|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 814 Records
-
2015 (9) TMI 1460 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction under section 80-IA - Held that:- Assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA without setting off the losses/unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the windmill. See Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - Madras High Court ]
-
2015 (9) TMI 1459 - ITAT DELHI
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Section 153A does not authorise the making of a denovo assessment in this particular assessment year. While under the first proviso, the AO is empowered to frame assessment for six years , under the second proviso only assessments which are pending on the date of initiation of search abate. The effect is that completed assessments do not abate. The assessments can be said to be pending only if the AO is statutorily required to do something further. If the section 143(2) notice has been issued, the assessment can be said to be pending. However the assessment in respect of a return processed u/s 143(1) is not pending because the AO is not required to do anything further about such a return. The power given by the first proviso to assess income for six assessment years has to be confined to the undisclosed income unearthed during search and cannot include items which are disclosed in the original assessment proceedings . See Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -III Versus Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. Thus the addition has been rightly deleted and there is no reason for interference with the order of Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1458 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Requisites of Section 153-C satisfaction - Held that:- No addition can be made in the assessment being framed u/s 153A, when there is no incriminating material or assets seized during the course of search. The finding of photocopies in the possession of a searched person does not necessarily mean and imply that they “belong” to the person who holds the originals - Possession of documents and possession of photocopies of documents are two separate things SEE Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Natural Products Bio Tech Ltd [2015 (8) TMI 1286 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (9) TMI 1452 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Expenditure towards brokerage, eviction charges and cost of improvements disallowed - Held that:- Learned counsel is unable to point out to relevant material constituting legal evidence over the claim of expenditure incurred by the petitioners and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusion arrived at by the authorities in the orders impugned calling for interference. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1448 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of expenses - no business activities carried out during the year under reference - assessee is engaged in the business of lotteries - Held that:- As find from the record that the assessee is engaged in the business of lotteries and the business has never been closed or discontinued, as stated by the assessee. The firm is still in existence and maintaining regular establishment and infrastructure. The lottery business is being carried out on in terms of agreement with Nagaland and Meghalaya Authorities.
However, the business was discontinued by these authorities on the technical reasons and dispute which is still pending in arbitration. Find that the assessee has a regular establishment and incurred various expenses as a part of running business clearly establish that business has neither being closed or discontinued by the assessee. It is an established legal position that merely on the ground that there is no business receipt during the year, there cannot be any presumption about closure of the business.
Neither the AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and evidence filed by the Assessee before needs to be considered by the AO. In the interest of justice, we remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO with the directions to consider the written submission filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and decide the case afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to cooperate with the AO and filed all the evidences / documents to the AO to substantiate its case. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1447 - SC ORDER
Exemption to be granted as provided u/s 13(1)(d) or total denial u/s 11 - Held that:- HC order confirmed [2014 (8) TMI 681 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the income other than dividend income has to be taxed only to the extent to which the violation was found by the AO - there is a vital difference between eligibility for exemption and withdrawal of exemption/forfeiture of exemption for contravention of the provisions of law – Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1445 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - return has not been filed by the assessee within the due date of filing of the return i.e. 31.7.2008 - Held that:- In the case of the assessee, search had taken place on 15.7.2008. The due date of filing of the return for assessment year under appeal i.e. 2008-09 had not expired on the date of the search as the due date of filing of the return of income under section 139(1) was 30.9.2008. Thus, in the present case, the deeming provisions of Explanation 5-A cannot be applied because at the time of search, the relevant previous year for the assessment year under appeal, the due date of filing of the return of income had not expired.
Further, the assessee explained that there was no variation in the return of income and assessed income as per the assessment order passed under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act because the returned income was accepted including the surrendered income. The learned counsel for the assessee also explained that due to the bonafide error, surrendered income was no included in the return filed under section 139(1) or 139(4) of the Act because as per the advice, the surrendered income was to be declared in the return to be filed under section 153A of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty under deeming provisions of Explanation 5 A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which in our view, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1443 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - non issue of notice - Held that:- The mandatory notice under section 143(2) has neither been issued nor served upon the assessee and, therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to frame assessment of the return filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 148. Thus, the impugned assessment order is held to be illegal and the same is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1437 - ITAT PANAJI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- As it is noticed that the calculation made by the AO shows that the AO has considered all the investments which is not permissible whereas the Assessee has not provided a proper computation of the disallowance u/s 14A and the ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the calculation provided under Rule 8D, the issue of disallowance u/s 14A is restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication in line with the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sesa Resources Ltd.[2015 (8) TMI 1287 - ITAT PANAJI]
Disallowance of payment of commission to foreign agents - TDS u/s 195 - disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) or 37 - Held that:- A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that the AO ha not considered the provisions of Sec. 195 or Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for the purpose of disallowing the commission paid to non-residents. The ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue of the commission payment to non-resident in respect of the provisions of Sec. 37, but has not decided the issue in respect of disallowance by invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of TDS. A perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) shows that for the A.Y 2006-07 the AO has held that there was no necessity for engaging commission agents and accordingly, the commission payment was not held to be allowable as business expenditure u/s 37 of the Act. It is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this disallowance following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case wherein the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal [2013 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT PANAJI ] has accepted that commission is allowable u/s 37 itself.
Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 195(1) towards payment of demurrage paid to non-resident buyers of iron ore - Held that:- The issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case [2013 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT PANAJI ] wherein held non-resident buyer got compensation towards demurrage incurred through operation which are confined to purchase of goods, i.e. in relation to ship which it had arrange for taking delivery of goods from assessee/seller from India - Income cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India in hands of foreign buyer and therefore it cannot be taxable in India and not liable to tax deduction at source - No disallowance can be made u/s 40(a)(ia) – Decided in favor of Assessee.
Disallowance of additional depreciation in respect of the iron ore extraction - Held that:- The issue was now squarely covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the Assessee’s own case [2013 (9) TMI 233 - ITAT PANAJI ] wherein held Assessee must be engaged in business of manufacture or production of any article or thing and new plant and machinery must be acquired and installed - Assessee has extracted iron ore and also processed it - Case of assessee duly covered by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in assessee's own case reported in [2004 (11) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court] – Allowed additional depreciation – Decided in favor of Assessee.
Deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- As it has been admitted that the appeal for the A.Y 2009-10 is under adjudication before the ld. CIT(A) and that fresh evidences have been found in the course of the survey conducted after the order of the Tribunal which has been followed by the ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that this issue in relation to the claim of deduction u/s 10B is liable to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the Assessee adequate opportunity of being heard, and we do so
Disallowance of interest as non-business expenditure - Held that:- As noticed that the issue of deduction u/s 14A has been restored to the file of the AO for re-computation and it is in this computation that the ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the amount of ₹ 6 crores towards non-business expenditure. Consequently, we are of the view that the issue of disallowance of interest as non-business expenditure is liable to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the Assessee necessary enhancement notice and granting the Assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case
-
2015 (9) TMI 1436 - ITAT KOLKATA
Rectification of mistake - not giving credit for TDS - Held that:- The income attributable to the TDS under dispute before us has been duly offered to tax by the assessee and hence in the interest of justice , the assessee should be given due credit for TDS thereon more so when the certificate for the same has been filed by the assesee before the Learned AO on 30.5.2008.
Thus we direct the Learned AO to grant credit for TDS amounting to ₹ 1,01,090/- to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1435 - ITAT KOLKATA
Valuation of the DVO in toto accepted ignoring the relevant provisions of Section 50C of the Act - Held that:- The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the district sub registrar for the purpose of the stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give fair treatment to the citizen/Tax payer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the Ld. Advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the assessing officer, discharging a quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law. The assessee has not disputed the valuation of the stamp authority. It is very unfortunate that the AO has worked out the capital gain tax liability including the DVO report which is binding to the assessee.
From the above fact and legal provision laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal [2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] , we are of the view that the value of the property estimated by DVO as on the date of sale is to be taken as final sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gain under section 50C of the Act. Accordingly the AO is directed to take the DVO value for the working of capital gain and adjudicate the matter afresh as per the provisions of section 50C. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1434 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Registration u/s 12AA rejected - Held that:- Application of the assessee for registration under section 12A of the Act has been rightly rejected by learned CIT. If the objects and real situation is analysed, the objects are not of charitable nature. Almost in every activity there is a scent of commercialization/profit motive but in the charitable institution no profit motive is involved and the service is done mainly with the intent of social/religious upliftment of the masses in general.
