|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 585 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1261
... ...
... ... ..... TDS into the Government account. 4. Shri Shaji P Jacob, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax appeared for the Revenue and Shri B.Ramakrishnan, the learned chartered accountant appeared for the respondentassessee. In fact, various Benches of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have considered and held that the amendment is retrospective in nature and if the assessee has deducted tax and made the payment to Government account on or before the due date for filing the return of income, then the rigours of section 40(a)(ia) will not haunt the assessee. This view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Virgin Creations, 2012 - TIOL - 181- HC - KOL - IT. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 5. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 25th of September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1259
... ...
... ... ..... given by the Hon’ble Apex Court or a stay has been obtained by the Revenue. Just because an SLP is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will not be correct not to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of retention amounts.” Ld. D.R could not show any good reason as to why the order of the Tribunal for the assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the assessee itself should not be followed in the present year appeal. He also could not bring any material on record to show that the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09 was varied in appeal by any higher authority. Therefore, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2008-09, we dismiss the grounds of appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday , the 12th September, 2013 at Chen
-
2013 (9) TMI 1258
... ...
... ... ..... 0%, whereas, Revenue is aggrieved on the scaling down of the disallowance to 10% 25. Disallowance of 20% on business promotion expenditure was made by the Assessing Officer for a reason that proper evidence was not produced by the assessee. Total claim for business promotion expenses was ₹ 40,19,830/-. Ld. CIT(Appeals) considering the nature of business of the assessee and volume of his turnover, gave a finding that 20% disallowance made was excessive and unreasonable. He scaled down it to 10%. 26. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of CIT(Appeals) since ld. CIT(Appeals) had given the relief considering the turnover of the assessee and its nature of business. Therefore, ground No.4 of the Revenue as well as grounds 4 to 6 of the assessee are dismissed. 27. To summarize the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas, that of the assessee is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 26th of September, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1257
... ...
... ... ..... Bio Park Ltd. (supra), we hold that except the interest income of ₹ 7,74,19,358/- and other income of ₹ 21,29,999/- rest of the incomes are assessable under the head “income from business” for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat interest income and other income only under the head “income from other sources” and allow deduction under section 80IA on rest of the incomes i.e. rent from premises, operation and maintenance income, revenue sharing income, common facilities such as rent from auditorium and rent from others. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also disposed off accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 27th day of September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1256
... ...
... ... ..... of Ticel Bio Park Ltd. (supra), we hold that except the interest income of ₹ 7,74,19,358/- and other income of ₹ 21,29,999/- rest of the incomes are assessable under the head "income from business" for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to treat interest income and other income only under the head "income from other sources" and allow deduction under section 80IA on rest of the incomes i.e. rent from premises, operation and maintenance income, revenue sharing income, common facilities such as rent from auditorium and rent from others. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also disposed off accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 27th day of September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1253
... ...
... ... ..... Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 2,47,30,143/- made by AO under Section 145A of the Act being the unutilized balances of excise duty/Modvat not included in the value of closing stock? To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos.329/2010 and 330/2010.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1251
... ...
... ... ..... ndex/stock future as on balance sheet date is also on account of fluctuation of prices hence we request you to kindly consider the same and allow mark to market loss and oblige.” 6. The AO, however, did not accept the contention of the assessee for the reasons mentioned in the assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07 in assessee’s own case. On an appeal filed by the assessee the learned CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee by following the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2005-06 (ITA No. 1941/Mum/2009 dated 25th June, 2010). 7. The learned D.R. could not place before us any contrary decision on this issue. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly we reject ground No. 2 of the Revenue. 8. Ground No. 3 and 4 are general in nature and need not to be considered independently. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1250
... ...
... ... ..... f tax date of payment by the concerned employee can be treated as the ate of actual payment. When the payee has paid more tax than the tax payable by it and refund is due to it as a result of TDS by the assessee, interest u/s 201(1A) cannot be charged. In view of the above and particularly in the facts of the present case no interest u/s 201 1A is leviable on the assessee. Hence this ground is allowed.” 6. Therefore, by respectfully following the above Tribunal Order, we hold that the provisions of Section 194J of the Act are not applicable to this assessee’s and it is not liable to deduct tax at source qua the transmission and wheeling charges paid by it to RVPN for the use of their transmission system. Accordingly, the A.O. has wrongly held this assessee is a assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act and has incorrectly imposed interest u/s 201(1A). 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 27th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1249
... ...
