|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 585 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1132
Addition as contract profit and interest from FDR being income from other sources - ITAT confirmed deletion of addition - Held that:- The deletion of addition as contract profit and as interest from FDR was on the grounds that the A.O. has already allowed deduction on account of interest and salary paid to the partners. The depreciation and interest paid to third party was allowed as further deduction even if profit rate of 8% has been applied. The CIT(A) has given same treatment while computing the business income of assessee. On interest on FDRs, the CIT(A) noted that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The FDRs were purchased for security purpose for obtaining the contracts which is connected with the business activities of the assessee. No substantial question of law.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1130
Addition u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Held that:- In the instant case before us, since the deductee M/s SsangYong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., is being assessed at loss, no tax is payable by the deductee. Accordingly, no occasion will arise for charging interest from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. Direction of charging of interest u/s.201(1A) in the instant case will not serve any purpose insofar as the recipient of income was held to be not liable to pay any tax on its income as per assessment framed u/s.143(3). Therefore, any payment of TDS by the assessee in respect of payment made to deductee M/s SsangYong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd will entitle the deductee to get back such TDS with interest at the time of framing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, it is not a fit case for holding the assessee deductor in default u/s.201(1) nor for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1129
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- In the present case, we find that no incriminating evidence found against the assessee in proving that unaccounted incomes were generated by suppression of profit and, therefore, the AO is not justified in resorting to estimation and arithmetical assumptions. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the additions made by holding that the additions made based on the percentage of net over gross adopted by the AO are held to be without any basis that can be justified on factual or legal grounds and the order of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in this regard in all the years under consideration.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1128
Stay operation of the notice of demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda - - Held that:- The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within one month from today. During this period of one month, the revenue shall not take any coercive measures to effect recovery but in case the petitioner has already given any undertaking with respect to payment, the petitioner would be obliged by the same.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1127
Expenditure incurred by the assessee in the present case for product development expenses is a capital expenditure.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1125
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim for deduction of interest tax - Held that:- It cannot be held that the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest tax collected by the borrowers from the chargeable interest cannot be held to be not bonafide at least at the time of filing of return of income. Even though such a claim has been disallowed under the re–assessment proceedings and also confirmed by the appellate authority, however, the same cannot be held that in the penalty proceedings such a finding will apply automatically. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee can very well furnish explanation as to what was the bonafide ground and reasons for claiming such a deduction and if such an explanation has not been found to be false, the penalty cannot be levied. In this case, it cannot be held that the assessee has furnished any kind of inaccurate particulars because all the details were duly furnished along with the return of income and simply because such a claim was not allowed in the subsequent proceedings, it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1124
... ...
... ... ..... of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2186 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2932 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2933 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2935 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2936 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 725 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 726 of 2013 The facts of this group of appeals are little different from the facts of Civil Appeal NO. 727 of 2013, Civil Appeal NO. 2937- 2943 of 2013, Civil Appeal NO. 5221 of 2013 and Civil Appeal NO. 5328 of 2013. Having regard to all relevant aspects of the matter and the peculiar facts of the case, after hearing learned senior counsel for the assessee and learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that interest of justice shall be subserved if assessee is asked to deposit 50 of the demand under the impugned order(s) within eight weeks from today. We order accordingly. On deposit of the 50 demand, the recovery of the demand under the impugned order(s) shall remain stayed. Prayer for interim relief is disposed of as above.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1122
Allowance of loss - Held that:- The provisions of section 94(8) of the Act are applicable only to "units" which means units of Mutual Funds only. There is no ambiguity in the matter as the Explanation in section 94(8) of the Act clearly defines "securities" as including "stocks and shares" and defines "units" to have the same meaning as assigned in Explanation to section 115AB of the Act; wherein "units" are defined as units of Mutual Funds only. In this view of the matter, the provisions of section 94(8) of the Act have no applicability to securities, which includes shares.
CIT(Appeals) also observed that in a similar provision introduced to curb dividend stripping i.e. section 94(7) of the Act, both units and securities are included. Section 94(7) of the Act for "bonus stripping" was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.1.2003 whereas section 94(8) of the Act for "bonus stripping" was introduced in Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Hence it can be inferred that the intention of legislative was to exclude the shares of companies from the ambit of the provisions of section 94(8) of the Act. In view of the above discussionwe concur with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) that there is no legislative authority to deny the loss intentionally created by the assessee; for what the law has not envisaged and has specifically excluded cannot be read into the same by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned CIT(Appeals).
