|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 825 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1737 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of excessive depreciation in respect of assets purchased from Deltron Ltd. - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 and 2009-10 [2016 (1) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI] Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company and therefore, appellant is entitled to claim of depreciation on the actual cost as incurred by the appellant on transfer of the electronic business on going concern basis from M/s. Deltron Ltd. to the appellant company
-
2015 (12) TMI 1735 - ITAT DELHI
Addition made u/s 153A/143(3) - Held that:- There is no incriminating evidence found during the course of search. Hence, as per the binding decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] addition to income cannot be made in respect of items which are originally disclosed in the original assessment proceedings. Therefore we do not find any merits in this ground of appeal of the Revenue, so it is dismissed.
Unexplained income of the assessee - receipt of gifts - Held that:- Both the amounts added to the income of the assessee cannot be held to be unexplained income of the assessee, since it was a gift from the father who was the Donor and an NRI from his bank account at Singapore. So the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition for both the years and so we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) and dismiss these ground of the revenue in both the assessment years.
Unexplained jewellery found with the assessee - Held that:- The value of jewellery declared is far in excess of the value of jewellery found during the course of search, which finding also could not be controverted before us by the department. The ld CIT(A) has considered individually i.e. assessee wise, the value of jewellery declared taking the rate of gold at ₹ 900/- per gram is in excess of jewellery found during the course of search. The CIT(A) rightly observes that it is not unusual for families to spend money on modification of their jewellery and very often, the bills evidencing the modification are not retained for a long period of time. However, since there was sufficient cash available with the assessee and her family, there is no reason to disbelieve her contention that the jewellery was remodeled, altered from time to time and hence the difference in description. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order and in the remand report has nowhere refuted the claim of the assessee that both in terms of value and quantity, the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return far exceed the jewellery found during the course of search. There is also no evidence that has been brought on record to prove that the jewellery seized was purchased out of undisclosed income. The reconciliation of jewellery is quite detailed and in the absence of any discrepancies found during the assessment proceedings and remand proceedings, it cannot be faulted with - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1732 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that:- Since the tax effect in this appeal is ₹ 15,32,504/- and since the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakhs is fixed for filing appeals before the High Court by the Department as per Circular which has been issued with retrospective effect and as Mr. Dudhoria submits that he has no written instruction from the Department for withdrawing this appeal, as the said Circular, in view of Section 119(1) is binding on the departmental authority, the appeal is treated to be dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted on the following reframed substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the assessee qualifies for deduction of profits u/s. 80IB(10) on prorata basis even though it has not fulfilled the provision of clause 'c' of section 80IB(10)?”
-
2015 (12) TMI 1726 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - tax effect - Held that:- In the present case, tax effect on account of the relief granted by the CIT(A) which led to the filing of the present appeal by the Revenue, is admittedly, less than ₹ 10 lakhs.
In the light of the circular dated 10.12.2015, issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred in it by subsection (1) of S.268A, we are of the view that the appeal filed herein should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Revenue effect in this appeal is less than the limit prescribed in para-3 of the above circular issued by the CBDT. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed
-
2015 (12) TMI 1714 - ITAT PUNE
TDS u/s 194C OR 194I - TDS liability on crane hire charges - Held that:- The issue arising in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order of Tribunal in Bharat Forge Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT [2013 (11) TMI 1263 - ITAT PUNE]. The amended provisions of section 194I came into effect from 13.07.2006, under which the definition of rent was amended to include the rent on plant as defined in section 43(3) of the Act. The year under appeal is financial year 2006-07 i.e. up to 31.03.2006, hence, the amended provisions of section 194I are not attracted. The assessee was duty bound to deduct tax at source under the provisions of section 194C of the Act @ 2% out of crane hire charges. The assessee had deducted the said tax at source @ 2%, hence, there is no default attributable to the assessee in this regard. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (12) TMI 1711 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus long term capital gains - unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that:- The action u/s 68 of the Act has been taken merely on the basis of the statement of the third party. We find that the assessee's have duly proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the broker from whom the sale proceeds of shares were received by the assesses and hence the resultant long term capital gains thereon cannot be doubted with. Hence there is no scope for making any addition u/s 68 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - addition on the basis of the statement of the third party - Held that:- Rule 8D of the Rules came into effect from 24.3.2008. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing case (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) had held that provisions of Rule 8D could be made applicable only from Asst Year 2008-09. The assessment year under appeal for all the assesses before us is Asst Year 2005-06 and hence the Learned AO erred in invoking Rule 8D of the Rules for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In the absence of these factual findings, AO cannot straight away resort to make disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and hence the addition made on this account for all the assesses are deleted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by all the assesses in this regard are allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1708 - SC ORDER
Addition u/s 68 on bogus share capital - any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A? - HC order [2015 (9) TMI 115 - DELHI HIGH COURT] saying there is a factual finding that “no incriminating evidence related to share capital issued was found during the course of search as is manifest from the order of the AO.” No justification in invoking Section 68 for the purposes of making additions on account of share capital - Held that:- The special leave petition is dismissed. Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1706 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - The following questions are framed for determination:
(i) Did the notice dated 18th March 2013 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata to the Assessee at the address shown therein satisfy the requirements of Section 263 (1) of the Act as regards providing the Assessee an opportunity of being heard?