... ... ..... all-scale industrial undertaking even though it is not so registered under the provisions of the IDR Act." In the instant case, we notice that the tax authorities have held that the production of SSI certificate is mandatory for granting deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, which is against the view expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above cited case. It is not the case of the AO that these assessees are hit by the various criteria fixed by the Central Government for determining an undertaking as Small scale industrial undertaking under Industrial Development Regulation Act. Hence, by respectfully following the above said decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we hold that it is not necessary to produce SSI certificate for treating these assessees as small scale industrial undertaking in terms of sec.80IB of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of tax authorities on this issue. 23. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1248
... ...
... ... ..... e equalization charges for the purpose of computing total income under the Income Tax Act, the difference between the annual lease charge of the leased assets and depreciation allowed on the said leased asset under the Income Tax Act should be taken into consideration and not the difference between the annual lease charge and depreciation claimed by the assessee in the books of account as per the Companies Act. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh. The assessee is directed to furnish the working of lease equalization charges based on the figures of the depreciation on the leased assets allowed as per the income Tax Act which the A.O. shall verify and allow the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of lease equalization charges based on such verification in accordance with law. 9. In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th Sept. 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1247
... ...
... ... ..... entative’s argument that the case of the assessee is hit by explanation to section 73 does not carry any force as if that be the intention of legislature, the whole purpose of amending section 43(5) is defeated. The amendment was meant for the development and benefit of capital markets. Therefore, we are of the view that the loss incurred by assessee was not speculative loss but was a normal business loss and Ld. CIT (A) has rightly dealt with the issue. Moreover Delhi ‘E’ Bench of Delhi Tribunal in ITA No. 2168 has already dealt with similar matter and has held the loss incurred on account of transactions in share futures on a recognized stock exchange as normal business loss. Therefore respectfully following the judicial pronouncement, we also hold the loss incurred by assesssee as normal business loss. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT (A). The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 20th /09/ 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1246
... ...
... ... ..... de. When all the facts were before the revenue, the revenue had enough authority to make some enquiries on the bona fides of the creditors. Further, the revenue has not brought anything on record to show that the sundry creditors had forgone their debts in favour of the assessee. From the case laws relied upon by the assessee supra, it is obvious that such addition under Section 41(1) of the Act cannot be made by the revenue in these circumstances.” 4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the tribunal has committed any error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for ₹ 45,72,591/- under Section 41(1) of the Act, which was further confirmed by the CIT(A). We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in the present Tax Appeal. Under the circumstances, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1245
... ...
... ... ..... Narayan has appeared for the respondent no.3, the Bihar State Electricity Board. He has submitted that the aforesaid sum of ₹ 11,61,20,158.00, demanded by the authorities, has been paid by the Board to the respondent authorities. No refund, therefore, can be claimed from the Board. Learned counsel Mr. Harshwardhan Prasad has not been able to contest the statement that the Corporation has suffered double jeopardy and that the Corporation has paid up its dues for the financial years 2003-04 to 2008-09; nor does he dispute that no demand is pending against the Corporation for the said years. In the aforesaid circumstances, it being a clear and indisputable case of double jeopardy, we direct the respondent authorities to refund the aforesaid sum of ₹ 11,61,20,158.00 to the petitioner. The refund amount shall be paid within six weeks from today. Petition stands allowed in the above terms. Registry will send copy of this order to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 forth with.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1244
... ...