-
2013 (9) TMI 1121
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Order passed under section 263 of the Act by the CIT on 21.3.2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07, is without proper assumption of jurisdiction as it does satisfy the twin requisite conditions of the order revised being both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this view of the matter, we hold that the very initiation of proceedings, made without proper appreciation of the facts on record, is bad in law as it is not in accordance with the conditions specified in section 263 of the Act and therefore cancel the impugned order under section 263
-
2013 (9) TMI 1120
Cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted u/s 12A - Trust activities "Genuine" or "Commercial" - Imparting knowledge at cost with profit making intention - "Charitable Educational" work - Cancellation of registration with Retrospective effect u/s-12AA - Question of Contravention of Section-13 - HELD THAT :- the assessee is not receiving any educational grants from the State Govt. which means that State Govt. does not find the so-called "charitable work" of the assessee an absolute necessity to discharge its constitutional liability to give grant. Further, by permitting the assessee to charge fees at a pre-determined rates, the Govt has merely made available a means to meet the assessee's expenditure, at the same time has ensured that the students are not unduly suffered by providing a ceiling for collection of fees. Therefore, the assessee's stand that it is charging fees as permitted by the state Govt., does not necessarily means that the assessee is engaged in charitable activity under sec. 2(15). Moreover, it was allegated the assessee has been providing nothing free of cost, and there is a cost-tag to each and every item which is not less than the upper limit prescribed by the State Govt. Thus IT Department states that Institute is run purely on commercial lines but to initiate steps for the cancellation of the registration of a trust or Institution where the activities of the trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out according to the objects for which trust was registered under S. 12A." So basic requirement for invoking S. 12AA(3) is that the activities of the trust are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. The question raised was that trust is imparting knowledge at cost and therefore, not a charitable Trust u/s 2(15) of the Act and the appellant trust has contravened the provisions of Ss. 11(5) and 13(1) (c) of the Act. Thus, there is nothing found out that the Trust is not 'genuine', the trust is carrying on Educational activities that are charitable in nature. The activities are carried out as per its objects and thus, no infringement of any of the provisions contained in Ss.11(5) and 13 of the Act. The provisions of S.12AA(3) for cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted to it u/s 12A of the Act are not retrospective and order of the CIT passed u/s 12AA(3) is nothing but a review.
Payment made by trustees to vendor - HELD THAT:- there is no documentary evidences found to substantiate that payment was made to vendor with the sole purpose of benefiting the managing trustee or his relatives except that the funds of the trust were routed through the trustees to the vendor. Moreover, the utilizations of the trust fund was not for purchase of agricultural land as investment, but a ladder to set up an educational institution in said land
Relatives/friends being trustees claiming benefits of the trust - Utilization of Substantial part of trust's income for personal benefits - Huge expenditure incurred for personal benefits of interested persons - HELD THAT:- Whether the trust is a public trust or not depends upon its objects. If the settler himself decides to be the sole trustee or nominates trustees from his family or those in his personal confidence. This does not vitiate either the validity of such trust or its public character. It is natural that settler would like to ensure that the objects of the trust created by him are best carried out by persons in whom he has the required confidence.
Accumulated income of the Trust - No investment in specified securities - Already granted exemption u/s-11 in earlier years withdrawn - Non-denial of exemption already granted u/s-11 - HELD THAT:- If there was any misapplication of funds, action would lie against person responsible, but the Institution cannot be denied exemption, which depends upon the objects of the Trust.
Advances given to the trustees - Advances lying with the treasurer - HELD THAT:- An advance for purchase of property by itself need not be treated as violation of S. 11(5) but such advance should be treated as bonafide.
Decision in the case DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS COSMOPOLITAN EDUCATION SOCIETY [1999 (8) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] followed.
In the result, there is nothing found out that the Trust is not 'genuine'. In fact, the trust is carrying on Educational activities they are charitable in nature. The activities are carried out as per its objects. There is no infringement of any of the provisions contained in Ss.11(5) and 13 of the Act. The provisions of S.12AA(3) for cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted to it w.e.f. 11-2-1998 u/s 12A of the Act are not retrospective and therefore, the impugned order of the CIT passed u/s 12AA(3) is nothing but a review of its earlier order which is impermissible in law. We hold so.
The decision in the case DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD VERSUS NH. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST [2012 (5) TMI 236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2012 (3) TMI 262 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed.
