|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 585 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1229
... ...
... ... ..... to carry forward and set off against the income of the current year the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. It may be noticed that the AO referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) but the claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not reached its finality though the Department could not file SLP on technical reasons. The learned D.R. could not point out any direct contrary decision on this point and he impliedly admitted that against the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Revenue has not taken in further appeal/SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the firm view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue and uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1228
... ...
... ... ..... expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof" shall include the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral act by the first mentioned person under clause (a) or the successor in business under clause (b) of that sub-section by way of writing off such liability in his accounts. ” A careful reading of above Section would show that when it is applied to instant case before us, all the conditions mentioned therein have been satisfied. Once the assessee accepts that the creditors were not existing, it is for the assessee to show that the payments were not made during the relevant previous year. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower authorities were justified in making the addition of ₹ 43,29,009/-. No interference is called for. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 26th of September, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... ward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less” to arrive at the “profit of sick industrial company” under clause (vii) of Explanation 1 of 115JB(2) of the I.T. Act.” 38. In our opinion, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is reasonable and logical in the scheme of various clauses of Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB. He has given cogent reasons for his decision. In our considered view, the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account in terms of clause (iii) of explanation to sub-section (2), should 19 341 & 380-Rjt-2012 - Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited be excluded first from the adjusted book profits and the amount of profits of sick industrial company should be adjusted after adjustment in terms of clause (iii) has been carried out. Ground No.5 taken by the assessee is dismissed. 39. In view of the foregoing, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 13.09.2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... enses of ₹ 57,87,162 and depreciation and preliminary expenses (section 35D). The assessee had claimed total loss at ₹ 44,81,336/- after setting off income from other sources ₹ 22,21,427/- . We were not sure why only depreciation claim of ₹ 2,95,145/- and preliminary expenses of ₹ 18,970/- were only considered by CIT for disallowance. If his stand were to be accepted then the other expenditure claimed as personnel and operating expenses also require to be capitalized. There is no consistency in the stand of the CIT. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that since assessee has commenced its business and set up business also, the order passed by AO in the original instance is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, CIT has no jurisdiction to set aside the same. Assessee’s grounds are allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1222
... ...
... ... ..... isallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of freight charges by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable as per the amendments made in the said provisions by the Finance. Act, 2010 which, being remedial/curative in nature, have retrospective application. Accordingly, we delete the said disallowance and allow ground No. 2 of this appeal.” 3. Accordingly, respectfully following the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR, after hearing both the parties we are of the opinion that disallowance cannot be made if the deposits are made before the due date of filing the return as described in section 139(1). As there is no dispute so as it relates to date of deposit of tax and these dates are stated in the remand report itself we direct the AO to delete disallowance of ₹ 7,43, 955/- 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1221
... ...
... ... ..... earch operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in assessee’s case. Therefore provisions of section 271AAA are not attracted in his case because section 271AAA is applicable only in cases where search u/s. 132 has been initiated which is clear from the plain reading of this section which reads as under - “Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAA. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 but before the 1st day of July, 2012 , the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.” In view of the above, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1220
... ...
... ... ..... n sold by the Assessee by taking the cheque. The revenue also accepted that the cheque has been received by M/s. Landscape Developers and has duly been accounted for by them. We do not agree with the revenue that while these flats have been sold, the cash would have been received by the Assessee and the Assessee would have given the cheque to M/s. Landscape Developers. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the cash received in respect of the 9 flats belonged to M/s. Landscape Developers and the revenue is directed to assess the said amount in the hands of M/s. Landscape Developers. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made in this regard with the direction that the cash portion as stated at pg. 48, if the Department choses, may treat as income of M/s. Landscape Developers. Thus, ground nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 stands allowed. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by assesses are allowed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1218
... ...