(ii) If the answer to Question (i) is in the affirmative, whether on merits the order dated 30th March 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata under Section 263 of the Act is sustainable in law?
-
2015 (12) TMI 1704 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Entitlement to deduction u/s 80-IB - scope of manufacture - denial of claim as conversion of 24 Kt Gold into 22 Kt Gold does not amount to manufacture - Held that:- The activity for converting gold bricks, biscuits or bars, into jewellery amounts to “production or manufacture of a new article. The gold, silver or platinum in bar, biscuits or brick form, is converted by manual labour and by the use of implements/tools or by machinery, culminating into an entirely new article/thing called jewellery or ornaments. Jewellery is a wearable item and is used by both men and women. Jewellery/ornaments in common parlance or in commercial terms has a distinct identity, treated as a new article and not the same as raw or standard gold in the form of bricks, biscuits or bars. As a result of the said processing a commercially different saleable product comes into existence. Jewellery has a distinctive name, character and use. It can no longer be regarded as the original commodity, has separate consumers and is a new commercial commodity. The activity of the respondent assessee amounts to ‘manufacture or production - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1702 - ITAT DELHI
Validity of the reassessment - Held that:- We found the issue regarding the validity of the reassessment is duly covered in Shree Radheshyam & Company (2015 (11) TMI 1537 - ITAT DELHI) in which this Tribunal respectively, has quashed the reassessment proceedings. We also note that in these cases the ld. Assessing Officer had recorded similar reasons, and the party from which the assessee therein had made purchases were also same, as in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the decisions above, we quashed the reassessment proceedings.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1693 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition u/s 40A(3) - cash payment to his permanent employees for more than ₹20,000/- in a day - Held that:- It is a relevant consideration for the assessing authority under the Income Tax Act that before invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) in the light of Rule 6DD as clarified by the Circular of the CBDT that whether the failure on the part of the assessee in adhering to requirement of provisions of section 40A(3) has any such nexus which defeats the object of provision so as to invite such a consequence.
We hold that the purpose of section 40A(3) is only preventive and to check evasion of tax and flow of unaccounted money or to check transactions which are not genuine and may be put as camouflage to evade tax by showing fictitious or false transactions. Admittedly, this is not the case in the facts of the assessee herein. The assessee had issued bearer cheques in the name of respective labours which is evident from the additional details submitted by the assessee and placed on page 2 to 6 of the additional details. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Smt.Harshila Chordia vs ITO reported in (2006 (11) TMI 117 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) had held that the exceptions contained in Rule 6DD of Income Tax Rules are not exhaustive and that the said rule must be interpreted liberally.
Thus no hesitation in deleting the addition u/s 40A(3) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1692 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Maintainability of appeal - fee payable as per the statutory provisions of section 253(6) not paid - Held that:- If the memorandum of appeal is deficient in its enclosures, as prescribed, then only the Tribunal can exercise its discretion to accept the memorandum of appeal. In the present appeals, the enclosures are not defective but the fee payable as per the statutory provisions of section 253(6) was not paid. Since the Memo of Appeal is not accompanied by the fee, as prescribed, we are of the opinion that there is no discretion to the ITAT to accept Memorandum of Appeal filed, in violation of the statutory provisions.
ITAT being a quasi-judicial body under the I.T. Act, it has to follow the statutory provisions as prescribed. Under analogous circumstances, while dealing with an appeal filed by an assessee against the order passed under section 271FA, the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Sub-Registrar Office, Meppayur vs. DIT (Intelligence) (2014 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN) observed that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the provisions of the Act and cannot admit an appeal even if the opponent party gives consent permitting the appellant to file an appeal. In otherwords, the consent of a litigant party would not confer jurisdiction on a quasi judicial authority unless and until it is otherwise conferred under the statute. Memorandum of appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby rejected as not maintainable.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing - assessee contended that though the appeal was adjourned for 05.05.2015 but erroneously, he noted the date of hearing as 06.05.2015 - Held that:- Considering the explanation of the assessee, we are satisfied that assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing. Further, the appeal of assessee has not been decided on merits, therefore, one more chance could be given to the assessee to argue the appeal on merits.
