|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 584 Records
-
2017 (6) TMI 1260 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowing the deduction U/s 80-IA - additional evidence filed - Held that:- It is appropriate to remit the entire issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh after considering the contract documents as a whole and all other evidence that may be submitted by the assessee to demonstrate the facts that actual work was executed by the assessee and IMAGE did not claim any deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after considering the ratio laid down in the list of cases at para 6 herein above. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 14A - Expenses in relation to income not forming part of total income - whether Tribunal erred in not appreciating that the disallowance as computed under Section 14A was in terms of the formula prescribed in Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? - Held that:- In view of the fact that the issues involved in the present appeal are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), no substantial questions of law arise in the present appeal
-
2017 (6) TMI 1258 - ITAT BANGALORE
Computation of long term capital gain - JDA - determining the cost of construction - actual cost of construction reported by the Developer v/s market value of the property as on the date of development agreement - Held that:- For the purposes of determining the cost of construction, in identical facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ved Prakash Rakhra (2012 (10) TMI 286 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), has held that the date of entering into JDA would be “the date” for the purposes of arriving at the cost of transfer i.e. cost of structure as on the date of agreement would be the cost of transfer instead of cost of actual construction in term of JDA - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1257 - ITAT MUMBAI
Actuarial valuation / actuarial surplus - taxability u/s 44 - computation of income - income of insurance business - transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder’s Account - ‘surplus’ available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holders Account is to be consolidated and only ‘net surplus’ is to be taxed as income from Insurance Business - taxing income of assessee arising from activity unconnected with insurance business (consequent set off loss) - additions towards negative reserve - Held that:- The issue raised in ground (i) to (vii) above is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-2012 [2017 (3) TMI 1696 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that in determining assessee’s income under section 44, had taken into consideration total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further held that income from shareholders account was also to be taxed as a part of life insurance business. Assessing Officer has no power to modify the account after actuarial valuation is done.
Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1255 - ITAT CHENNAI
TDS u/s 195 - nature of the payments, debited to the account head or classified as ‘Reimbursements’ by the assessee, a Chennai based software company, handling business verticals like, pension plan administration, health care practice, system integration solutions, etc., to Gulf Outsourcing LLC (‘GOS’ for short), a Dubai based foreign company (nonresident), to whom it is providing services under a consultancy agreement - Revenue claims it to be in the nature of fee for technical services toward services being provided by GOS to the assessee-company through Info-Drive LLC, UAE
eld that:- The expenditure is the assessee’s contractual obligation and the onus is on it to make suitable arrangements for timely payment for salary of, and other expenditure incurred by, it’s employees. Why, the payment could be made directly to the bank accounts of the employees. In fact, even in India the salary is customarily paid by the 7th of the following month, and also legally required to be paid within a reasonable time; presumably, the 10th day thereof. The relevant law/s of UAE assumes significance in this regard, which shall have to explain both, the salary as well as other expenditure. Further, not only does the ‘service recipient’ agree to make the payment in the first instance, it extends a 90 day credit to the assessee for the same, which is surprising indeed. The minutes also refer to the assessee facing financial difficulty in making the payment without collection, which may explain the credit. GOC could, in that case, make the payment early on or even in advance. Further, details of employee emoluments are normally not divulged, as in that case the contractee would get a clear idea of the assessee’s employee cost, which constitutes the principal cost, enabling it to bargain for a lower cost on its contract with the assessee. The assessee clearly has much explaining to do; it’s case, though valid in principle, is largely unsubstantiated, with several loose ends.
The Revenue’s stand, we may at the same time state, does not take into account the employment agreements and the monthly debit notes raised by GOS on the assessee. The treatment of the said transactions in the books of GOS, both at the time of payment and its’ recovery, would also be relevant, which (the said books) would also throw light on the relationship, if any, with Info-Drive LLC, UAE
The matter is thus clearly in-determinate, and would therefore have to be restored back to the file of the AO, setting aside the impugned order, which we hereby direct. The burden of proof, in-as-much as it is in the intimate know of its affairs, is on the assessee, even as the Revenue’s stand also has to be consistent with it’s findings, based on material on record and explanation/s offered by the assessee. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1254 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of the claim of expenditure - Held that:- From the order of the Ld.AO and the Ld.CIT(A), the entire facts of the case are not clear. The assessee has also not produced before us any documents such as the agreement between the assessee and the societies, the resolution passed by the society in its general meeting, the nature of work executed by the society, the reasons for the loss incurred by the society, the reasons for the society not to repay the loan, etc.. Thus the genuineness of the transaction has not been brought out vividly by the assessee before us and it is not clear from the Orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit back the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration.