We agree with the conclusion of the CIT, as contended by learned CIT-Departmental Representative, that a charitable institution provides services for charitable purposes free of cost and for no gain and are for the benefit of public at large. As we have discussed in the preceding para, the assessee acquires land at nominal rates and after developing the same, the same land (is sold) on high profit which cannot be said to be a charitable activity. Even just for argument sake, under the present facts, if registration is granted, then every private colonizer will claim charity. See PUDA Versus CIT [2006 (6) TMI 141 - ITAT CHANDIGARH-B ] - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1433 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of transfer pricing adjustment order in respect of the expenditure incurred by the Assessee on advertisement, marketing and publicity expenses - Held that:- Since the issue in the present appeal concerning AY 2009-2010 is similar to the one arising in AY 2008-09, the Court finds no reason why the matter as far as AY 2009-2010 should also not be remanded to the TPO/AO for a fresh determination in accordance with the decision in Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India P. Ltd. (2015 (3) TMI 580 - DELHI HIGH COURT ).
-
2015 (9) TMI 1432 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s.14A - Held that:- AO had rejected enhanced the disallowance made by the assessee as per the provisions of section 14A r.w.Rule 8D of the Rules,that the assessee had FAA had not dealt with the arguments taken by the assessee during appellate proceeding namely holding of shares as stock in trade and interest expenditure incurred for personal or business purposes,that while calculating the total assets appearing in the balance sheet the AO taken assets after deducting the current liabilities and provisions.In our opinion,such assets should be total of fixed assets,investments and current assets,loans and advances.We are also of the view that the interest expenditure incurred under the heads interest on share margin,interest on IPO funding,and interest on car loans should not be considered for disallowance to be made u/s.14A of the Act.We find that in the matter of India Advantage Securities Ltd.(2012 (11) TMI 458 - ITAT, MUMBAI )the issue of proportionate disallowance u/s.14A r.w.Rule 8D was discussed by the Tribunal in length and it was held that stock in trade(Shares)cannot be considered for disallowance and that shares held as investment could be taken into consideration for calculation of Rule 8D. The said judgment was confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (2015 (6) TMI 140 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Considering the above we are of the opinion that the disallowance made by the AO under rule 8D was on higher side.Following the above judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court,we direct the AO to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 6.89 lakhs.In short,we endorse the alternate calculation submitted by the assessee.
Addition in respect of salary paid - addition u/s.40A(2)(b) - Held that:- .We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the AO has claimed that the assessee was a director of the company whereas the assessee has stated that BKM was promoted as Senior Finance Executive.We do not know from where the AO arrived at the conclusion that she was a director.The FAA has not considered the arguments advanced before him about the educational qualification of BKM and duties performed by her.We find that in subsequent years she has been given higher salary and the AO has not made any disallowance in that regard while passing order u/s.143(3)of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1431 - ITAT KOLKATA
Addition towards difference in cost of construction based on Department Valuer’s Report - Held that:- In the instant case, the Obiter of Karnataka High Court would not become a binding precedent for Kolkata Tribunal. Hence we are not inclined to accede to the view of the Learned AR that the difference in cost of construction is only less than 15% and hence no addition needs to be made. If this proposition of the Learned AR is to be accepted, then the provisions of section 142A of the Act would become redundant.
Under the provisions of section 142A(2) of the Act, the Learned AO is empowered to make a reference to DVO whether or not he is satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee. In the instant case, we have already held hereinabove that the action of the Learned AO in rejecting the books of accounts is upheld as the same is done with cogent reasons by the learned AO and not objected by the learned AR for resorting to estimate the net profit of assessee for determining business income. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs CIT reported in (2009 (10) TMI 569 - Supreme Court of India ) had held that reference to DVO could be made only after rejection of the books of accounts by the Learned AO. We are not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Learned CITA on this ground except directing the Learned AO to adopt the state PWD rates for the purpose of valuing the factory shed of the assessee and bring to tax the difference , if any, as against the reported construction cost by the assesssee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Addition made towards insurance claim received, subsidy , PF deducted and interest on FD - Held that:- It is seen that the Learned AO having resorted to make estimate of business income computed @ 2% of total turnover at ₹ 4,01,930/- ought not to have made any separate addition towards insurance claim of ₹ 51,487/- ; interest subsidy of ₹ 3,53,707/- ; PF deducted of ₹ 11,094/- as they are part and parcel of business receipts. We hold that once the business income is determined on estimated basis, any further addition towards business income would only get telescoped with the net profit already determined on estimated basis.The assessment of income under presumptive basis u/s 44AD is similar to the income determined on an estimated basis by the AO after rejecting the books of account of the assessee. Once the books are rejected the doors of the AO are closed for looking after other provisions of the Act which are relevant for determining the business income of the assessee, unless or otherwise specifically provided in the provisions of section 44AD of the Act itself such as allowance of interest and remuneration to partners in the case of a partnership firm.
