|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 641 Records
-
2015 (3) TMI 1266
Disallowance of lease payment - Held that:- The ld. Counsel submitted that the lease agreement specifically provides that the computer would be returned back to M/s IBM. He further submitted that the assessee has also obtained a certificate to that effect from M/s IBM. Thus, in our view, the present dispute could be resolved only if a definite finding about the nature of lease is given. We have already noticed that both the authorities have failed to examine the lease agreement which, in our view, is essential. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the AO and restore this issue to the file of the AO/DRP with a direction to decide the same afresh by duly considering the lease agreement, certificate given by the M/s IBM and any other information/explanations that may be furnished by the assessee.
Disallowance of employees contribution to Provident Fund - Held that:- As the assessee has paid the amount before the end of the relevant financial year and hence the AO was not justified in disallowing the claim in view of the decisions rendered in the case of CIT V/s Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd [2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and CIT V/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd reported in (2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT).
Rejection of claim for deduction of expenditure relating to reimbursement of deputed staff cost - additional claim by filing revised return of income - Held that:- As in the case of CIT V/s Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd (2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) that appellate authority is entitled to consider the additional claim, if any and adjudicate the same. Accordingly, we are of the view that the claim for deduction put forth by the assessee should be admitted. Further, since the same needs to be examined, we think it fit and proper to restore this issue to the file of the AO with a direction to examine the claim put forth for deduction by the assessee and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1264
Revision u/s 263 - disallowance of deductions as per the provisions of Section 80IB - Held that:- The argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the assessee consumed a meagre electricity, but has given a huge production and therefore, that creates doubts about his claim about deductions as per Section 80IB of the Act of 1961. We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has examined the entire issue in detail by taking into consideration all the relevant facts. Such finding of fact does not require interference in the appellate jurisdiction.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1262
Addition u/s 41 - Held that:- Assessee was made purchases from M/s. Sai Shakthi Minerals, M/s. Dhanalakshmi Logistics in the year ended 31/03/2008. A small amount was paid in April 2008 and balance thereof as outstanding creditors since then. This amount was written off in the year ended 31/03/2011 and offered taxation. Learned AR has produced copies of ledger accounts of these two parties at page Nos. 11-14 of the paper book wherein in the year under consideration, the assessee has written off of this amount in his books of accounts. Similarly, in respect of Dhanalakshmi Logistics, the assessee has written off of this amount and tax on that amount has been paid. We find that assessee has written off of this amount in his books of accounts and paid due taxes, therefore, we are of the view that no addition can be made.
In respect of Transport Creditors M/s. Vinayak Enterprises, M/s. Aniketh Enterprises, M/s. Hanuman Traders, M/s. Veerabhadreshwara Enterprises, we find from the paper book wherein the assessee has submitted the copies of the bank account wherein payment has been made to transport creditors through bank. The balance of small amount has been written off. The payment has been made through bank, confirmation letters and income tax returns in this regard have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A). In respect of confirmation letter when the assessee paid this amount through banking channel, we are of the view that this party do exists at a relevant time. The Department has also accepted the written off for the same party. Therefore, in our opinion, no addition can be made u/s. 41(1) of the Act.
In respect of Aniketh Enterprises, Hanuman Traders & Veerabhadreshwara Enterprises - The assessee has made the payment through RTGS, necessary information was given to the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A), therefore in our opinion, no addition can be made. The assessee has also filed the acknowledgement of the copy of the return filed by those parties. If the transport contractor had left the residence and they were not traceable, it is proved from the record that they are transport contractors, therefore in our opinion, no addition is required, hence, we delete the same. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1260
Disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) sec 14A - Held that:- As found from the record that assessee itself has made a suo motu disallowance of ₹ 1 lakh under Rule 8D(2)(iii), however, the AO has computed disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) at ₹ 2,14,85,474/-. The assessee company is basically engaged in the construction activity having total receipts of ₹ 3229.76 crores out of which dividend income is only ₹ 9.68 crores, which works out to be 0.309% of the total receipts. We found that out of total dividend income of ₹ 9.86 crores, the assessee received dividend income of ₹ 8 crores from the group concern only which do not require any extra efforts on account of administrative expenses etc. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the disallowance of ₹ 10 lakhs under rule 8D(2)(iii) which was claimed by the assessee at ₹ 1 lakh.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1259
Default under Section 249(4)(a) - as at the time of filing of appeal before the CIT(A), assessee had not paid the tax due on the income returned by him - Held that:- The judgement of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K. Satish Kumar Singh [2012 (4) TMI 213 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] clearly covers the controversy wherein held that after the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on account of a default under Section 249(4)(a) of the Act, if the assessee pays the admitted tax, the CIT(A) ought to recall the earlier order dismissing the appeal in-limine and to consider the appeal on merits.
