|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 803 Records
-
2016 (8) TMI 1403 - ITAT NEW DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - assessee does not maintain any books of accounts - Held that:- As relying on case of MS. MAYAWATI [2011 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and KAMAL KUMAR MISHRA [2014 (1) TMI 71 - ITAT LUCKNOW] no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act, as no books of accounts are maintained by the assessee and Bank Pass Book cannot be considered as the assessee’s books of accounts. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1401 - ITAT CHENNAI
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 & 148 - disallowing the additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) - Held that:- Beneficial legislation, as in the present case, should be given liberal interpretation so as to benefit the assessee. In this case, the intention of the legislation is absolutely clear, that the assessee shall be allowed certain additional benefit, which was restricted by the proviso to only half of the same being granted in one assessment year, if certain condition was not fulfilled. But, that, in our considered view, would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal, in our view, has righly held, that additional depreciation allowed under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Act is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization, and provisions related to it have to be construed reasonably, liberally and purposively, to make the provision meaningful while granting additional allowance. See THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LTU, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (LTU) VERSUS M/S RITTAL INDIA PVT. LTD. (NO. 1) [2016 (1) TMI 81 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
We hereby hold that the assessee is entitled to claim the remaining 10% of the additional depreciation of ₹ 2,04,84,781/- for the relevant assessment year 2008-09 in the case of the assessee. It is ordered accordingly. Since we have decided the issue on merits, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate the issue with respect to reopening of assessment since it would be only academic. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (8) TMI 1398 - ITAT MUMBAI
MAT applicability on assessee bank - Held that:- We set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and hold that the provisions of sec. 115JB shall not be applicable for both the years under consideration.
Granting of interest u/s 244A - Held that:- Since it is matter involving computation of eligible amount of interest u/s 244A of the Act, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the AO. In the decisions relied upon by the assessee, the Tribunal has followed the decision rendered in the case of India Trade Promotion Organisation Vs. CIT [2013 (9) TMI 451 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and accordingly given direction to the AO to follow the said decision. Consisted with the view taken by the Tribunal, we restore this issue to his file with the direction to examine this issue afresh
-
2016 (8) TMI 1397 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Clubbing of matters - Held that:- We are unable to understand why should an Advocate be briefed when he is not available to appear, particularly when it was made clear on the 19 August 2016 that under no circumstances would these clubbed matters be adjourned bearing in mind that they relate to Assessment Year 1961-62 onwards. Needless to state that if the Advocate would have been told about the circumstances leading to the matters being fixed on 22 August 2016, he would in all likelihood not have accepted the brief. Be that as it may, we refused to grant any further adjournment and directed both of them to proceed with the hearing of their respective briefs. However, both of them expressed their inability to make submissions in support of either the References, and/or the Appeals and/or the Petition.
Thereafter, Mr. Chandnani learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicants in the References, sought to place on record written submissions. However, we refused to take the same on record, as the copy of the same has not been forwarded to the Respondent Revenue.
Taking these submissions would entail adjourning the hearing of the References/Appeals/Petition, as the Respondent Revenue would need to respond to the written submissions filed by the Applicant Assessee particularly when both Advocates refuse to make oral submissions. Thus, in effect seeking adjournment indirectly, which we had already declined to grant.
The Applicants in the References, at whose instance the References are made, are unable to make any submissions in support of the References, we return the References unanswered. However, the questions of law, as framed therein are left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
TPA - Comparable selection criteria - exclusion of ICRA Online Limited as a comparable having significant Income on account of sale of products which was not available at the time when the transfer pricing study was first carried out by the respondent-assessee - Held that:- We find that Rule 10 D (4) of the Rules provides us a cut off date, the date specified in Section 92 (f)(iv) of the Act. The date specified in Section 92 (f) (iv) of the Act is the due date specified in Explanation 2 to Section 139 of the Act i.e. 30th November of the Assessment year. In this case the Director's report of ICRA Online Ltd. is dated 12th May, 2007. In view of the fact that the information on the basis of which the respondent assessee seeks to exclude ICRA Online Ltd. from the transfer pricing study is based on document / information available before 30th November, 2007. Therefore reliance upon it is perfectly valid. Thus the direction in the impugned order to the Assessing Officer to exclude ICRA Online Ltd. from the study of comparison, cannot be faulted with in the present facts.