Disallowance U/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D - Held that:- Revenue Authorities had invoked the provisions of Section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Rules, because the assessee had made investment for earning exempt income and the expenditure relating to such investment was not disallowed by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity on the order of the Ld. Revenue authorities on this issue because they have only followed the provisions of the Act. Therefore the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.AO on this issue is hereby confirmed.
Assessment of rental income under the head ‘business income’ OR 'Income from house property' - Held that:- Only with respect to the rental income of ₹ 46,76,622/-, the assessee has received rental income from its employees for providing quarters. All other rental income is with respect to third parties and the circular has no bearing on them. Therefore, we hereby hold that the rental income received from the assessee’s employees for providing quarters to the extent of ₹ 46,76,622/- shall be treated as business income and the balance amount shall be treated as ‘income from house property’ as per the provisions of the Act.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1253 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35D - proof of commencement of business - Held that:- As could be seen from material on record, neither before the AO nor before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has brought any evidence to conclusively prove the fact that it has commenced its business activities by rendering any advisory services from June, 2009. In fact, only in response to the query raised by the Bench the assessee had furnished certain documentary evidences by way of additional evidence to demonstrate that it has rendered advisory services from June, 2009. Undisputedly, these evidences were not filed either before the AO or before the ld.CIT(A).
Considering the fact that these evidences may have crucial bearing for determining the actual date of commencement of assessee’s business, we are inclined to admit the additional evidences. However, these documents were not filed before the departmental authorities. Therefore, to give a fair chance to the department, we are inclined to remit the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.
TDS u/s 194J - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Subscription fee paid by the assessee to M/s Bloomberg Data Services India Pvt.Ltd data service - Held that:- After analyzing the relevant facts we have noted that the subscription fee paid by the assessee to M/s Bloomberg Data Services India Pvt.Ltd data service was for accessing the database and is in the nature of subscription of e-magazine/journal. Therefore, the payment made cannot be treated as royalty or Fees Paid for Technical Services coming within the purview of section 194J. Notably, the aforesaid view has also been expressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. India Capital Markets P. Ltd (2013 (1) TMI 646 - ITAT MUMBAI). DR has failed to controvert the contention of the assessee that the payee has offered the income received towards subscription charges as in the return filed by it - neither there is requirement for the assessee to deduct tax at source on payment towards subscription charges paid to M/s Bloomberg Data Services India Pvt.Ltd. nor the assessee can be treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) - decided in favour of assessee
Addition on account of transfer price adjustment - average arithmetic mean computation - Held that:- AO has considered the arithmetic mean of three comparable i.e. Crisil Risk and Infrastructure Solutions Ltd, Future Capital Investment Advisors Ltd and ICRA Management Consulting Services Ltd on the basis of multiple year data to work out the average arithmetic mean of 22.60%. Surprisingly, he had added 5% to the arithmetic mean of the three companies to determine the markup at 26.20% and applied the same markup to work out the profit of the assessee. When the AO himself has accepted the average arithmetic mean of three comparables on multiple year data at 22.60%, there is no reason to add further 5% to the said arithmetic mean to arrive at markup of 26.20%. We are unable to understand under which method as provided under Rule 10B, the AO can make such addition to the average arithmetic mean of the comparables. Thus, the profit worked out by applying the markup of 26.20% being contrary to statutory provisions cannot be sustained - TP adjustment made on that basis would not survive. Accordingly, we delete the addition. This grounds is allowed.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1252 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Estimation of income - rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) - unaccounted stock - valuation of raw material and finished, semi precious stones - CIT(A) had deleted the additions - ITAT remanded the matter back to AO in the remand proceedings, AO estimated the income @32.31% on estimated sales - Held that:- In our considered opinion observations of CIT(A) is attractive but not according to law and view taken by the Tribunal is required to be accepted. - Both the issues are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1251 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that:- it is clear that the AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty notice did not specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty is not leviable in the matter. - No penalty - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on leased assets - Held that:- The definitions of “ownership” essentially make ownership a function of legal right or title against the rest of the world. However, it is “nomen generalissimum”, and its meaning is to be gathered from the connection in which it is used, and from the subject-matter to which it is applied. As long as the assessee has a right to retain the legal title against the rest of the world, it would be the owner of the asset in the eyes of law.” - Claim of depreciation allowed.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1247 - ITAT JAIPUR
Exemption u/s 11 - question of payment of excessive salary to the persons specified u/s 13(3) - Held that:- The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions has given a finding that salary paid to these persons are comparable to earlier years with yearly increase of 10% assessment of the trust for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2011-12 were framed u/s 143(3) wherein the salary to these persons were accepted. The Assessing Officer has not given any justification except saying that the salary cannot be higher than salary of the Principal. - Benefit cannot be denied - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1245 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Tax Deducted at Source deposited after the due date - Held that:- Tax Deducted at Source was deposited after the due date, before the date of filing of the return. In that view of the matter, according to the Tribunal, disallowance under Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of this Court in the case of J.K.Construction Co. [2013 (2) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. This question is, therefore, not required to be considered.