The order dated 05.05.2015 is recalled and appeal of the assessee be fixed for final hearing on 18.02.2016 for which date, no separate notice will be issued to the assessee. Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1690 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Non-appearance on the last date of hearing - Held that:- Reason given by the learned counsel for the applicant in the Miscellaneous Application for nonappearance on the last date of hearing is that inadvertently the applicant wrongly noted the date of hearing in this case as 15.7.2015 instead of 15.6.2015. By the time, it came to the notice of the applicant that the date was wrongly noted, the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, an affidavit of the managing trustee of the applicant trust was placed on record.
Considering the explanation of the applicant, we are of the view that the applicant has been able to explain the sufficient cause for non appearance. Therefore, one more opportunity could be given to the applicant to argue the appeal on merits.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1689 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194J - no tax had been deducted on processing charges paid to SBI for managing the consortium account of the FCI - Held that:- The processing charges were collected from the FCI by the SBI for processing of the loan involved. It never went to the assessee’s account. The assessee got net of the processing charges i.e., interest exclusively, there being no outflow of expenses. There was no occasion for the assessee to deduct TDS. It was on account of the accounting treatment that the AO was of the view that the TDS was required to be made on the processing charges. In such facts, the provisions of section 194J of the Act are definitely not attracted. The payment has been made as processing charges to the SBI for managing consortium account of FCI. It remains undisputed that the loan involved was processed by the SBI and not by the assessee bank. Therefore, the provisions of section 194J did not get attracted. No tax was required to be deducted on the processing charges paid to the SBI - Decided in favour of assessee.
TDS u/s 194J - non deduction of tds on clearing house charges/MICR charges paid - human intervention - Held that:- As per this system, the machine recognizes the numeric data printed with magnetic charged ink. This is done with the help of ultraviolet rays which scan the genuineness of cheques. The department has not been able to dispute that MICR clearance of cheques can be possible by a mechanized system only and not through human intervention, keeping in view the processing of bulk cheques. The assessee Bank did not make TDS, since the amount had been paid as share of expenditure incurred by the concerned Bank and apportion to the assessee Bank as its share of that expenditure. No tax was required to be deducted on the amount incurred towards MICR, as mere collection of a fee for use of a standard facility provided to all those who are willing to use it does not amount to fee received for technical services, as wrongly held by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Bari Brahmana Branch of the assessee as eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) - Held that:- The provisions of section 36(1)(viia) prescribe that in respect of any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by a Scheduled Bank, an amount not exceeding certain percentage, as specified by the Finance Acts for different assessment years, of aggregate average advances made by the Rural Branches of such Bank computed in the prescribed manner, deduction is to be allowed. In view of the above specific provisions of the Act, the definition of the “Rural Branch” as a place with population upto 10000, the department is not justified in placing reliance on the Digest of Statistics for 2002-03 published by the Govt. of J & K. It is trite that when the Act specifically deals with a particular situation, it is the concerned provisions of the Act, which have to be gone by and no outside material can be resorted to. In the present case, the Bari Brahamana Branch of the Bank is located at village Kartholi, where the population as per the last census was of 314. - Decided in favour of assessee.
100% depreciation on wooden partitions - Held that:-It is seen that depreciation was claimed on the wooden partitions, claiming that the expenditure was incurred on wooden partitions, as purely temporary erections, eligible for 100% depreciation as provided under the I.T.Act, 1961. A similar addition was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2002-03, which deletion was not challenged by the department. The wooden partitions, as remains undisputed, were erected in leasehold (tenanted) premises. The partitions had not provided any enduring advantage to the assessee. They were redesigned time and again, as per the assessee’s business requirement. It is also not the case of the department that these partitions became the property of the assessee at the end of the lease. Moreover, it has not been shown that they created any tangible assets, for which, a value could be attributable.- Decided in favour of assessee.
