|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1465 Records
-
2016 (3) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT
Jurisdiction - power of Bar Council of India to prescribe an examination post enrollment of an advocate as a condition of eligibility for his continuing to practice at the Bar.
HELD THAT:- The questions that fall for determination are of considerable importance affecting the legal profession in general and need to be authoritatively answered by a Constitution Bench of this Court.
The matter is referred to a five-Judge Bench for consideration for determining the following questions:
(1) Whether Pre-enrollment training in terms of Bar Council of India Training Rules, 1995 framed under Section 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 could be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India and if so whether the decision of this Court in Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India & Anr. [1999 (3) TMI 662 - SUPREME COURT] requires reconsideration.
(2) Whether a pre-enrollment examination can be prescribed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961.
(3) In case questions Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative whether a post-enrollment examination can be validly prescribed by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1374 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance us 14A - not earning of any exempt income out of the investment - HELD THAT:- We find that undisputedly the assessee has not earned any exempted income. Now it is settled position of law that whenever assessee did not earn any exempt income, no disallowance could be made u/s. 14A of the Act.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 238 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has categorically held that section 14A envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income during the relevant previous year for the purpose of disallowing any expenditure in relation to the said income. Wherever there is no exempt income includible in the total income of the assessee, the provisions of section 14A cannot be invoked.
Thus when there is no exempt income, provision of section 14A of the Act cannot be applied. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1373 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 on account of commission - assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions - HELD THAT:- In the appellant's case scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was made on 28.02.2006. In the course of the said proceedings, the details of share application money / share capital were furnished vide its explanation dated 16.11.2005 which are available at pages 40 to 43 of the paper book furnished. Nothing adverse was found. The AO has not verified the details furnished by the assessee and I.T. records of the shareholders/investing companies. These facts were not controverted by the AO. The assessee has discharged its burden of providing basic details which were required for verification to fulfill the conditions viz. identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of transaction as laid down by higher judicial authorities for examining the issue is u/s. 68.
No interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the deletion of additions in dispute, hence, we uphold the same and dismiss the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue in its Appeal.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1372 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowing lease equalization charges debited to the Profit & Loss Account - HELD THAT:- We find that an identical issue had come up in the earlier years, wherein this issue has been sent back by the Tribunal to the file of the AO [ 2013 (11) TMI 64 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Disallowing the claim of assessee u/s 35D - HELD THAT:- In other years also, similar view has been taken by the Tribunal and this issue has been sent back to the file of the AO, therefore, in this year also, we find it appropriate to sent this issue back to the file of the AO and direct him to follow the directions given in the order of the Tribunal of earlier years and re-decide this issue after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
Allocation of interest attributable to earning income u/s 10(23G) - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue involved in this year also requires re-look to ascertain the correct facts, and therefore, this issue is sent back to the file of AO. The AO is directed to follow the directions given in the order of the Tribunal of earlier years [2014 (12) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI ] and he shall give adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to bring the correct facts on record.
Allocation of administrative expenses attributable to earning income u/s. 10(23G) - HELD THAT:- Issue involved in these grounds is identical to the issue involved in ground no.4 above. It is further noted by us that this issue has also been sent back by the Tribunal in the earlier year to the file of the AO for verification of facts. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal of earlier years, we send this issue back to the file of the AO and direct him to follow the directions given in the order of the earlier years and re-decide this issue after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, with these directions this issue is sent back to the file of the AO and these grounds may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Deduction u/s. 80M - HELD THAT:- This issue has also been sent back by the Tribunal in A.Ys 1999-2000 to 2001-02 and also in A.Y 1998-99 for verifying the net worth of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Tribunal, we send this issue back to the file of the AO and direct him to follow the directions given in the orders of the Tribunal of earlier years and re-decide this issue after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee
MAT Computation - Disallowance of provision for diminution in the value of the securities while computing the book profit u/s. 115JB - HELD THAT:- No distinction has been made on facts by the parties, and therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Tribunal in the earlier year, we send this issue back to the file of the AO and direct him to follow the directions of the Tribunal in its order given in the earlier year and re-decide this issue.
