|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1720 Records
-
2019 (6) TMI 1703 - ITAT JAIPUR
Disallowing deduction claimed u/s 80P/80P(2)(d) - interest income on FDR(s) with Kota Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. and others - HELD THAT:- As interest earned on the deposits of the assessee’s own fund made in the banks is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a) being the said income is attributable to the business activity of the assessee.
Though there are divergent views on this issue, however, by following the decision of Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Kray Vikray Sangh Ltd [2016 (9) TMI 1385 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] as well as the decision of Totagars Cooperative Sale Society [2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and allow the deduction under section 80P/80P(2)(d) in respect of interest earned on deposits made with the banks/cooperative banks - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1702 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Validity of order passed by CIT(A) u/s 250(6) - method of accounting approved - CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) - AO applied the gross profit margin @ 36.63% to the costs of sales to work out the gross profit earned by the assessee on the goods which have been sold during the year - HELD THAT:- As realized from the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) not only considered and respectfully followed the judgment of jurisdictional Bench of ITAT in the assessee’s own case for Asst.Year:2008-09 but also considered the other three orders passed qua assessment years i.e. 2010-11, 2011-12, & 2012-12, for coming to right and logical conclusions, therefore, in our considered view once there are judgments of the jurisdictional Bench on the identical issues then the Ld. CIT(A) is not under obligation to follow the different reasoning and the order contrary passed by other CIT(A) if any as relied upon by the Ld. CIT-DR for the Asst. Year 2014-15.
CIT(A) has followed the judgments of the jurisdictional Bench, hence the order under challenge does not requires any inference as the same does not suffers from perversity, impropriety and illegality and therefore liable to be sustained and resultantly the appeal of the Revenue Department deserves dismissal.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1701 - ITAT JAIPUR
CIT(A) passed ex parte order - Mandation for CIT-A to give speaking order in writing giving reasons for reaching to the conclusion - HELD THAT:- We found that on all three occasions, the assessee has requested for adjournment and the same was granted. The reasons for adjournment appear to be reasonable and justified. It is also clear from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that within two months from the first date fixed for hearing, he decided the appeal by dismissing the same.
Even final opportunity was not given by the ld. CIT(A) asking the assessee for passing ex parte order in case of non-compliance. We found that since the assessee was collecting details and preparing the submissions, adjournment were sought by him. It is also not a case of complete noncompliance.
We also found that even the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee on merits. As per provisions of Section 250(6) - CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order in writing giving reasons for reaching to the conclusion - order passed by the ld. CIT(A) are not in terms of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1700 - COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA
Anti-competition acts - Contravention of provisions of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) of Competition Act, 2002 - retailers of the Informants were not adhering to the terms of the Distributor Agreements - HELD THAT:- The Commission notes that allegations of the Informants against the OPs pertain to contravention of Section 3 (4) of the Act which provides that any agreement amongst enterprises or persons at different stages or levels of the production chain in different markets, in respect of production, supply, distribution, storage, sale or price of, or trade in goods or provision of services, including (a) tie-in arrangement; (b) exclusive supply agreement;(c) exclusive distribution agreement;(d) refusal to deal; (e) resale price maintenance, shall be an agreement in contravention of provisions of the Act, if such agreement causes or is likely to cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition in India.
The Commission observes that in the instant case, no doubt, there was an agreement between OP-1 and the Informants, in the form of ‘secondary distribution agreement’. Further, the parties to the agreement are in a vertical chain of supply and distribution of Vivo smartphones. However, in order to assess whether such agreement/ any clause(s) of agreement is anti-competitive and causes or is likely to cause AAEC in markets in India, the relative market power of the OPs is to be looked into and thereafter the factors provided under Section 19(3) of the Act need to be examined.
The Commission observes that no evidence of any controlling influence of BBK Enterprise on the economic activities of OP-1 and OP-2, has been furnished by the Informants. The Commission notes that OP-1 has stated that the brands Vivo and Oppo have independent marketing teams and are competitors in the market for sale and distribution of smartphones in India and that BBK Enterprise does not have any director(s) on the board of directors either of OP-1, OP-2 or OP-3, thereby resulting in autonomy in decision making in Vivo. There is no material on record to refute these contentions of the OP. Therefore, the contention of the Informants that combined market share of Vivo, Oppo, OnePlus and Realme be taken to determine market power, is not tenable.