Depreciation on UPS @ 60% to be allowed as relying on THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 VERSUS M/S. SARASWAT INFOTECH LTD. [2013 (1) TMI 861 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
-
2016 (8) TMI 1395 - ITAT PUNE
Entitlement to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income kept with various banks other than cooperative banks/societies - Held that:- The assessee cooperative society is entitled to deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i) on the interest income of fixed deposits kept with banks other than cooperative banks/societies. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. See - TUMKUR MERCHANTS SOUHARDA CREDIT COOPERATIVE LIMITED VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUMKUR [2015 (2) TMI 995 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1394 - ITAT PUNE
Transfer pricing adjustment - assessee entered into Advance Pricing Agreement (APA) with CBDT covering nine years from assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 under roll back provisions - Held that:- Where the international transactions entered into by the assessee with its associate enterprises are similar to the international transactions in the succeeding years, then where the APA proceedings have been carried out in the case of assessee and the Board and the assessee have come to a settlement vis-à-vis the manner of computation of arm's length price - we restore this issue also back to the file of Assessing Officer, who shall consider the plea of assessee and shall after obtaining report from the TPO in this regard, decide the issue in accordance with law. Reasonable opportunity of being heard shall be afforded to the assessee while deciding the issue. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1393 - ITAT AMRITSAR
TDS u/s 194C on the value of the bye products - nature of services - assumption of Payment in kind - Held that:- Assessee is under no obligation to deduct the tax at source in terms of a contract where it does not require any payment of any sum even if the sum here means that the payment could be of some kind but it is difficult to say that the assessee has made these payments to the extent of shortfall in getting the wheat supplied back and construe it as the payment to the other for processing the wheat into Atta or Daliya. The department must have appreciated the contract as a whole which does not involve any payment or getting the payment for services rendered. It Is a case of barter or exchange or one good against the other. It Is a type of sale contract In a very crude form but it is certainly not a works contract as understood by the courts in cases under the sales tax
Although services were taken, it is difficult to say that the residuals and the losses left by the assessee in favour of AIL are purely consideration for the job that is done The market fluctuations in the price structure of the raw material and the end product cannot be just ignored in the whole transaction nor the process loss. The process loss could be either more or less than the percentage agreed to between the parties. But still the parties settle the transactions at an agreed proportion. In other words, the residual that is left by the assessee, apart from covering the labour cost of processing, also includes the protection from market fluctuations as also protection from adverse process loss. To conclude, the entire residual is only for the purpose of job work is not fair and correct having regard to the totality of the transaction entered into by the parties - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1392 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s.80IB - assessee fails to file the return of income before the due date specified in section 139(1) - provisions of section 80AC applicability - Held that:- As carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that the return of income for the year under consideration was not furnished on or before the due date as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act. In our considered opinion, provisions of Section 80AC of the Act squarely apply on the facts of the case in hand. We set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the A.O.
Addition made on account of delay in the deposit of Employee’s contribution - Held that:- We find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by holding that if Employee’s contribution is deposited before the due date of filing of the return of the same is allowable. On identical issue, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the matter against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. With our utmost respect to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, we are governed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we set aside the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the A.O. Ground no. 3 is accordingly allowed.
Claim of depreciation @ 15% - Held that:- We find that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim by holding that electric fittings are eligible to depreciation as plant and machinery. For this proposition, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of RG Ispat Ltd. [2003 (9) TMI 5 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] and also the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ahmedabad Benches in the case of Marwar Hotels Ltd.[2015 (11) TMI 1194 - ITAT AHMEDABAD].