Considering the above we deem it fit and proper to set-aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) with directions to consider the plea of the assessee of having paid the tax due on the returned income and upon his being satisfied that the requirement of Section 249(4)(a) of the Act has been complied with, he shall admit and dispose-off the appeal on merits. Needless to say that the CIT(A) shall allow a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard and thereafter he shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1257
Validity of reopening of assessment - requisite sanction from competent authority u/s 151 was not obtained - Held that:- We find that it is an undisputed fact that reopening was done after 4 years and the reasons recorded as placed at paper book page 2 just carried the signature of Addl. CIT and which even does not mention the word 'approval'. ITAT n Shri Hirachand Kanuga Versus The DCIT, Circle-1, Khadakpada, Kalyan (W) [2015 (5) TMI 757 - ITAT MUMBAI] has dealt with a similar matter and after relying upon a number of decisions, has arrived that such type of satisfaction u/s 151 is bad in law.
We find that in this case law pronounced by ITAT Mumbai Bench, the Addl. CIT had placed his signature and had mentioned the word 'approved' before affixing his signature, which in the present case, is missing, therefore, present case is worse than the case decided by ITAT Mumbai Bench, wherein even word 'approved' has not been mentioned. In view of above ground No.1 (e) of appeal filed by assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1250
Mobilization fee paid to non-resident - computing income under section 44BB - Held that:- The Ground decided against the assessee in view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand High Court in the case of Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT [2007 (9) TMI 196 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that mobilization fee , if paid to non-resident assessee by the ONGC which had no nexus with the actual amount incurred by the assessee company for transportation of drilling unit of rigs to the specified drilling location in India and which was not reimbursement of expenditure had to be taken into account for the purpose of computing income under section 44BB.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1249
Revision u/s 263 - AO had not applied or considered section 80P(2)(d), in accordance with the wordings of the said section - whether the interest on deposits earned by a Co-operative Society, where such deposits were with a Cooperative Bank, are allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act? - Held that:- As in the case of Bagalkot District Central Co-operative Bank (2015 (1) TMI 1005 - ITAT BANGALORE) held that a Cooperative bank which is also a Co-operative Society cannot be excluded from the purview of benefits available to a Cooperative Society , unless the provisions of the Act so stipulate. No doubt in the said decision, the Tribunal was considering the application of Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act, wherein it was mandated that a Cooperative Society was not required to deduct tax at source if the interest credit were paid to any Co-operative Society. It had unequivocally held that the said provision applied to all Cooperative Societies including a Cooperative Society engaged in the business of the bank or in other words, a Co-operative Bank.
Therefore, the view taken by the AO that income by way of interest or dividends earned by the assessee society from the Cooperative bank namely Kanara Dist. Central Co-operative bank which was also a Co-operative Society was eligible for deduction cannot be faulted. We cannot say that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this view of the matter, we cancel the impugned order of the learned CIT, and consequently the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1243
Disallowance of interest expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) has followed the findings given in the case of Eminent Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 466 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein followed the decision of the Tribunal given in common group case of Hitesh S. Mehta [2013 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI] and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Respectfully following the findings of the Co ordinate Bench, we restore this issue to the files of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C - Held that:- Restore the matter to the file of the AO to recompute the interest liability as per the provisions of the law. We direct accordingly.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1242
Deduction of depreciation u/s. 32 available to a charitable Trust - Held that:- CIT(A) followed the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2003-04 [2011 (2) TMI 1505 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation and does not amount to double deduction - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1239
Application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) to compute the disallowance out of expenses - Held that:- After arguing this appeal for some time and on certain queries from this Court, Mr.Suresh Kumar seeks time. He desires to obtain instructions with regard to the computation of income and how the exercise was carried out for complying with rule 8(D)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. Thus, whether with rule 8(D)(ii) and in terms referred by the Commissioner has been invoked and applied or that figures which are required to be taken as per this sub-rule are not taken by the assessing officer. Mr.Suresh Kumar wants to verify the same by referring to the original record in possession of the assessing officer. At the request of Mr.Suresh Kumar, stand over to 7th April, 2015.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1236
Unexplained cash credit - addition on cash deposits - Held that:- There is nothing on record to show that the amount of ₹ 13 lakhs withdrawn by the assessee on 17.12.2008 was used for some other purpose. In our opinion, the said withdrawal having been made by the assessee just before a week i.e. on 17.12.2008, the same can reasonably be treated as available with the assessee for cash deposit of ₹ 21 lakhs made on 24.12.2008 especially when there is nothing to show that the amount of ₹ 13 lakhs withdrawn on 17.12.2008 was utilized by the assessee for some other purpose. We, therefore, treat the cash deposit of ₹ 21 lakhs made by the assessee in the bank account on 24.12.2008 as explained to the extent of ₹ 13 lakhs and sustain the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue to the extent of ₹ 8 lakhs. - Decided partly in favour of assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1234
Revision u/s 263 - interpretation of the term 'record' appearing in section 263 - Held that:- Section 154 of the Act as is well-known is in the nature of power of rectification of mistake. Sub-section (1) thereof clothes the Income-tax authority with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record the power to amend any order passed under the Act, amend any intimation or deemed intimation under section 143(1) or amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A. The term 'record', therefore has to be seen in the context of the nature of the statutory provision and the power it aims to cloth the Assessing Officer. As noted, the power is for rectification of any mistake apparent from the record.