The Commission finds no competition concern in the entire matter. Consequently, the allegation of the Informant, as regards contravention of various provisions of Section 3(4) of the Act by the OPs is not made out - Commission notes that in addition to the aforesaid allegations, the Informants have also alleged that from admission of the OP-1 in its response dated 19.11.2018, it appears that the OPs are facilitating a cartel at the retailer level under the aegis of the All India Mobile Retailers Association, in violation of Section 3(3) of the Act. However, the Commission observes that the Informants have merely raised a general allegation during the proceedings without substantiating the same with any evidence whatsoever and the same has been controverted by the OPs stating that no retailers or AIMRA has been impleaded in the matter by the Informant.
The matter is ordered to be closed forthwith in terms of the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1699 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s.69A - treating the income under the head ‘Short Term Capital Gain’ declared by the assessee as bogus by applying provision of Section 115BEE and taxing it @ 30% - assessee is a doctor by profession and has declared income by way of income from profession, income from salary and income from other sources - assessee is a doctor by profession and has declared income by way of income from profession, income from salary and income from other sources - HELD THAT:- AO has merely gone by the fact that during the investigation carried out by the Department in Kolkata, one of these scrips were found to be used by brokers for providing accommodation entries, but that material fact alone without any other further inquiry or any other material to link that assessee to be involved in any sham transaction or beneficiary of any accommodation entry. Theoretical discussion made by the AO cannot nail the assessee.
The sales turnover of PSIT Infrastructure goes to show that it had the sale turnover at Rs. 328.38 crore in March, 2016 and similarly in case of Pearl Agriculture also sales turnover was Rs. 23.89 crore in March, 2014. Thus, to hold that these companies were purely a paper company without any business credential cannot be accepted.
Assessee had dealt in several scrips over the period of time and has been regular investor in shares and has been showing gain and loss in the shares on year to year basis. No other transaction has been doubted except for two small scrips for over all transaction of 1.23 lacs. This goes to show that bona fide and it cannot be held to be that the assessee was involved in some kind of money laundering or any kind of accommodation entry. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1698 - ITAT KOLKATA
Bogus LTCG - unexplained cash credits u/s 68 - Transaction in scrips - HELD THAT:- Assessee has duly placed on record the relevant contract notes, share certificate(s), detailed corroborative documentary evidence indicating purchase / sale of shares through registered brokers by banking channel, demat statements etc., The Revenue’s only case as per its pleadings and both the lower authorities unanimously conclusion that there is very strong circumstantial evidence against the assessee suggesting bogus STCL accommodation entries
There is not even a single case which could pin-point any making against these assessees which could be taken as a revenue nexus. CBDT’s circular dated 10.03.2003 has itself made it clear that mere search statements in the nature of admission in absence of supportive material do not carry weight.
Coupled with this, hon'ble jurisdictional high court’s other decisions in CIT vs. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (6) TMI 521 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], CIT vs. Shreyahi Ganguly [2012 (9) TMI 1113 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], M/s Classic Growers Ltd [2013 (2) TMI 825 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] also hold such transactions in scrips supported by the corresponding relevant evidence to be genuine.
We adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis therefore to delete the impugned STCL disallowance / addition. Unexplained commission expenditure disallowance, if any shall automatically follow suit as a necessary corollary. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1697 - ITAT BANGALORE
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - diminishing revenue filter application - whether companies having turnover more than 200 crores upto 500 crores has to be regarded as one category? - HELD THAT:- There is no company which was excluded by the CIT(Appeals) by applying diminishing revenue filter and therefore ground by the revenue has no basis and hence dismissed.
Excluding the companies on the basis of turnover - The issue has been settled in several decisions of the Tribunal and has been elaborately discussed by this Tribunal in the case of Autodesk India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 1862 - ITAT BANGALORE]. The Tribunal in this decision after review of entire case laws on the subject, considered the question, whether companies having turnover more than 200 crores upto 500 crores has to be regarded as one category and those companies cannot be regarded as comparables with companies having turnover of less than 200 crores.
Excluded 6 companies on the ground that these companies reflected abnormal profits - On a perusal of the order of CIT(A), we find that the discussion on turnover and abnormal profits and losses filter starts at para 156 and till para 164, there a discussion only about turnover filter and no discussion on abnormal profits & losses filter. In conclusion CIT(A) has held that abnormally high profits or losses making companies should be excluded. Therefore, the grievance projected by the revenue in ground No.6 needs to be accepted.