-
2016 (8) TMI 1391 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Held that:- Learned senior counsel fairly submits that in view of the circular dated 07.3.2016, the special leave petitions are to be dismissed. In view of the above, the special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1390 - ITAT DELHI
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of commission - Non response to summons - assessee's authorized representative accepted the disallowance of 25% of the commission so as to buy peace and to avoid long drawn litigation - Held that:- The assessee has furnished confirmation of all the parties to whom the commission was paid. TDS was duly deducted from all the persons. That summon issued u/s 133(6) was duly complied with and six persons confirmed having received the commission. Merely because four persons did not furnish reply to the AO in response to summons, it cannot be said that the claim of the commission by the assessee was not genuine. That merely because the assessee agreed for the addition, it, in no way, saddle the assessee with the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
It is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). While doing so, we draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. - (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) as held merely because the assessee's claim for any deduction is not accepted by the Revenue, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not attracted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of bogus purchases - Held that:- Taking into consideration the order the Tribunal, the evidence which has surfaced on record as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2015 (1) TMI 828 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and consequently, the penalty imposed was quashed and set aside, we are of the view that the issues raised in this Appeal are to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1385 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
MAT - addition made to the book profit u/s. 115JB - Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Assessee company has debited ₹ 1,94,00000 crores as provision for current tax whereas while working income under MAT provision had added only ₹ 4,18,968/- as income tax provision, therefore, he has made addition of ₹ 1,89,81,032/- as provision for income tax to the book profit - Held that:- After perusal of the detail on record and the facts of the case, we observe that if provision of income tax of ₹ 1,94,00000/ is added for the purpose of calculation of book profit, then the amount credited to profit and loss account being MAT credit entitlement ₹ 1,93,69,003/ is to be reduced while calculating book profit as is mentioned in item no.(i) of explanation 1 to sec.115JB(2) of the act.
It was also noticed that alternatively if the amount of profit before the tax is taken for calculating book profit u/s. 115JB of the act and no adjustment are made with respect to income tax then also the calculation of book profit.
It is clearly demonstrated from the above facts that the assessee has debited income tax provision of ₹ 1.94,00000 crores against which it has claimed MAT credit of ₹ 1,93,69,003/- therefore, the difference of ₹ 30,997/- was added to the book profit. In the light of the above and after considering the detailed findings of CIT(A), we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the same is dismissed.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1381 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Matter not referred to DVO u/s 50C(2) - computation of capital gains - Held that:- As held by Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. CIT [2014 (6) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], even in the absence of specific request from the assessee, the Assessing Officer has to give an option to the assessee to follow the course provided by law under section 50C(2). Therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee, and remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication de novo after referring the matter to the DVO under section 50C(2) - Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC - interest from fixed deposits formed out of compulsory retention and transfer of export realisation is income from business liable for inclusion as business profit - Held that:- Referring to Section 80HHC learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department submitted that if the Company is engaged in the business of export, income earned out of exports of any goods or merchandise, deduction to the extent of profits, referred to in sub-Section (1B) alone would be allowed, if only the income is derived by the assessee, from the export of such goods or merchandise, and not from any other source. Further on the facts and circumstances of the case, interest income has been derived, not from the export of goods or merchandise, but derived from the deposits made by the appellant and therefore, interest income, earned by the assessee, cannot be treated as "business income", liable for deduction. Interest income earned from the deposits, should be treated only as "other source" and therefore, both the appellate authority, as well as the Tribunal, have rightly decided the issue, in favour of the Revenue.
Legislature has engrafted the provisions, as to how, the Company engaged in the business of export, out of India, of any goods or merchandise, can be allowed, to compute the total income of the assessee, deduction to the extent of profits, referred to, in sub-Section (1B), derived by the assessee, from such export of goods or merchandise, meaning thereby, that such income from the said proceeds of the goods or merchandise, should be earned in convertible foreign exchange or in otherwords, and not income generated within the country, from other sources. - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Settlement of case - levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B - Held that:- the observation of the Settlement Commission by extending terminal date upto 25.02.2000 calls for interference. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed to that extent and the terminal date as fixed by the Commission in its original order dated 25.02.2004 is confirmed
-
2016 (8) TMI 1371 - ITAT JAIPUR
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - Held that:- It is noted that the investment worth ₹ 3. 37 crores have been made by the assessee in the earlier years and not in the year under consideration. Even if one were to consider the availability of interest free funds during the year, it is noted that partner’s capital account is worth ₹ 115.70 crores.