Such powers are not in the nature of review or revision and can be exercised only for correction of a mistake which is apparent from the record. In this context, therefore, the term 'record' has to be understood as record of the case before the Assessing Officer. Obviously, reference to the mistake apparent from the record cannot have relation to some other record extraneous to the assessment proceedings. This provision, therefore, has an entirely different context where the term 'record' has been used and it does not include any explanation as was inserted in section 263(1) with a historical background noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products Camphor Works (1997 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court ). Significantly, the explanation was added for all purposes to have been included from the beginning. The decisions relied upon in the context of the term 'record' used in section 154 of the Act, therefore, would render no further help on the controversy on the hand. - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1233
Denial of approval under section 80G - non charitable activity - ITAT come to the conclusion that the said objects were all of charitable nature and were not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) - Held that:- From a plain reading of the order of the Director, it is clear that the same has been passed without even specifying as to which of the objects, and how the same, were not charitable in nature. It has also not been mentioned or clarified in the order as to why on the same objects the trust had been granted exemption under section 80G earlier, and it was being denied at this stage.
Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was inserted with effect from April 1, 2009 and not from April 1, 2008 as has been mentioned by the Director in his order. The order of the Director was totally devoid of reasons and thus, the same was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Tribunal has, in our view, rightly come to the conclusion that denial of approval under section 80G was not justified.
We are not satisfied with the objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as, in our opinion, construction of "prayer hall" or encouraging meditation yoga etc. would not be religious activities. We are, thus, not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, especially when such is not the ground which has been taken by the Director while denying approval to the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1229
Validity of notice - change of jurisdiction - Held that:- Here, there is complete departure from the settled procedure. It comes out from the record that when the petitioner refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the said Assessing Officer at Lucknow, the authority/respondent No.2 proceeded ex parte and dispatched a demand of almost ₹ 52 lakhs. At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention that in the notice dated September 11, 2013, which is computer generated clearly reveals that the Delhi address of the petitioner was scored out and in handwriting, the local address has been added. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Delhi address was not in the knowledge of the respondents and we find force in the submissions of the petitioner that local address was inserted deliberately to create jurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with the opposite party No. 2. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 exceeded its jurisdiction, which not only vitiates the impugned show-cause notice but the entire proceedings. In these circumstances, the entire proceedings being ab initio illegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1227
Allowing exemption under Section 10B - revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Assessing Officer, under some misconception of fact or law, as the case may be, did not address himself to the applicability of Section 10B and proceeded on assumption that assessee has rightly claimed exemption under Section 10B(1) of Act, 1961. This wrong assumption on the part of Assessing Officer whether of fact or law, apparently was erroneous and also caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue, for the reason that tax lawfully payable to department on previous income, earned by assessee in the assessment year 2011-12 would stand lost, if assessment order is not revised. We therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the twin conditions for attracting Section 263(1) of Act, 1961, exist in the case in hand and therefore, to that extent Commissioner was justified in exercising power under Section 263(1) of Act, 1961 by issuing notice in question.