Addition made on account of club expenses - HELD THAT:- In this order [2015 (5) TMI 600 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee in principle, but restored it back for the limited purpose of verification.
Depreciation on leased assets - HELD THAT:- Allowability of depreciation on leased assets has now been settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of ICDS Limited [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT]
Addition made on account of provision for non-performing assets to the book profit u/s. 115JA - HELD THAT:- We decide this issue against the assessee and in favour of the revenue and hold that the provision for non-performing assets, being a provision for diminution in the value of the asset, is required to be added to the book profits. Thus, these grounds are treated as allowed in favour of the revenue.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1371 - ITAT MUMBAI
Re-opening of assessment u/s 147 - basis of information received from State Bank of Surat about non-deduction of TDS - HELD THAT:- There is no details given by AO as to which the fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee which lead to escape assessment. Merely referring a bald assertion that “I have reason to believe that it is a failure of assessee part or not to add back the amount of ₹ 58,94,437/- to the total income u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act” is not sufficient to frame notice for re-opening concluded assessment beyond the four years. Thus the notice (impugned notice u/s. 48 is bad in law) and does not qualify a sustainable notice under the scrutiny of law, hence, the legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed and the re-opening of assessment is declared as invalid.
Disallowance on expenditure u/s. 14A and interest levied u/s 234D of Act. As we have already concluded that reopening of assessment is invalid, hence, the disallowances or additions or consequential interest made in the re-assessment order are became academic.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1370 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law:- Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the adjudication order which was passed after the omission of section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable despite the fact that the proceedings had been initiated prior to 01.03.2001?
-
2016 (3) TMI 1369 - SUPREME COURT
Partition of ancestral property - right of grand-son in the properties of grand-father - birth right of grand son in the property or not - the property was ancestral and that no earlier partition between the brothers had in fact taken place - Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - HELD THAT:- On the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the proviso to Section 6 would apply inasmuch as Jagannath Singh had left behind his widow, who was a Class I female heir. Equally, upon the application of explanation 1 to the said Section, a partition must be said to have been effected by operation of law immediately before his death. This being the case, it is clear that the plaintiff would be entitled to a share on this partition taking place in 1973. We were informed, however, that the plaintiff was born only in 1977, and that, for this reason, (his birth being after his grandfather’s death) obviously no such share could be allotted to him. Also, his case in the suit filed by him is not that he is entitled to this share but that he is entitled to a 1/8th share on dividing the joint family property between 8 co-sharers in 1998. What has therefore to be seen is whether the application of Section 8, in 1973, on the death of Jagannath Singh would make the joint family property in the hands of the father, uncles and the plaintiff no longer joint family property after the devolution of Jagannath Singh’s share, by application of Section 8, among his Class I heirs.
On the death of Jagannath Singh in 1973, the joint family property which was ancestral property in the hands of Jagannath Singh and the other coparceners, devolved by succession under Section 8 of the Act. This being the case, the ancestral property ceased to be joint family property on the date of death of Jagannath Singh, and the other coparceners and his widow held the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. This being the case, on the date of the birth of the appellant in 1977 the said ancestral property, not being joint family property, the suit for partition of such property would not be maintainable.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1368 - ITAT DELHI
Reopening of assessment - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Orders of the Tribunal including that of the Unique Metal Industries [2015 (10) TMI 2753 - ITAT NEW DELHI] the AO had recorded similarly worded reasons and name of the parties form which the assessee alleged to have made bogus purchases were also same ex cept the amount mentioned therein in the reasons recorded in the tabular form are same as in the case of the present assessee. Therefore, we have no alternative but to follow the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] and other as mentioned hereinabove.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the initiation of reassessment proceedings as well a s issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act was not valid and the same was void ab initio and thus we quash the same and subsequently the assessment order passed in pursuance thereto is also quashed. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee are allowed.