Functional dissimilarity - 3 companies i.e., Coral Hubs Ltd., Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd. and Eclerx Services Ltd. have to be removed from the final list of comparables chosen by the TPO on functional comparability.
Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd., Jindal Intellicom Pvt. Ltd. and Allsec Technologies Ltd. - Issue whether abnormal profit or loss should result in exclusion of a company is remitted to the TPO for fresh consideration in the light of law that has evolved since the passing of the order of the TPO.
Accentia Technologies Ltd. not to be regarded as comparable company rendering ITeS because of the extra-ordinary events like merger and demerger which had impact on the profit margins of this company.
Genesys International Corporation Ltd. - ITAT Bangalore Bench in the case of Flextronics Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (10) TMI 2653 - ITAT BANGALORE] had excluded this company on the similar ground on which it was excluded by the CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid decision, we find no merits in ground Nos. 8, 9 & 10 raised by the revenue in its appeal.
Deduction allowable u/s 10A - excluding internet charges and expenditure incurred in foreign currency for travel from the export turnover as well as total turnover - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] we are of the view that internet charges and expenditure incurred in foreign currency for travel should be excluded both from export turnover and total turnover. We are of the view that as of today, law declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. Moreover, the order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 357 - SUPREME COURT]. Therefore, we find no merits in the grounds No.1 to 4 raised by the assessee and the same are dismissed.
Setting off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation before computing the deduction u/s 10A - HELD THAT:- Deduction u/s.10A of the Act has to be allowed without setting off the brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of non- Sec.10A units before allowing the deduction under section 10A of the Act. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd [2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] the AO is directed not to set off the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of non 10A units against profits of 10A units before allowing deduction u/s. 10A of the Act.
Disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) - Alternative ples if any disallowance is made under section 40(a)(i) the same should be considered towards 'profits of the undertaking' in computing the eligible deduction under section 10A - HELD THAT:- In the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court Kewal Construction [2013 (7) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] it was held that when disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act goes to enhance the profits that are eligible for deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the deduction under Chapter VIA should be allowed on such increased profit - Thus direct the AO to allow deduction u/s. 10A of the Act on the amount disallowed u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. Thus, ground No.5 raised by the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1696 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - Comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) has expended Rs.42.31 crores on its R&D and a highly risk bearing company and as such, cannot be a suitable comparable vis-à-vis taxpayer which is a captive software provider being remunerated on cost plus mark up basis for rendering 100% services to its AE. Thus we direct Ld. TPO to exclude this company from final set of comparables.
Infosys Ltd. company has been ordered to be excluded in case cited as CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd. [2013 (7) TMI 696 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as observed that this Tribunal while examining comparability of this company with Agnity India Technologies which was also a captive service provider operating on minimal risk providing software development service has excluded this company from list of comparables for reason that it is a giant company in area of development of software, assumption of risk leading to high profits etc. Hon’ble High Court upheld view expressed by this Tribunal for excluding Infosys from list of comparables. We, therefore, direct Ld.TPO/AO to exclude this company from final list of comparables for benchmarking international transactions.
Cat Technologies Ltd. (standalone) - This company is running both software development and maintenance support services. Further, Schedule IX of the Profit and loss account of this company shows that this company is deriving a sum of Rs.8,49,39,375/- from out of software development and consulting services. However no segmental data is available and as stated by Note No.7 of Notes on Account that the company's exclusive business is medical transcription and training software development and consulting services which should be treated as the only reportable segment. We, therefore, direct Ld.TPO to exclude this company from the final list of comparables.
Thirdware Solutions Ltd. - As observed that that this company derives income from sales whereas other income in Schedule XII relates to sales shows that this company is deriving income from sales of licences, from software services, from export of SEZ unit, from export from STPUI unit and a sum from subscriptions. No segmental information is available. We accordingly direct Ld.AO to exclude this company from the final list of comparables.
Tata Elxis Ltd (segmental) - This company cannot be considered to be a mere software developer and over and above, it is involved in products and Innovative functions like visual computing labs. We, therefore, direct Ld. AO/TPO to exclude this company from final list of comparables.