We find that claim of assessee seeking exemption under Section 10B of Act, 1961 for assessment year 2011-12, was not doubted by Assessing Officer. Applicability of Section 10B of Act, 1961 for assessment year 2011-12, as claimed by assessee, was accepted by him. Thus, this aspect was not in appeal at any stage. It is only on the question of "quantum of profit" for which exemption was claimed that the appeal was filed. The Assessing Officer discussed the matter and found that instead of ₹ 4,97,28,163.45 which was claimed by assessee, it was entitled to exemption to the extent of ₹ 4,61,90,179.58 under Section 10B and there is taxable income of ₹ 3537980/-. On taxability of aforesaid amount, assessee preferred appeal and only that aspect was considered by CIT(A) as also Tribunal. At no stage, the issue whether assessee was entitled to claim exemption under Section 10B at all or not, having already exhausted beyond the period of exemption permissible under Section 10B, was not a subject matter of consideration before appellate authorities. Hence, this question was open to be looked into by Commissioner.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1226
Claim of deductions under Section 10A - whether the deduction should be allowed to the Assessee under Section 10A, on the ground that it is indeed entitled to the benefit under the particular provision? - Held that:- The assessee is involved in providing back office support and thereby entitled to the benefit under the definition of the term "computer software". Its activities are in the nature of data processing, customization of data, acting as the back office of the parent company and acting as support center to the parent company. Clearly it could not have been deprived of the benefit of Section 10A, as is argued by the revenue. This contention is accordingly rejected as unmerited. - Decided in favour of assessee
Transfer pricing adjustment - selection of comparable - Held that:- If the comparable is functionally same as that of tested party then same cannot be rejected merely on the ground that data for entire financial year is not available. If from the available data on record, the results for financial year can reasonably be extrapolated then the comparable cannot be excluded solely on the ground that the comparables have different financial year endings.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1220
Deduction under Section 10A computation - exclusion of telecommunication expenses, insurance charges, personnel expenses, professional expenses, branch office expenses and other expenses incurred in foreign exchange from export turnover for the purpose of computing from export turnover for the purpose of computing deduction - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05 we hold that expenses incurred in foreign currency should not be reduced from export turnover for the purposes of computation of deduction under Section 10A of the Act.
In respect of telecommunication charges in respect of Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the Assessing Officer shall verify whether the expenditure incurred on telecommunication charges and insurance charges were recovered and included in the export turnover so that this expenditure are liable to be excluded from export turnover. On the other hand, if the expenditure incurred on telecommunication charges and insurance charges were not recovered and not included in the export turnover, the Assessing Officer shall not reduce the same from the export turnover. Further, from the submissions made before the Assessing Officer it is submitted that insurance charges were paid to protect the assessee against the risk of bankruptcy of the overseas customers and it was not incurred for the purpose of export of computer software. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify this aspect and reduce the insurance charges only if the said expenditure is incurred for the purpose of export of computer software.
-
2015 (3) TMI 1219
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance of depreciation in respect of assets given under ‘sale and lease back basis’ - Held that:- As decided in case of ICDS Ltd [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT] assessee is entitled to claim depreciation in respect of additions made to the assets which were leased out. Thus as addition itself has been deleted by the Tribunal, we do not find any justification in levy of concealment penalty - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (3) TMI 1211
Computation of income from project - “Om Megasparsh” - assessee is maintaining its accounts on project completion method and it is recognizing income on the basis of handing over of possession of flats to the customers - method of accounting to account for sales on the basis of handing over of possession to the customers - Held that:- The verification exercise carried out by the Assessing Officer revealed that even with respect to the flats in Wings A & C assessee had handed-over possession to the customers whereas in the return of income filed, such transactions were not recognized as sales during the year itself. The assessee firm has sought to repudiate the aforesaid conclusion of the Assessing Officer b5y attempting to demonstrate that the possession given to the customers was only a temporary possession whereas the final possession was to be given only after obtaining the completion certificate from the ‘local authority’, which happened in the month of April, 2005, which corresponds to the next assessment year. In our considered opinion, the case being set-up by the assessee is quite superfluous and is devoid of merit. We find that at no stage it was the case of the assessee that it is recognizing sale of flats on the basis of final handing over of possession. In-fact, there is no material on record to suggest that assessee has differentiated between a temporary possession and final possession so as to recognize income on sale of flats. Therefore, the verification exercise carried out by the Assessing Officer which revealed that even with respect to the flats in Wings A & C assessee had handed-over possession of certain flats would justify assessment of such income during the year itself, having regard to the methodology adopted by the assessee consistently over a period of time.
Thus, we upheld the action of the Revenue in-principle.
Considering the alternate plea to the effect that the Assessing Officer had carried out verification exercise only with respect to 20 customers as detailed in Annexure – A to the assessment order we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-quantify the addition liable to be made on the basis of the evidence available with the Assessing Officer which demonstrates that the possession was handed-over by the assessee to the respective buyers in Wings A & C in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer shall compute the profit relatable to the 20 flats as enumerated in Annexure – A to the assessment order and delete the balance of the addition.
........
|
