted that the Assessing Officer had made no adverse comment on the basic ingredients while examining the verification of loan in the remand report. Before us, the Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1094 - ITAT MUMBAI
Common amenities fund is not taxable on the principle of mutuality as decided by this Tribunal is the assessee’s own case
Receipt towards share premium and entrance fee from incoming members if the said amount is received for the purpose of utilising for the common amenities of the society then the same falls under the category of the contribution of common amenities fund and the concept of mutuality will be applicable. Accordingly, the AO to verify the same and then decide as per our observation.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1090 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 54G - Held that:- Explanation to Section 54G(1) of the Act has to be harmoniously interpreted so that it is in consonance with the needs of a developing city. Notification dated 26.12.2009 of Tamil Nadu Government, read along with the definition of "urban area" given in Section 6 A of Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 will clearly show that Chemmenchery was indeed within city limits. Assessee here was paying urban land tax for its Chemmenchery property right from 1998, based on determination of such urban land tax by Asst. Commissioner of Urban Land Tax. Thus, in our opinion, the first question has to be answered in favour of assessee. Chemmenchery Village in which the land sold by the assessee was located, fell within the scope of "urban area" mentioned in Section 54G of the Act.
Assessing Officer himself has noted at para A(viii) of his order that assessee had indeed purchased a land at Venkateshpuram Village, Tiruvallur District in January, 2010 and claimed deduction under Section 54G on this purchase. Further, ld. CIT(Appeals) had in his order at para 6 clearly stated that claim of the assessee under Section 54G was with regard to shifting from Chemmenchery to Koppur Village, Tiruvallur District. This being so, we are unable to accept the argument of the learned D.R. that assessee had never put the claim before the Assessing Officer. We cannot say assessee's claim was for shifting its Chemmenchery unit to Puzal unit. Circumstantial evidence clearly show that assessee had established an industrial undertaking in Koppur Village.
There can be no dispute that the object of enacting Section 54G was to de-urbanise and remove industries from populated area and promote industrialization in underdeveloped areas. Section 54G is a provision intended for promoting inclusive growth of the country. In such a situation, giving a very narrow interpretation to the said Section will defeat the very purpose thereof. We are thus of the opinion that the assessee was eligible for claiming exemption under Section 54G of the Act.
Claim for expenditure incurred on construction of road - Held that:- When assessee adopted an unfair means to create evidence for the outgo, there is every possibility that it would have preferred an exaggerated claim. Obvious course in such a situation will be to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer for estimating the expenditure on roads based on a valuation report of an approved valuer. But, here the project had started in April, 2008 and would have significantly progressed by now. Temporary roads earlier laid, would no more be there and would have been replaced by pucca approaches and buildings. In such a situation, a remand for ascertaining the actual outgo may not serve any purpose. Hence to give a quietus to the issue, we are of the opinion that a disallowance of 25% on the total claim of ₹ 22,10,07,155/- will serve the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue and direct the A.O. to disallow ₹ 5,52,51,790/- out of the total claim of ₹ 22,10,07,155/- on roads, and allow the balance.
Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) - Held that:- When the assessee never effected any payment to M/s Gulf Spic Engineering (LLC), Dubai and had under their instruction given work orders to two Indian companies, and made payments directly to such Indian concerns, after deducting tax at source, we cannot say that assessee had failed to deduct tax at source. Assessee had effected deduction of tax as stipulated under Section 194C and remitted it to Government Account. This has not been disputed. There is no finding by any of the lower authorities that M/s Gulf Spic Engineering (LLC), Dubai had done any work for the assessee, for which assessee was obliged to make any payments. In any case, in such circumstances, assessee had reasonable grounds to have a bonafide belief that the payments effected to M/s Fairline Shipping Services Ltd. and M/s AMS Enterprises did not attract Section 195 of the Act. It could not be faulted for failure to deduct tax at source as mentioned in Section 195 of the Act, since the work was done only by M/s Fairline Shipping Services Ltd. and M/s AMS Enterprises and not by M/s Gulf Spic Engineering (LLC), Dubai. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee could not be held liable for any failure for non-deduction of tax at source. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act therefore stands deleted
-
2013 (9) TMI 1086 - ITAT MUMBAI
Share transactions - STCG OR business income - Held that:- Number of scrips and transactions giving rise to Short Term Capital Gain are not very huge so as to indicate that the intention of purchase and sale was not the investment but trading. Further when the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim of the Short Term Capital Gain in the earlier year then in the same facts and circumstances the rule of consistency has to be maintained as held by the Hon’ble High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopal Purohit (2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allowed the claim of the assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1085 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194I - Held that:- Amount paid by the assessee is not in the nature of rent as contemplated u/s. 194I of the Act and held that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source u/s. 194I.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1084 - ITAT PANAJI
No mistake apparent on the record rectifiable u/s 254(2)- In this case, we feel that the Revenue, in the garb of application for rectification, has sought to re-open and argue the matter which is beyond the scope of Sec. 254(2). The power u/s 254(2) does not contemplate re-hearing which would have the effect of re-writing the order affecting the merit of the case. If the power given u/s 254(2) is read in that manner, then, in our opinion, there will not be any difference between the power to review and the power to rectify the mistake. The legislature has not deliberately conferred the power of review on the Tribunal and the Tribunal cannot review its order under the garb of power given u/s 254(2).
-
2013 (9) TMI 1083 - ITAT PUNE
Interest received from bad and doubtful debts (NPA) on actual receipt basis as per RBI guidelines as held by CIT(A) - Held that:- Admittedly, assessee has directly taken the interest to the Balance Sheet and it is not routed through the Profit & Loss Account. Moreover, the issue of the taxability of the interest on the sticky losses/advances, is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate Benches in the case of The Durga Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Vijayawada (2011 (3) TMI 1552 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ) and Karnavati Cooperative Bank Ltd. (2011 (11) TMI 367 - ITAT AHMEDABAD ). We find no reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the same is confirmed. In the result, the Revenue’s ground is dismissed.
Forfeited amount of the dividend - as per CIT(A) it is not an income of the assessee u/s.28 - Held that:- not controverted before us by the Ld. DR that the dividend which is forfeited was provided from the business profit which has already suffered the tax. In our opinion, as rightly held by the Ld.CIT(A), the provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the issue before us as the said provision operate in the different situation
TDS provisions not applicable in case the payment already made before 31-03-2009 - Held that:- This ground is to go against the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kolkata in CIT Vs. Crescent Export Syndicate [2013 (5) TMI 510 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] in which the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench of the Tribunal in Merilyn Shipping and Transport [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] has been reversed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1082 - ITAT PUNE
Interest received from bad and doubtful debts (NPA) on actual receipt basis as per RBI guidelines - assessee is following mercantile system of accounting - Held that:- This case, nowhere it is disputed that on receipt basis the assessee is recognising the income that has been accepted by the AO in the past.
Forfeited amount of dividend - whether not an income of the assessee u/s.28 - Held that:- Provision for dividend is made out of profit which has already suffered tax. Only the provision is reversed as per bye-laws of the cooperative society. In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and no interference is called for from our side
-
2013 (9) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
Treatment given at the time the contract was entered into - the project was turnkey project.- Held that:- We find that the contract is restricted only for providing the designing and technical specifications of the plant as well as supervising of the erection of the plant. Addendum is a continuation of the original agreement itself and hence, it relate back to the original contract. In our opinion, there is no merit in the argument taken by the assessee that the agreement with M/s. Biopharmax is in the nature of the works contract for setting up the Insulin Manufacturing Unit when in fact as rightly held by the DCIT (TDS) that the agreement is for providing technical services.