... ... ..... concerning or questionable, he will be at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate orders. (6) No dividend will be transferred abroad without permission of the Court till the next date of hearing. 12. At the suggestion of the revenue, learned counsel for the petitioner will obtain instructions whether any declaration can be furnished by the foreign principal or a third party to protect the interest of the revenue in case there is any shortfall or failure to pay tax arrears. 13. Without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties the petitioner will continue to deposit instalments in terms of order dated 21.6.2013. We clarify that the stand of the respondent is that the instalments fixed by the said order have no relation or connection with the impugned order under Section 281B of the Act which has been passed on the basis of future demands which may be created in view of the pending assessments. A copy of be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... U.C. Jain that after rejection of the books of account the rate applied in the immediately past year is relevant. We are also in agreement with the argument of ld. AR. We have taken umpteen of decisions in this regard by holding that after rejection of books of account, only its past history is most relevant. The assessee has a past history, accordingly to which a net profit rate of 8% has been confirmed. The ld. DR submitted that there was no scrutiny in A.Y. 2007-08 and thus the rate of that year cannot operate as a guiding factor u/s 145 of the Act. 2.2 After considering rival stands we have found it for a fact that after rejection of books, assessee’s past history is very much relevant. It does not matter if the profit rate was accepted in a scrutiny assessment or in the regular assessment. Accordingly, we apply n.p. rate of the past year and allow this appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... in dispute between the parties that the same is not capable of improvement at an ascertainable cost in terms of money and therefore in the absence of any possibility to determine the 'cost of any improvement' referred to in Section 48(ii) of the Act, the computation of capital gains fail and accordingly it is outside the scope and ambit of the charge envisaged under Section 45(1) of the Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we therefore, conclude by holding that there was no capital gain exigible to tax under Section 45(1) of the Act on transfer of the impugned trademark by the assessee and that the lower authorities have erred in taxing the same while computing the total income of the assessee. 14. In the above manner, the assessee succeeds on this plea and accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow appropriate relief to the assessee, as above. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1239
... ...
... ... ..... side the orders of authorities below on this issue and restore the matter back on the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to re-decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. It is expected that assessee will furnish all the details and documents before the Assessing Officer to justify the claim of allowance. 3. Ground No.4 is general in nature which comments no adjudication. 4. As a result, appeal of the assessee gets partly accepted for statistical purpose. 4.1 As regards for appeal for assessment year 2009-10, department has raised two grounds. First ground is relatable to payment of advance excise duty and second relatable for provision of leave encashment. Since both the issues are same as in the assessment year 2008-09, therefore, our decision on these issues taken for that year will apply here to this appeal. 5. As a result, appeal of the department is accepted partly for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 30.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... the orders of the authorities below and found from record that a notice u/s 133(6) was sent to said Smt. Rachna Chouhan who vide letter dated 09.03.2012 has informed that DD/PO had been purchased in favour of the assessee at the instance of Shri G. S. Sharma out of a cheque credit provided by him just before the date of purchase of the DD/PO. 14. Thus, it is clear that DD was purchased by Smt. Rachna Chouhan at the instance of Shri G. S. Sharma. The source of fund was out of credit balance in the bank account of Rachna Chouhan. Since Rachna Chouhan has confirmed the purchase of DD in favour of the assessee, merely not filing of a confirmation by Shri G. S. Sharma cannot be made the basis for addition. In the interest of justice, this issue is also restored back to the file of A.O. for deciding afresh after making detailed inquiry. We direct accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1235
... ...
... ... ..... ion in the income of the assessee. The impugned order passed by the learned ITAT is on facts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the suggested question of law can be said to be question of law. 6.0. It is required to be noted that in similar set of facts and circumstances of the case but with respect to one another assessee American Steel Corporation Pvt. Ltd and purchases booked in the name of R.R. Patel Trading Corporation, we have confirmed order passed by the learned ITAT making the addition to the extent of 20% (Tax Appeal Appeals Nos. 504 of 2012 and 508 of 2013) 7.0. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed
-
2013 (9) TMI 1230
... ...
... ... ..... ngs under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, all the resultant addition made by the A.O. would stand deleted. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the additions on merit. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.100/Agra/2013 (Shri Piyush Prasad, HUF) 11. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra dated 08.10.2012 for the A.Y. 2002-03 challenging initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act and the similar addition on merit. 12. The case is identical as considered in the case of Shri Ramesh Prasad, HUF. Therefore, by following the reasons for the decision in that case, I set aside and quash the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act and also delete the additions on merit as done in the case of Shri Ramesh Prasad, HUF. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
........
|