TDS on interest paid to Jammu Development Authority - Held that:- It has not been disputed that Jammu Development Authority stands incorporated by the J & K Development Act, 1970. C.B.D.T. Notification no.3489, dated 27.10.1970, issued in pursuance of the provisions of section 194A(3)(f) of the Act, provides that no tax was required to be deducted on interest on deposit paid to a Corporation incorporated under a State Act. The position is not any different so far as regards J.D.A. incorporated under the said State Act, too. Therefore, the provisions of section 194A of the Act are not applicable, due to which, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are also not attracted.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1687 - ITAT CHENNAI
Unexplained share capital - survey u/s.133A - Held that:- Mere production of confirmation letter from Smt. Vimalamma is not sufficient in this case. She has given different statements at different stages. We do not know whether she is truthful and honest to disclose the correct fact. Being so, her statements are not reliable when surrounding and attending facts brought on record by the A.O indicate and reflect paper work and documentation. But genuineness, creditworthiness and identity are deeper, it shall require to be established by documents. Being so, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken just cursory look at the entire things and deleted the addition which is improper. Hence, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for conducting detailed inquiry and decide the issue afresh. The assessee has to file bank account details of Smt. Vimilamma to prove the transaction. This appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1686 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus purchase - Held that:- Non receipt of goods from the supplier and that the invoices were only pro-forma invoices, the AO ought to have examined the suppliers to find out the truth or otherwise of the claim made by the Assessee. The mere presence of authorization letter to truck drivers would not in our view prove the case of the revenue. Each of the 4 invoices are accompanied by delivery challan and in three of the delivery challans i.e., except the delivery challan M/S.Narayani Traders dated 24.7.2007 for ₹ 1,02,000/- none of the delivery challan evidence acknowledgement of having taken delivery of goods. Since delivery of goods under delivery challan dated 24.7.2007 for ₹ 1,02,000 is acknowledged and since the AO has presumed that these goods were sold by the Assessee, we are of the view that 5% G.P. on the value of the purchases alone should be added, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the Assessee before us. In respect of the other three purchases the addition is directed to be deleted as there is no evidence of the purchases having actually been completed by the Assessee.
Undisclosed business income - addition by the AO by artificially calculating the figures of stock - Held that:- The survey was conducted on 10.3.2008. There was no excess quantity of stock found physically in the business premises of the Assessee. The stock statement given to the bank is dated 29.2.2008. This stock statement was obviously incorrect as it was not in tune with the physical stock with the Assessee. In such circumstances the plea of the Assessee that the statement of stock given to the bank showed inflated figures and was only for the purpose of availing credit facility from the bank stands established. Therefore the impugned addition ought to have been deleted by the CIT(A).
-
2015 (12) TMI 1684 - ITAT JAIPUR
Rejection of books of accounts - Held that:- As the facts emerges that the assessee is a 100% exporter of the readymade garments and books of account are duly audited and supported by records. There is no adverse comments about the transactions, expenditure and stock maintenance, comparative stock inventory prepared by the assessee is based on the record and lower authorities have not pointed out any specific defects in the valuation of the closing stock and items. In our considered view, the books of account of the assessee cannot be rejected in such casual manner and summary manner. We find merit in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that maintenance of day today production stock in the readymade garments trade is impossible to be maintained by the assessee. Adverse inference drawn about the expenses under the head stitching, embroidery, dying and printing being high have neither been justified ld AO nor any disproportionateness in comparative figure has been demonstrated. Thus in our view, the books of account of the assessee are not liable to be rejected. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Loss in Tushar guest house - Held that:- We are of the view that when the Department has accepted the loss in assessment year 2007-08 then there is no justification in refusing the accepted loss in assessment year 2008- 09. Consequently, this ground of the assessee is allowed in assessment year 2008-09.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1682 - ITAT KOLKATA
Entitlment to carry forward the unabsorbed depreciation - whether such adjustment of non-granting of set off of such losses could be made in an order u/s 154? - Held that:- We find that the section 32(2) of the Act pursuant to the amendment in Finance Act 1996 curtailed the benefit of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation loss to a period of 8 years and brought the said provision at par with the unabsorbed business losses. This provision was in force till Asst Year 2001-02. Again the Finance Act 2001 with effect from Asst Year 2002-03 amended Section 32(2) of the Act and restored back to the original version of the section as it stood prior to amendment by Finance Act 1996, allowing the benefit of carry forward of losses to an infinite period and treating the same different from that of unabsorbed business losses
The purposive and harmonious interpretation has to be taken keeping in view the intention of the amendment of section 32(2) of the Act by Finance Act 2001. We hold that while construing taxing statutes, rule of strict interpretation has to be applied, giving fair and reasonable construction to the language of the section without leaning to the side of the assessee or the revenue. But if the legislature fails to express clearly and the assessee becomes entitled for a benefit within the ambit of the section by the clear words used in the section, the benefit accruing to the assessee cannot be denied
We find that this particular issue has been the subject matter of huge debate and dispute and also gave rise to the creation of special bench by the tribunal to adjudicate this issue which goes to prove that the issue is highly debatable and hence cannot be the subject matter of rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act. In our opinion, what could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act is a mistake which must be obvious and patent and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram, ITO vs Volkart Bros (1971 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court ).
Thus AO clearly erred in adjudicating this highly debatable issue under rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act which is not permissible and accordingly we quash the said order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