As a result, the appeal of assessee was allowed
-
2013 (9) TMI 1119
Unexplained cash credits addition u/s 68 - Held that:- AO has not taken pain to examine the issue on merits on the basis of the details to be filed by the assessee as directed by the Tribunal. Now before us the assessee has claimed that the loans have been repaid therefore, the claim of the assessee based on the record showing the repayment of loan is required to be verified. If the claim of the assessee that loans have already been repaid is found correct then the addition u/s 68 is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Therefore in the interest of justice we set aside this issue for limited purpose of verification of the fact and the record filed by the assessee to show that the loans in question have been repaid by the assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1117
Agricultural land - municipal limits - agricultural land - Held that:- The impugned land is situated beyond the prescribed limit from the municipality, recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record, agricultural operation was done by one of the brothers, we are of the considered opinion that the no capital gains tax is exigible on sale of such land. So far as the objection of the learned CIT DR that the Tehsildar is not a competent authority for measuring the distance, we are not satisfied with such submission especially when the Inspector of the department of Income tax and Tehsildar both have certified that the land is situated beyond 8 kms from the municipal limit.
We are of the considered opinion that Tehsildar is the most competent revenue Officer to certify the proof of agricultural operation, distance of land from a particular place, rate of land, etc.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1115
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- No search has been conducted against the assessee and there is no validity in the action of the Assessing Officer in issuance of the notice u/s 153A of the Act under which the jurisdictional area of operation in the six assessment years immediately preceding to assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. In such a case, where no search was conducted against a person, the period of operation to which the provisions of Section 153A are applicable cannot be determined by invoking provisions of section 153A of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1114
Deduction of the assessee u/s. 80IB - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB no separate books of account were required to be maintained for different undertakings. Since basis of allocation of expenses was accepted by the revenue over the past so many years therefore it cannot be rejected in this year. The other contention of the AO regarding huge losses incurred in non-eligible unit was also found not on sound basis by the Ld. CIT(A) as cattle feed plant was physically separate unit and allocation of common expenses out of dairy business with it did not arise. The AO had disallowed the expenses on estimated basis only without finding any specific defect in the allocation of expenses done by the assessee which was done by the assessee on the same line as was done in earlier years which were accepted by the revenue over the years so applying the rule of consistency Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to delete the disallowance rejecting the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act.
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - Held that:- The only requirement was that income should be received from investment in co-operative societies and co-operative banks. Since in the present case, it was undisputed fact that income claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) was received from the investment made in co-operative societies and co-operative banks, therefore assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We further find that even otherwise since assessee was having mixed funds and the interest free funds were more than investment in co-operative banks and co-operative societies no disallowance was called for from eligible deduction u/s 80P(2(d) of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1112
Addition on account of mark to market loss - revaluation of the pending forward contracts for foreign exchange - Disallowance deleted . See OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2010 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2013 (9) TMI 1110
Interest expenditure claimed rejected - Held that:- The findings given in para 3.3 above in respect of rejection/reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of the Ld.CIT(A) in view of the said direction may have direct impact on the issue of the impugned liability, we set aside this issue also to the files of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh along with the adjudication of the respective ground pertaining to the rejection/reliability of the books of accounts
Levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1109
Reopening of assessment u/s. 147 - general statement of Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta that was made by him in the course of survey u/s. 133A at his premises - Held that:- Not only Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta has stated that he has retracted from the statement recorded during the survey but also filed an affidavit dated 20/2/2009 and letter dated 27/4/2009 to deny the statement made during the survey under section 133A. He has further confirmed that the sales made by the assessee were effected and the consideration was received by cross order cheques. Thus it is clear that there is no material on record to say that the purchases made by the assessee from the said concern were bogus except the general statement recorded by the Department in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, which was later on retracted. In absence of any material brought on record against the submissions made by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta in his letter dated 20/12/2009 filed before the AO of the assessee the addition, if any, made in the case of the assessee will be based on presumption only and it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As against that assessee has submitted various evidences to show that the actual delivery of the goods was received by the assessee from the said party which has not been discarded by the AO. The addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is also on presumption basis. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that additions made by the AO deserves to be deleted in its entirety.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1107
Additions of unsecured loan, share capital and share application money - Held that:- It is not the case of the revenue that these persons are entry providers and there was any other material or doubt that these were bogus entries routed through fictitious or name lenders. Assessing officer did not conduct any investigation by sending Inspector to the addresses and nothing has been brought on record to show steps or attempt by the assessing officer to go deeper and find out/check veracity of the assertion. The share application money addition is not in isolation but has to be examined with other additions on similar grounds. Absence of verification, different additions made and reasoning given for deleting the additions are plausible.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1106
Registration u/s. 12AA - Held that:- Object for which the Agricultural Market Committee was formed is for the purpose of carrying on the objectives as enumerated in section 2(15) of the Act and the proviso to the section is not applicable to the assessees' cases. Assessees have to be granted with registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1105
Levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Held that:- As in view of the debatable issue raised, the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case where the claim of the assessee that the receipts were capital in nature was rejected and the receipts were held to be revenue in nature and hence taxable.
........
|