Bogus purchases - Addition of 20% purchases made by the assessee during F.Y. 2005-06 pertaining to A.Y 2006-07 - HELD THAT:- On specific query from the Bench, the ld. DR could not bring to our notice any cogent or relevant material or evidence which may compel us to take a different view which could lead us to not to follow the decision of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] and other relevant orders. We therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Unique Metal Industries [supra] which deleted the addition as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) being 20% of the purchases made by the assessee during the relevant F.Y. Consequently, the grounds of the assessee on merits are also allowed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1367 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A - admission of additional ground - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2009 (2) TMI 240 - ITAT DELHI-B] the additional ground raised by assessee is allowed. Accordingly, it is held that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in the case of assessee. Therefore, the addition stands deleted.
Provision for stock holding and other charges - HELD THAT:- As submitted that the expenditure on this head of account was actually paid by the assessee but inadvertently shown it as provision. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure has been allowed in earlier years. Ld. counsel further submitted that this expenditure should be allowed in terms of section 43B also. He further submitted that assessee did not get sufficient opportunity to explain the facts in this regard.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We are of the opinion that the facts in regard to this issue needs to be re-marshaled. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of AO for deciding the issue de novo in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1366 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification u/s 154 - sale proceeds of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. was considered in A.Y 2007-08, therefore, the Tribunal has wrongly confirmed the addition in A.Y 2001-02 - HELD THAT:- Tripex Overseas Ltd. shares were purchased in A.Y 2006-07 and were sold in A.Y 2007-08, therefore, sale proceeds of the shares should be brought to tax net in A.Y 2007-08 and not in A.Y 2001-02. To rectify the mistake apparent from the record, we direct the AO to verify the order passed by him for A.Y 2007-08 to ensure that there is an addition on account of sale of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. and if he finds that the sale proceeds of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. had already been taxed in A.Y 2007-08, the same should not be again added in A.Y 2001-02 under consideration.
Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1365 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Denial of exemption of claim made by assessee u/s 54B - investment made in the name of wife and bhabhi - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the instead of son the part investment has been made in the name of his wife, therefore, we agree with the contention of learned AR that investment in the name of wife was eligible u/s 54B of the Act. However, the investment in the name of his Bhabhi is not eligible for exemption u/s 54B, therefore, taxable capital gain in the case of the assessee is restricted to ₹ 2,02,955/-.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1364 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Disallowance u/s 14A - securities held as stock in trade - HELD THAT:- However in view of the clear finding given by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCI Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 282 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we found ourselves bound by the said judgement and hold that since the assessee bank is holding the securities as its stock in trade the disallowance under section 14A cannot be made.
If the shares are held that as stock in trade and not as investment then even the disallowance under section under rule 8D will be Nil as rule 8D (2)(i) will be confined to only direct expenses for earning the tax exempt income. In the present case also since there are no direct expenses incurred in earning the dividend the disallowance will come to nil. - Decided in favour of assessee
Addition of bad debts recovered - whether when bad debts were written off in any of the precious years, no claim of deduction was made or allowed u/s 36(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- There is no denying the fact that the details of these amounts recovered were filed before the lower authorities. A copy of the same has also been filed before us. The assessee being a bank is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Further, the provisions of section 41(4) are also applicable on such debts that are recovered during the year which have been reduced from the income in any of the earlier years. In view of all these, we are inclined to send this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify with the details filed by the assessee whether any claim of any such nature, which reduces the income of the assessee with regard to these recoveries, if made in any of the earlier years the disallowance has to be sustained however in case no such benefit has been taken by the assessee out of these amounts recoverable in any of the earlier years the disallowance should be deleted. This ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance as prior period expenses - appellant had not claimed any expenses relating to prior years in the computation of income - HELD THAT:- As it has been held in earlier year by the I.T.A.T. that looking into the regular system of accounting being followed by the assessee, an expenditure either has to be allowed or not to be allowed. In the present year also, both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT (Appeals) has indulged in estimating the disallowance. Nowhere any of these authorities have been able to pinpoint which expenses are prior period in nature. A disallowance has not to be made just for the sake of making disallowance. We do not appreciate the way the issue has been handled by he lower authorities. The assessee has provided all details which were asked for by them. The order and dictate of I.T.A.T. were before them. Even then they did not bother to analyze the details filed by the assessee. In the earlier year, in the proceedings set aside by the I.T.A.T., the Assessing Officer restricted the disallowance only to stationery and miscellaneous expenses. This year also, same has been done on an estimated basis. This is not the right approach. Looking into the fact that the only dispute remaining is with regard to stationery and miscellaneous expenses, we are inclined to delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) in this regard.