... ... ..... unsel for the assessee has also placed on record the copy of the letter dated 1st August 2001 from the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Secretariat for Industrial Assistance Investment Promotion & Infrastructure Development Cell, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India where approval has been accorded to the assessee for setting up an industrial park in terms of the scheme notified by the Ministry in exercising of powers u/s. 80IA sub-section 4(iii) of the Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case and the fact that the assessee is operating industrial park duly approved by the competent authority, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IA and the income of the assessee is assessable under the head ‘Income from Business’. The appeal of the assessee is allowed, accordingly. Order pronounced on Friday, the 13th September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1216
... ...
... ... ..... s far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ." 9. Further, that ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi 1997 8 SCC 715 where it was observed that a review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 10. The aforesaid views were reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court also in a later judgment reported in Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik AIR 2006 SC 1634. Similar views have also been taken in another judgment reported in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal Jain 2009 14 SCC 663. 11. In view of all the aforesaid, there is no error/mistake apparent on the face of record. 12. Thus, there is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed as such.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1215
... ...
... ... ..... ded over during the assessment year under consideration nor any consideration had been received in this year. Therefore, we agree with the submissions of the assessee that there was no transfer of property in assessment year 2006-07 and, therefore, no capital gain can be taxed in this year. Moreover, in case of a co-owner as pointed out by the assessee, the capital gain has already been accepted in assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) upholding the taxation of capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 cannot be upheld. As capital gain held not to be taxable in this year we do not consider it necessary to go into the alternative claim of the assessee that the capital gain even if taxable in this year, was exempt u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the ground raised regarding the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 6-9-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1214
... ...
... ... ..... 7A(2) that was a distinct omission or default for which penalty is prescribed. 11. In both the above cases, it is seen that either the Forms were filed during the course of assessment proceedings or belatedly in the present case. The Assessing Officer has nowhere doubted that the assessee had not received the Forms in question i.e. the 15G/15H beyond end of financial year but disallowance is merely based on the reason of violation of Rule for not sending the copies of the said forms to the office of the CCIT or CIT. In our opinion, the principles laid down in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra) are squarely applicable to the assessee’s case. We, accordingly, following the decision in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra), allow the claim of the assessee and delete the addition, accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed. 12. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 30-09-2013 Pronounced in the open Court on 30-09-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1213
... ...
... ... ..... eration is materially identical to that of the case decided by the coordinate bench in case of Ashwin Joshi (supra), respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same de novo following the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Ashwin Joshi (supra) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 21. As the order of the CIT(A) has been set aside and remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication while deciding the revenue’s appeal by us, the CO filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 22. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th September, 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1212
Disallowance of claim for “Provision for leave encashment” u/s. 43B(f) - Disallowance of claim of “provision for gratuity” - Application filed seeking application for Gratuity fund - Result for Approval of Gratuity fund not declared - Duly ascertaining the fate of application filed before competent authority - HELD THAT:- The operative part of the said decision reads as under:- “In answering the reference, we hold that merely because in some cases the Revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts.”
The Calcutta Bench of Tribunal [2012 (3) TMI 585 - ITAT KOLKATA] has considered an identical issue in the case before and the Tribunal, has set aside the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to consider the issue afresh as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SC ORDER]. Accordingly, the orders of Ld CIT(A) on this issue were set aside in both the years under consideration and restore them to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh as per the discussion.
Accordingly matter restored before the AO for fresh decision.
The disallowance of claim of “provision for gratuity” - HELD THAT:- The claim of “Provision for gratuity” was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the gratuity fund was not approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Though the assessee contended that the application seeking approval of the Competent Authority is pending as on the date of the assessment but the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the claim saying that the same will be reviewed as and when the approval of the competent authority is received. It was not fair to disallow the claim of the assessee when the application is pending before the competent authority. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim made by the assessee under both the heads in both the years. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed these appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The assessee could not explain about the steps taken by the assessee to pursue the application filed by it before the competent authority. Thus, in these cases, Court has not expressed its opinion.
Matter restored back to AO.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1206
... ...
... ... ..... ents are directly on the point of deductibility of employee’s contributions towards PF and ESI and are based on the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alam Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). Under these circumstances, in view of the precedents of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal and also the precedents by way of the judgements of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, we find no reason to depart from the view taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (supra) to the effect that even in case of employee’s contributions towards PF and ESI which are paid before the due date of filing of return of income is an allowable expenditure. Thus, we hereby affirm the order of the CIT(A) and Revenue has to fail in the present appeal. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1196
... ...