Carving out technical support services from business support services by Ld. TPO without any basis - As in facts of present case Ld.TPO arbitrarily, without any basis, segregated transaction without analysing agreement under which such services has been applied along with business support service. Further in preceding as well subsequent assessment years revenue has accepted approach adopted by assessee. We are inclined to set aside this issue back to TPO to be analysed on basis of equipment entered into by assessee actual nature of transaction being interlinked with each other in the light of aforestated principles laid down by Hon’ble High Courts and Coordinate bench of this Tribunal reproduced hereinabove. Proper opportunity shall be granted to assessee as per law. Accordingly we set aside Ground No. 11 back to Ld.TPO for fresh adjudication.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1695 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of interest u/s. 57(iii) - unsecured loan obtained for investment in the partnership firm - assessee explained that borrowed money was invested as capital in the partnership firm and firm had made capital investment in the purchase of new shops by which future potentiality of earning income by way of profit and remuneration from the partnership firm has been increased because of contribution to the capital account in the partnership firm - HELD THAT:- Assessee has withdrawn more money from the partnership firm than actually invested in the partnership firm. Apart from the above, earning of interest income/share in the profit/remuneration from the partnership firm is assessed under the head profit and gains from business or profession and the assessee could not substantiate that how the income for making investment in the partnership firm would be assessable under the head income from other sources.
As further noticed that judicial pronouncement referred in the case of CIT vs. Rajendra prasad Moody [1978 (10) TMI 133 - SUPREME COURT] is distinguishable from the case of the assessee as in the referred judgment, the issue was pertained to receiving of dividend income on account of investment made in the companies which was assessable as income from other sources u/s. 56 of the act whereas the issue in the case of assessee is contribution made by the assessee in his capital account in the partnership firm and income from the partnership firm would be assessable under the head profit and gains of business.
Thus we observe that as per specific provision of section 28(v) of IT Act any interest, salary etc. earned by a partner from a partnership firm is taxable under the head profit and gains of business or profession and there is no question of categorizing it under the head income from other sources. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 57(iii) since there was no scope for treating such income earned from partnership firm as falling under the head income from other sources. We consider that eligibility for deduction u/s. 57(iii) arises only if expenditure is lead out wholly and exclusively for purpose of earning income which is chargeable under the head income other sources, therefore, we do not find infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1694 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Revision u/s 263 - expenses incurred under the head hiring charges of machinery - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO in the assessment order after disallowing has allowed deduction in respect of expenses incurred under the head hiring charges for machinery. No material has been brought on record by Commissioner of Income Tax to show that the view taken by the AO in the assessment order is unsustainable. We find that similar order u/s 263 was also passed in respect of expenses under this head in the case of assessee itself for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 which was set aside by the Tribunal vide its order.
Capital contribution by partners - CIT admitted that documents in support of capital contribution made by partners were asked by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the same were also furnished by the assessee. However, in his opinion the same was not enough and the AO ought to have made further inquiries in respect of this issue. Thus, we find that it is not the case of lack of inquiry by the AO - CIT could not point out any error in the conclusion of the Assessing Officer which was arrived at by the AO. In our considered view, order u/s 263 could not have been validly passed in respect of this issue.
Low withdrawal by partners - CIT observed that partners, namely, Shri. Bheem Sain, Shri. Bharat Bhushan and Jiwan Kumar has withdrawn Rs.60,000/- each during the year which was considered as low. It is observed that the other partners Shri. Dharam Pal and Shri. Jivan Singla has withdrawn Rs.14,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-. We find that exactly in respect of the very same issue order u/s 263 of the Act passed in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 was cancelled by the Tribunal [2016 (6) TMI 1450 - ITAT AMRITSAR]. We, therefore, following the same hold that order passed u/s 263 of the Act in respect of this issue is also unsustainable.
Cash deposit in HDFC Bank, Sardulgarh Branch and other bank - According to the Ld. Pr. CIT, the source of aforesaid cash deposit in bank was not enquired into by the AO. We find that it is not in dispute that the related bank accounts and cash deposit made therein were duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee. These books of account were not rejected by any authority. The books of account of the assessee itself shows the source of the said deposit in the bank account in absence of any error being pointed out in the books of account or in absence of any finding that the cash deposit in question were not recorded in the books of account. In our considered view, no interfere with the order of the AO was warranted on this issue by invoking power u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, the order passed u/s 263 of the Act in respect of this issue is also not sustainable.
Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1693 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Short Term Capital Gains computation - sale of agricultural land - deduction paid towards cancellation of Banakhat - HELD THAT:- All the parties have disclosed such compensation in their income tax return and have paid the due taxes on such compensation amount. This fact can be verified from the returns of income of the aforesaid parties - Accordingly, we hold that impugned transaction cannot be said to have made to avoid the tax liability.
It is also important to note that the Revenue has accepted the aforesaid compensation paid by the assessee in the case of the co-owner namely Ramji Bhai P Patel in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The copy of the assessment order is placed on record. Thus we hold that once the Revenue has accepted the impugned transaction in the case of the co-owner, the same transaction cannot be disputed/disturbed in the case of another co-owner.
We are of the considered view that there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee on account of the compensation paid to the parties. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1692 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Legality of Auction notice - Validity of the provisions of Section 19(11) of Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
HELD THAT:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ALD AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER NOW UPGRADED AS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) & ORS. [2018 (10) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT] has upheld the validity of Section 19(11) of the said Act. Since the only ground raised by the petitioner has been negatived in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no reason to interfere with the auction notice.
As held in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner, in the instant case, is also granted liberty to file a statutory appeal against the Assessment Orders within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1691 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP Adjustment - interest rate chargeable on the sum advanced by the assessee to its associated enterprises abroad - Assessee submtted rate of interest charged should be LIBOR - HELD THAT:- We find that the commercial expediency aspect of granting interest-free loans is already against the assessee by a Catena of case laws in this regard. Assessee submission that, commercial rationality should be considered in distinction from commercial expediency is not at all convincing. It is evident from the submissions of the learned counsel of the assessee himself that ITAT as well as honourable jurisdictional High Court in several case laws have upheld the applicability of interest rate of LIBOR +200 bps to 300 bps.
In the present case the learned CIT-A has adopted rate of interest of labour +300 bps for assessment year 2010 – 11 which the assessee accepts. In our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case following the precedent’s from ITAT and honourable judicial High Court we hold that arm’s-length interest should be computed at the rate of interest of LIBOR +300 bps. That is the rate adopted by the learned CIT-A for assessment year 2010-11 is also directed to be adopted for assessment year 2009-10. Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and revenues appeal stands dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1690 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan from persons/entities engaged in providing accommodation entry - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the order of the Coordinate Bench [2019 (3) TMI 1835 - ITAT MUMBAI] entire transactions were routed through the banking channels and thus the assessee has discharged the primary onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.
Another allegation of the AO is that assessee has failed to produce the parties and hence question of providing cross examination does not arise which is without merit as the assessee has discharged its onus by providing all the basic documentary evidences before the AO who just relying on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain treated the loan transactions as unexplained credit in the books of the assessee. On the issue that these lenders are showing low income or losses in the return of income filed, we observe that in the balance sheets the said loan advanced by the lender were duly reflected and thus there is no income in the particular year has no relevance and there were sufficient sources. Under these circumstances, we, after taking into consideration contentions m, submissions and written submissions of both the parties and after analyzing the various case laws relied upon by the rival parties , are of the view that order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is well reasoned and there is no reasons to deviate from the findings of the ld CIT(A) and therefore same is being upheld by dismissing the appeal of the revenue
-
2019 (6) TMI 1689 - ITAT DELHI
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Royalty receipt - Appellant liability to be assessed to tax in India - India-USA Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement - HELD THAT:- Identical issues were considered by the co-ordinate bench [2019 (4) TMI 1426 - ITAT DELHI] wherein held the issue in favour of the assessee and answer the issue stating that the income received by the assessee cannot be taxed as royalty in India. Needless to say, that the question of interest is only consequential in nature.
Revenue went in further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court [2019 (4) TMI 2092 - DELHI HIGH COURT] relying on the judgment in the case of GE Packaged Power Inc [2015 (1) TMI 1168 - DELHI HIGH COURT] confirmed the order of the Tribunal - we allow the grounds raised by the assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1688 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s.80IB(10) on pro-rata basis - proportionate/pro-rata deduction - AO observed that the project was not a 6 floor project but each wing had 10 or 12 floors and 4 flats on each floor, whereas the assessee had taken permission and completion as on 31-03-2012 for only 72 flats, thus AO disentitled the assessee to the entire amount of deduction claimed u/s.80IB(10) - HELD THAT:-The factual recording made by the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee did not claim any deduction in respect of the flats which were not completed upto the year ending has not been controverted by the DR.