Income chargeable to tax being the increase in the credit balance outstanding in blocked accounts of customers (under NOSTRO balances) - Whether the said amount has not been written back in the profit and loss account as any remission of liability by the appellant bank? - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the case are that there are certain unclaimed balances lying in the account of the assessee on account of NOSTRO Blocked accounts. This is also undisputed that the same nature of amount was taxed as income in the earlier year by the Assessing Officer which got confirmed till the level of ITAT. However we are in agreement with the argument of the assessee that there is a circular of the RBI No.RBI/2013-14/527, DBOD No. DEAF Cell.BC.101/30.01.002/2013-14, dated 21.3.2014, whereby these kind of unclaimed balances are to be transferred to a government account under the ‘Depositors Education and Awareness Fund’. This circular was not available to the I.T.A.T. while adjudicating the similar issue in assessment year 2007-08. In view of the same we are very clear that since no balance outstanding as on date is there in assessee’s account in respect of the said amount, the said amount cannot be considered as ‘income’ in nature. No addition on this account can be made. In view of this we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. The ground of assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of depreciation on ATM - @ 60% - HELD THAT:- There are a number of judgments of various High Courts where the ATM is held to be computer and depreciation is allowed @ 60%. The grounds raised by the Department are dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1363 - SUPREME COURT
Offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Effect of amendment - amendment in the Act by the Central Amendment Act 34 of 1976 whereby Section 16A was added and under the said section, only a fine is leviable, Rigorous imprisonment is dispensed with - HELD THAT:- In ’T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another’ [1982 (12) TMI 186 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that since the amendment was beneficial to the accused persons, it can be applied even with respect to earlier cases as well which are pending in the Court.
We have no doubt in mind that the aforesaid judgment squarely applies thereon - This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed and the sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified by imposing fine of ₹ 50,000/- which shall be deposited within two months with the trial court. On deposit of the aforesaid amount, the bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall be discharged.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1362 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - penalty order barred by limitation - Bar of limitation for imposing penalties u/s 275 - HELD THAT:- As decided in COSMO FILMS LTD. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3 (1) , DELHI. [2011 (7) TMI 1355 - ITAT DELHI] as per section 275(1A) of the Act, therefore, the limitation provided there-under concerns cases where the assessment order or revision is under appeal at the relevant stage and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty passed before the appellate order is received by the Department or order of revision is passed. In such a situation, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to the appellate order or the revisional order.
In the present case, no order either imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty stands passed. That being so, the provisions of section 275(1A) are not applicable.