Enhancement under Section 40 (a) (ia) - charges paid to the truck owners for transportation of the goods - Held that:- AO as well as CIT (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of such transportation being in the nature of a contract, required deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal, however, held that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any relationship of contractor and contractee between the assessee and the truck owners. The assessee had merely hired the trucks for transportation on need basis. That being the position, no question of law arises.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1244 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A motion is made for speaking to the minutes in respect of order dated 9th June,2017. It is stated that in the title clause, though the respondent is 'Bank of Baroda', however, inadvertently the same is typed as 'Bank of India'.
Necessary correction be effected in respect of the respondent in the title cause of the order, commensurate to memo of appeal.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance under 14A - Held that:- The issues involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
-
2017 (6) TMI 1242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit - tribunal deleting penalty - Held that:- As observed by the Tribunal that the impugned assessment was the second round of assessment. In the first round, the CIT (A) had set aside the assessment to be done denovo. In the regular assessment, the findings were based on the findings for the Assessment Year 1994-1995 wherein the books of accounts were rejected and average rate of 3% of net sales and other income was applied. It was held by the Tribunal that the assessment was based on the preceding year and in fact, in the current year, there was no material, with which the Assessing Officer could pin down the assessee - no substantial question of law arises
-
2017 (6) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Restrict the determination of the ALP to transactions with the AE rather than on the entire turnover of the Company - Held that:- The Tribunal has held that the figures are available with the Assessing Officer, the details of which has also been filed with the Tribunal. It would be clear that the details of the international transaction are specifically made available and therefore the apprehension of the department as such is misplaced.
Considering the provisions of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, so also the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal suggesting that separate figures of international transaction are available, so also the order referred above. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Disallowance of mark to market loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss - whether the said loss was not a notional loss and hence cannot be allowed - Held that:- Grounds raised in these appeals were similar to the once raised in Income Tax Appeal [2016 (12) TMI 1726 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the said appeal is dismissed by this Court.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1237 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Stay of demand - pre-deposit requirement - Held that:- As the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in requiring the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Be that as it may, from the submissions made before us we are informed that a part of the amount due to satisfy the 15% as ordered by the learned Single Judge has already been remitted by the appellant. Taking note of the above and also the financial constraints that are projected before us, we allow the appellant a period of 8 weeks from today to satisfy the balance amounts that is due.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1236 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 41 - Taxability of income as a perquisite - waiver of loan by creditor - deemed income u/s 41(1) - sum due by the Respondent later on waived off by the lender - applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act - whether waiver of loan by the creditor is taxable as a perquisite under Section 28 (iv) or taxable as a remission of liability under Section 41(1)? - Held that:- Issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing and Consultancy Services Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 364 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held the waiver/written off part of principal amount of loan by JSPL does not constitute income at the hands of the assessee. On the facts of this case and particularly having regard to the nature of business only, it will constitute capital receipt.
There is difference between ‘trading liability’ and ‘other liability’. Section 41 (1) of the IT Act particularly deals with the remission of trading liability. Whereas in the instant case, waiver of loan amounts to cessation of liability other than trading liability. Hence, we find no force in the argument of the Revenue that the case of the Respondent would fall under Section 41 (1) of the IT Act. - Thus answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2017 (6) TMI 1234 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of deduction towards payment of PF and gratuity - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (“GCSA”) authorizes assessee to establish a provident fund for its employees which will be governed by Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 - Held that:- A fund which has been constituted under the GCSA will be treated at par with a fund constituted under scheme formulated as per the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. Thus, a fund which has been constituted under section 72 of the GCSA and administered under section 71 of this Act would be treated as a fund contemplated in be definition of Section 2(38) of the Income Tax Act.
Thus, it is observed that fund constituted by the assessee under GCSA is to be treated at par with, fund recognized by the Chief Commissioner or established under the scheme formulated under the Provident Fund Act, as provided u/s.2(38) of the Act - section 36(l)(iv) and section 40A(9) would come in picture. They provide deduction of any expenditure incurred by assessee by way of contribution towards recognized fund. The assessee fulfills all these conditions. It has been allowed this deduction in the Asstt. Years 2004-05, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. The assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. We allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to grant deduction of amounts paid by the assessee towards provident fund established by it under section 72 of the GCSA. - Decided in favour of assessee
........
|