Interest charged by the DCIT (TDS) u/s. 201(1a) - Held that:- Demand u/s. 201(1) cannot be raised in view of the fact that the amount in question has been offered for tax by the payee but in respect of the interest it is held that the assessee will be liable to pay interest up to the completion of the assessment for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the case of deductee. The Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition u/s. 201(1) of the Income-tax Act and compute interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act from the date of payment/credit till the date of completion of the assessment in the case of deductee for the A.Y. 2008-09. We find that in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. (2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if no demand can be raised if the deductee has deposited the tax but at the same time the assessee will be liable for the interest.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1080 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that:- We are of the opinion that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not warranted. With reference to the club membership fee, Assessee paid an amount of ₹ 6 lakhs as membership fee. On the basis of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. (1991 (4) TMI 53 - BOMBAY High Court ) assessee claimed the deduction at 1/4th of the amount at ₹ 1,50,000/- over a period of 4 years. In the assessment year 2005-06 it was disallowed. By that time assessee already has filed return for assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, there is a bona fide belief that the claim is allowable u/s 37(1). Further, assessee is in the business of import of steel. As part of that it seems, he spent an amount of ₹ 92,092/- as sales promotion and transport expenditure on Mr. John and claimed as business expenditure. AO treated it as personal expenditure. Just became a claim was made and AO made disallowance, the same may not lead to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). There is bona fide belief in making the claims - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1079 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
There is broad consensus between the learned advocates for the respective parties that let both the appealsappeal preferred by the assessee as well as appeal preferred by the revenue be remanded to the Tribunal and are directed to be heard by the learned Tribunal on merits inclusive of additional ground raised by the assessee with respect to validity of notice under Section 158BD of the Act.
While deciding the issue of validity of notice issued under Section 158BD of the Act any additional evidence is required and / or further investigation is required, it will be open for the Tribunal to exercise the powers with respect to the additional evidence available under the Act. Both these appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent
-
2013 (9) TMI 1078 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Revision U/S 263 - unexplained investment - Held that:- A.O. had not made any inquiry with regard to the investment made in shares for ₹ 53,70,000/- and source of investment therein. The fund was mixed up i.e. owned fund as well as borrowed fund. The appellant had paid interest of ₹ 5,80,773/-, which has been allowed by the A.O. without verifying. Further, there was a disclosure u/s. 133A of the IT Act on account of excess stock of ₹ 3,11,427/- whereas the appellant also debited the similar amount in purchase account. Effectively, the appellant had neutralized the disclosure by debiting the purchase. The ld. A.O. had not verified the fact and no inquiry had been made before accepting the assessee’s claim under both the heads. The A.O. raised the query but the assessee did not reply on both aspects before him. The ld. CIT has set aside the order to the A.O. and directed to pass order as per law after proper verification and inquiry. Thus, we have considered view that ld. CIT’s order is not a change of opinion but is as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ].
-
2013 (9) TMI 1077 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income from undisclosed sources - undisclosed bank account - Claim allowed in favour of assessee as relyin on CIT v. Rajshibhai Meramanbhai Odedara 2013 (5) TMI 884 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
Treatment to land in question - as agricultural land and/or capital asset - Held that:- When the land in question was an agricultural land, which was situated beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limits, no error has been committed by the learned tribunal in not considering the land in question as "capital asset". We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in dismissing the appeal preferred by the revenue and confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting addition on account of long term capital gain and on account of short term gain.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1076 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessment in this case was framed on 11th Nov., 2008 and before completion of the said assessment, the assessee vide letter dt. 22nd Jan., 2007 i.e. just after the search operation on 18th Jan., 2007 stated that he was prepared to pay tax on legitimate and correct amount of income as may be mutually determined on agreed basis. The assessee also stated that the said letter be treated as statement under s. 132(4) of the Act, thereby entitling the assessee to the benefits of Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO nowhere stated that the contents of the said letter were wrong and not accepted. In other words, he had not stated anything to disprove the contents of the said letter in the assessment order dt. 11th Nov., 2008. Moreover, whatever was offered by the assessee in his return of income has been accepted by the AO while framing assessment under s. 143(3) r/w s. 153A of the Act. Therefore, the penalty 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable in this case - Decided in favour of assessee
............
|