Penalty order is hit by the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act. Going by the para-meters laid down therein in the said section, the penalty order is clearly beyond the limitation provided therein. - Decided against revenue.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1361 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 35D in respect of share issue expenses incurred - “industrial units” - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] amendment had been brought about to extend the benefit of deduction u/s 35D to the service sector also. Banks cannot fall under the definition of “industrial units”. If the assessees like banks were to fall under the definition of “Industrial units”, there would not have been any necessity for amending the Act to include service sector. Since the amendment extending the benefit to service sector and made effective only from the assessment year 2009-10 and, the banks are coming under service sector, the benefit can be extended from the assessment year 2009-10 only to the extent of setting up of a new unit for five successive years. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee has set up a new unit or not and if so, he is directed to allow the benefit from 2009-10 onwards. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Income from foreign branches - whether to be included in the total income and only double taxation relief s contemplated as per the agreement is allowable ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] income of the assessee at Singapore and Colombo would be included in the return of income of the assessee in India and whatever taxes paid by the branches in foreign countries, credit of such taxes shall only be given. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] in view of the decision of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09, when the Act has prescribed a method for quantifying the disallowance, the same cannot be overlooked. Since Rule 8D is not applicable prior to the assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and directed the AO to work out the disallowance @ 2%. However, since Rule 8D is applicable from the assessment year 2008-09 onwards, the disallowance should be made based on the prescribed method quantified by the Act. Since the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance under section 14A and computed under Rule 8D, we confirm the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.
Rate of depreciation on computers - whether Automated Teller Machines are substantially in the nature of computers and hence, are eligible for deduction at the rate of 60% and not at 15% as applicable to other normal plant and machinery? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] we set aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 60% to ATMs. UPS attached to the computers are part of computer systems and eligible for depreciation @ 60%.
Advances of the Rural Branch is the criteria for computation of eligible deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) and individual nature of advances cannot be the basis of computation - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) is based on the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister by presenting the budget of 1978-79. We have also gone through the intention under which sec.36(1)(viia) was brought to statute book and there is no intention to support rural branches and being so, only advances made for improving the rural economy to be considered for eligible deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) of the Act. Accordingly, the finding of the AO is upheld and the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Allowable revenue expenditure - Claims raised against the bank, in the normal course, considering the various circumstances provision is being made by the bank and considering the business risk, such provisions are allowable deductions - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] If any expense is required to be allowed, it is for the assessee to prove the nature of the expenditure and its relation to its business. In the present case, the assessee has not able to prove the nature of the expenses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ground raised by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.
MAT u/s 115JB applicability - HELD THAT:- Provisions of sec.115JB of the I.T. Act are not applicable to the assessee bank as it is not a company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956
Claim of broken period interest paid on purchase of securities - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] interest received by an assessee, from transferees for broken period is included under the head ‘business income’, amounts paid by the assessee to the transferors for broken periods could not have been disallowed.
Depreciation on securities at the time of shifting from AFS to HTM - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2015 (11) TMI 1519 - ITAT CHENNAI] we uphold the claim of the assessee and direct the AO to allow depreciation / fall in value of investment in Government Securities including those classified under HTM category. No doubt the value in opening stock in the next year would correspondingly be adjusted. This issue is decided in favour of the assessee
Claim towards deduction of bad debts written off - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, besides debiting the P&L a/c and creating a provision for bad and doubtful debts, the assessee bank had simultaneously obliterated the said provision from its accounts by reducing the corresponding amount from loans and advances/debtors on the assets side of the balance sheet and consequently, at the end of the year, the figure of loans and advances/debtors was shown as net of the provision - Therefore, assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Contention that it is imperative for the assessee-bank to close the individual account of each debtor in its books and a mere reduction in the “loans and advances account” or debtors to the extent of the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not sufficient, is not sustainable - Apprehension that if the assessee fails to close each and every individual account of its debtors, it may result in claiming deduction twice over is not correct - It is always open to the AO to call for details of individual debtor’s account if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the assessee has claimed deduction twice over
Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - HELD THAT:- Allowable deduction u/s.36(I)(viia) of the Act is @ 10% of the 'total average aggregate advances' made by the rural branches and not on the incremental average aggregate advances, as contemplated by the Assessing Officer. The assessee's appeals in this regard are allowed
Deduction of bad debts - HELD THAT:- Option exercised by the assessee that it can claims deduction on doubtful debts as per option (b) i.e. 7.5% of Gross Total Income and 10% of aggregate average rural advances, the Assessing Officer has rightly worked out the allowable deduction, which is less than that of the provision made by the assessee as doubtful debts, allowed the deduction of bad debts for all assessment years and remaining balance was brought to tax. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the addition made by the AO for all the above assessment years.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1360 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Issuance of rectified Form C and F - no online procedure for rectification of such declarations - An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bihar wherein it has been stated that the modules for online rectification of Form C is to be customized for implementation in Bihar with effect from April, 2016.
HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, we do not feel that any further directions are called for in the present matter.
Application disposed off.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1359 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Prohibition on respondent no. 1-Company from holding its Annual General Meeting - alleged non-disclosure to its investors/shareholders true and correct state of affairs in its Annual Report and Director's Report for the year 2014-15 - violation of Section 134 of the Companies Act, 2013 - Principle of corporate democracy - HELD THAT:- The principle of corporate democracy requires that meeting of shareholders should normally not be interdicted.
Reliance can be placed in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPN. OF INDIA VERSUS ESCORTS LTD. [1985 (12) TMI 289 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The holder of the majority of the stock of a corporation have the power to appoint, by election, Directors of their choice and the power to regulate them by a resolution for their removal. And, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain the holding of a general meeting to remove a director and appoint another.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that AGM has already been held, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief - petition dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1358 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - Unsecured cash credit - HELD THAT:- The assessee has produced the copies of contract note, money was received through banking channel from sale of shares, purchases of earlier years were not doubted. Dematting was done by the assessee, sale was affected, thus, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of CIT(Appeals), thus, it was rightly held that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act cannot be sustained and also the resultant disallowance of commission at the rate of 5% made by the AO
Even otherwise, for making addition u/s 68 of the Act, there has to be credit of amounts in the books of the assessee and if the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of such credits, then, the some so credited may be charged to tax as income of the assessee. However, in the present case, the assessee has offered its explanation and if AO is still not satisfied with such explanation, onus shifts upon him to prove otherwise. The assessee’s burden is confined to prove creditworthiness of the creditor with reference to the transaction found in the books of the assessee.
In the present appeal, the identity of the creditor is not in doubt, the sale proceeds were received through banking channel, no adverse material was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to substantiate his presumption, the shares remained in the demat account of the assessee for more than twelve months, sold through recognized stock exchange on which STT was paid, the quotation of the aid scrips were available on the exchange, thus, the appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, consequently, dismissed.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1357 - SC ORDER
Application u/s 12AA rejected - Tribunal held that on the grounds indicated as the application could not be rejected, directed for grant of registration under section 12A - HC held that Tribunal has not committed any error in applying the law laid down in the case of DPR Charitable Trust - HELD THAT:- Delay condoned. Leave granted.
-
2016 (3) TMI 1356 - ITAT MUMBAI
Not accepting the claim of rate of tax applicable to domestic companies and/or co-operative banks in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 (Non-discrimination) of the double taxation avoidance agreement between India and the Republic of France ('India - France tax treaty' - HELD THAT:- Issue is covered, against the assessee, by a series of orders passed by the various co-ordinate benches in assessee’s own case as also in the cases of Chohung Bank vs. DDIT [2005 (11) TMI 372 - ITAT MUMBAI] and JCIT vs. Sakura Bank Limited [2005 (12) TMI 465 - ITAT MUMBAI] .In this view of this undisputed position and the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) being in harmony with the views of the co-ordinate benches, we reject the grievance of the assessee. No interference is thus called for.
Income accrued in India - data processing fees paid by the India branch office of the appellant to its Singapore bench, as income of the appellant under article 13 (royalties and fees for technical services) of the India France DTAA” - whether an internal charge on the PE can result in income in the hands of the GE or an intra GE unit? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2014 (7) TMI 1305 - ITAT MUMBAI] payment on account of data processing charges paid to BNP Singapore cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The conclusion arrived at by the coordinate bench, whatever may have been the path traversed by the coordinate bench to reach this point, are the same as arrived at by us. Of course, our reasons are different, as set out earlier in this order, but that does not really matter as on now. We fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance
............
|