... ... ..... ’. The aforesaid view was affirmed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Following the aforesaid parity of reasoning, in our view, in the present case also, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A), which we hereby affirm. 11. In so far as the levy of penalty with regard to the disallowance of proportionate interest of ₹ 11,901/- was concerned we find no reasons to interfere with the assertion of the CIT(A) that in the assessment order no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been initiated on this aspect. The aforesaid assertion of the CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Revenue before us and accordingly, the same is hereby affirmed. 12. In the result, the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹ 28,48,775/- is hereby affirmed. 13. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1194
... ...
... ... ..... t of the above discussion, it is held that Section 293 of the Income Tax barred the suit filed by M/s. Bansal Commodities. We are conscious that in the facts of this case, the view taken by this judgment will operate harshly on the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, grants liberty to the said plaintiffs to seek leave to revive the writ petition previously disposed off on 20th May, 2004 W.P.(C) 3738/1994 , through an appropriate application. This course is, in the opinion of this Court, essential because the said order was not made on the merits of the writ petition, but on an assumption that such disputes can indeed be the subject matter of adjudication by the civil courts. If such application is made, we would request the Division Bench to consider expeditious disposal of the same. 32. The appeals are, therefore allowed; however subject to the liberty reserved to the respondents, M/s Bansal Commodities, in terms of the preceding paragraph. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1192
... ...
... ... ..... Sections 11(4) and (4A) of the Act, were not being maintained for the business activities. This does not appear to be correct as the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) has computed and was aware of the total sales made by the pharmacy. He has referred to the gross profit and expenditure. It appears that at the time of argument before the Tribunal, this contention was not specifically argued as this has not been separately addressed in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is not alleged in the grounds of appeal that the contention was raised but not answered or noticed. As recorded above, full details of the sales made by the pharmacy and also details of the medicines purchased etc. were available. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) had made calculations. 4. We do not see any reason to re-examine the factual narration and the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AA. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1190
... ...
... ... ..... income but to upgrade the system which enables the profit making structure to work more efficiently, leaving the source of the profit-making structure untouched, would be an expense in the nature of revenue expenditure. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court further observed that this principle is applicable in cases which deal with technology and software application which do not in any manner supplant the source of income or added to the fixed capital of the assessee. 14. The issue under consideration is in our view squarely covered with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above noted authority. Hence respectfully following the same, the deletion made by the ld. CIT(A) on account of software expenses is hereby upheld. 15. In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.3423/M/10 is hereby allowed and the appeals of the Revenue bearing ITA No.6948/M/05 and ITA No.4868/M/10 are hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1187
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner to deposit any amount till it's application is heard and decided in accordance with law. We would be justified in directing the petitioner to deposit an amount only after considering it's case on merits, albeit at the prima facie stage. It is, however, for the respondent No.2 in the first instance to do so. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner's application for stay afresh. Till then and in the event of the order being adverse to the petitioner, for a period of two weeks after the order is served on the petitioner, the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed. Needless to add respondent No.4 shall pass a fresh reasoned order without being influenced by the impugned orders. Liberty to the parties to make an application before CIT (Appeals) for expediting the hearing of the appeal. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... 1(1)/201(1A) is not justified and deleted the same. Hence these appeals by the department. 4. At the time of hearing learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand learned AR submitted that the said amounts have been held to be share application money and the Tribunal has also deleted the deemed dividend by upholding the orders of learned CIT(A). Therefore there is no question of applicability of section 194 of the Act. Above facts have not been disputed by learned Departmental Representative. 5. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the above submissions of learned AR, we hold that there is no infirmity in the orders of learned CIT(A). We uphold his orders for both the assessment years under consideration by rejecting grounds of appeal taken by the department. 6. In the result, both appeals of the department for A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007- 08 are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 6th Day of September, 2013.
........
|