The secured loans availed by the assessee in form of Packing Credit Limit (PCL) and Post Shipment Export Finance (PSEF) from various bank are exclusively for the purpose of purchase of raw material, payment of labour charges and other direct expenses and which thus have a end-use restriction and monitoring by the banks towards the manufacturing and export activity of the appellant. Thus giving the availability of interest free funds over and above the secured loans and also the fact that the secured loans had a specific end-use restriction, the investments have been made from its internal accruals in the earlier years and given that no expenditure has been incurred, no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1370 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction towards provision for arrears of salary and wages payable to the officers and staff as per the Long Term Settlement - whether, in the absence of filing a revised return, a claim for deduction for the aforesaid amount is permissible for the assessment year 2008-09? - Held that:- As held by a Division Bench in Parekh Brothers (1983 (8) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT), there is no limit to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 264 of the IT Act. That was also a case in which the claim was not made by the assessee in the return or at the time of arguments when the assessment was made. In such an instance, the Division Bench held that, even assuming that the assessment order was correct, still it is open for the assessee to seek the revisional jurisdiction in respect of an item which was not made by way of a mistake. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to pass orders even if a revised return is not filed, is very much available.
Then the only question is whether any deduction has been permitted during the assessment year 2007-08. As already indicated, the appellate order was passed as early as on 31/03/2010 dismissing the appeal as infructuous. Whether such deduction has been permitted during 2007-08 is not made clear - the matter requires consideration. The commissioner shall hear the petitioner and if deduction has not been made for the assessment year 2007-08, it has to be considered whether the deduction could be made for the assessment year 2008-09 irrespective of the fact that the petitioner has filed any revised return. Writ petition is disposed of as the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 revision petition filed by the petitioner and take a decision in the matter after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Refund to petitioner - demand of tax dues against “M/s. Girilal Mamchan & Company” as rightly been recovered from petitioner - writ of mandamus commanding respondents to refund along with interest - whether liability of tax of Amrish Kumar Jain has rightly been appropriated from the funds seized from petitioner and kept in P.D. A/c by Revenue? - Held that:- Recourse to Section 159 is thoroughly misconceived and illegal on the part of Revenue. Neither there existed any liability against deceased nor any liability was finalized after giving notice to the alleged legal heirs nor the amount which was seized in search and seizure operation under Section 132, otherwise could have been appropriated against the alleged dues of deceased Girilal Jain by referring to Section 159 as discussed above.
In the present case, it is not the case of respondents that an assessment was made against (Late) Girilal Jain and from the assets of deceased which was received by his legal representatives, the demand has been satisfied. At no point of time any notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner or any of his brothers before finalizing the alleged liability of deceased after his death. In fact highhandedness on the part of respondents is writ large from the fact that they did not keep on informing petitioner or his legal brothers but petitioner has to collect correct information by approaching respondents under RTI Act and not otherwise. This clearly shows a hide and seek approach, patently erroneous and malicious in law, on the part of respondents in appropriating assets of petitioner in respect of certain dues which were not shown to be adjustable there against.
It is a clear case of patent illegality, unauthorized appropriation, and unfair and unjust treatment made by the respondents to the petitioner in depriving him his huge amount which in law was refundable to him. The action on the part of respondents also comes within the ambit of patent abuse of process of law.
Writ petition is allowed. The entire amount of petitioner which was appropriated by respondent is directed to be refunded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date the amount was seized till repayment to petitioner. The order dated 17.08.2011 passed by CCIT upholding appropriation of ₹ 72,72,524/- is hereby set aside.
-
2016 (8) TMI 1365 - ITAT BANGALORE
Transfer Pricing related grounds - Comparable specific - Held that:- Referring to business support services provided by the Appellant to its associated enterprise functional dissimilarity need to be seen to select comparability.
Absence of any difference in facts having been pointed out by the ld. DR of the revenue, we direct the AO/TPO to exclude these three companies i.e. M/s Aptico Ltd., M/s Global Procurement Consultants Ltd., and M/s TSR Darashaw Ltd. from the list of final comparables and since, the average profit of the remaining three comparable i.e. M/s Cyber Media Research Ltd.,14.85%, M/s HCCA Business Services Pvt. Ltd., 20.05% and M/s Quadrant Communications Ltd., 1.11% is around 16% which is within += 5% range of the assessee’s profit margin of 12.06%, no TP adjustment is required to be made. We hold accordingly.
............
|