As far as the interest on FD of ₹ 72,355/- is concerned, we hold that the same is to be assessed as income from other sources. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Liberty India vs CIT reported in (2009 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT )
Addition towards cash credits - Held that:- If the Learned AO wants to reject the books of accounts , he should do it in toto and not reject the entire books of accounts except the cash book filed by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts we hold that the Learned AO is not right in making an addition towards cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1429 - ITAT MUMBAI
TDS u/s 194C - disallowance u/s u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS liability on reimbursement of expenses - Held that:- In pursuance of “Cost Allocation & Recharged Agreement” between the assessee and the said company, whereby GSIPL was required to incur cost and make payments after deducting the TDS. Such cost was then recharged to the assessee. Such recharged of cost was purely on account of reimbursement of expenses which were incurred by GSIPL and hence there is no income element on such a payment. Once that is so, then there is no requirement to deduct TDS, in view of the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siemens (2016 (4) TMI 791 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ). Thus, the finding of the CIT(A) that there was no requirement to deduct TDS on such reimbursement of cost is factually and legally correct and is therefore, upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1428 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of fees under section 234E - intimation issued under section 200A in respect of processing of TDS - Held that:- We find that the issue in all these appeals is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited vs. DCIT [2015 (6) TMI 437 - ITAT AMRITSAR] adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope of permissible adjustments contemplated under section 200A.
As intimation under section 200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed and that time has already elapsed and the defect is thus not curable even at this stage. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, the impugned levy of fees under section 234E is unsustainable in law. We, therefore, delete the impugned levy of fee under section 234E of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1427 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Reopening of assessment - disallowance of service charges payable on procurement of gunny bags - Held that:- Reopening on the basis of audit objection is as per law in the given facts and circumstances of the case and the learned CIT (Appeals) has very aptly analyzed the validity of notice under section 148 of the Act and we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned CIT (Appeals). Therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) on this account.
On the merits of the case bare submissions were made and no document or evidence to support the claim that the liability on account of purchase of gunny bags has actually crystallized in the year under consideration, was brought on record. Therefore, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned CIT (Appeals) that the said expenses are not allowable in the year under consideration. As regards the alternative contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the expenses may be allowed in the year in which they arisen, we see that the learned CIT (Appeals) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify this aspect and give the assessee due relief - Decided against assessee
-
2015 (9) TMI 1426 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition on account of provisions made for payment of arrears of salary on the basis of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 - Held that:- The provision of the pay revision was made by the assessee as per notification dated 7.1.2009 in view of the minutes of Board meeting held on 18.3.2009. A copy of the extract of the minutes of the Board held on 18.3.2009 was also filed before us. It was very clear from the perusal of this that the arrears of pay revision were to be paid by the assessee in two installments i.e. first installment being 40% of the aggregate arrears during the financial year 2008-09 i.e. relevant assessment year 2009-10 and second installment of 60% of the aggregate arrears in the financial year 2009-10 i.e. 2010-
It is quite clear that the liability of payment of 60% of arrears of salary has arisen during the assessment year under consideration and the liability was also discharged at a future date. In this view, the liability is not in the nature of any contingent liability. From these facts, it can be very easily inferred that there was an ascertained liability in the form of payment of arrears of revised pay scales, which partly was booked in an earlier year and the remaining in the present year. Since the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and the provision on account of arrears for salary payment was made in the accounts on the accrual basis, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not justified. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (9) TMI 1425 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on certain computer peripherals - Held that:- Computer peripherals form a integral part of the computer system and hence they were entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60%. Therefore, we are unable to find any fault with the decision of the CIT(A) in holding that depreciation at the rate of 60% is allowable on the cost of Printers, Routers, Scanners and Switches. See Birla Soft Ltd. [2011 (12) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT] & CIT Vs. BSES Yamuna Pvt. Ltd case [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] . Also the network cables have been held entitled to depreciation at the rate of 60%. - Decided in favour of assessee
Depreciation on Jodhpur property - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that the asset was never put to use till date and therefore, it is not legally correct that the leased premise was capitalized and added to the block of assets. Therefore, such ineligible asset, which is not fulfilled the conditions of section 32 of the Act should not have been included in the block of assets. - Decided against assessee
............
|