AR submitted that the issue raised in these appeals is no more res integra in view of an order passed in the case of M/s. Om Associates [2018 (6) TMI 1581 - ITAT PUNE] the Tribunal has held the assessee to be entitled to pro-rata deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of the completed buildings.
DR fairly conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals are mutatis mutandis covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal which, has been rendered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the precedent, we approve the view canvassed by the CIT(A) in the impugned orders. Revenue appeals are dismissed.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1687 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance towards provision for warranty expenses - eligible expenditure u/s 37(1) - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and provision for warranty has been duly accepted as revenue expenditure by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Pr.CIT vs. Hitachi Home & Life Solution (I) Ltd. [2018 (10) TMI 1817 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
The provision for warranty expenses has been held to be allowable expenditure by the Hon’ble supreme Court in Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] as referred to and relied upon by the CIT(A) correctly - Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1686 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Restoration of name of company - the name of the company was struck off after duly complying with the provisions of Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013 and after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the company, Directors and other Stakeholders. Neither the company furnished any reply to the letters nor filed financial statements and annual returns. - Income Tax Authorities on receipt of notices filed reply stating that, assesse did not file its Income Tax Return for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. However, appellants' company for the first time has filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17 and thereafter for the AY 2017-18 and 2018-19.
HELD THAT:- The revenue from operations of the Appellants' Company was NIL till 31.03.2017. Company has agricultural land as per the sale deed submitted. The Appellants' Company has not been filing Income Tax Return since AY 2010-11 to 2015-16.
It appears that the company is not a going concern, but has some land asset and liabilities and to would be just and equitable in the interest of the Company, its Shareholders and Creditors, the name of the Company be ordered to be restored by this Bench while exercising its jurisdiction U/s 252 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rules made thereunder.
The Registrar of Companies, the Respondent herein, is ordered to restore the original status of the Appellant Company as if the name of the Company has not been struck off from the Register of Companies and take all consequential actions such as change of Company's status from 'Strike Off to 'Active' (for e-filing), restoration of status of DIN etc.
The Appellant Company is directed to file all the statutory document(s) along with prescribed fees/additional fee/fine as decided by RoC within thirty days from the date on which its name is restored on the Register of Companies by the RoC besides Income Tax Returns.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1685 - ITAT BANGALORE
Delayed payment of employees contribution to Provident Funds and ESI beyond due dates prescribed under PF Act and ESI Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee which is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of Jockey brand inner garments claimed deduction which was employees contribution to ESI & PF, which was paid beyond the due date as per the relevant governing contribution to PF & ESI, but was nevertheless paid on or before the due date for filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) - There is no dispute that if the employees contribution to PF & ESI is paid on or before due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then there can be no disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act and it was so held in the case of CIT v. Sabari Industries [2007 (7) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]
DR, however, placed reliance on a contrary decision rendered in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which is the jurisdictional High Court is to be followed by the Tribunal. Consequently, we find no merit in the relevant ground No.1 of appeal of the revenue.
Deduction u/s. 80JJAA which has been wrongly referred to as 115JJAA - HELD THAT:- We find that in AY 2007-08 identical issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal [2015 (7) TMI 1117 - ITAT BANGALORE] and the Tribunal in its order [2015 (7) TMI 1117 - ITAT BANGALORE] allowed similar claim of the Assessee. The tribunal of the aforesaid order held that once a new workmen is employed in a previous year and works for 300 days in that year the additional wages paid to him is to be allowed as deduction at 30% of the additional wages paid to him in that year should be allowed as deduction for three Assessment years and that he need not be in employment for the subsequent period for claiming deduction u/s.80JJAA - It was held that once the deduction is allowed in the first year then, 30% of such additional wages is allowable as deduction in each of the subsequent two years.
In Assessee’s own case [2016 (12) TMI 1887 - ITAT BANGALORE] the Tribunal remanded identical issue to the AO for fresh consideration. Similar order was passed in AY 2010-11 [2016 (7) TMI 1012 - ITAT BANGALORE]. Since in the later orders on identical issue, the Tribunal has remanded to the AO for fresh consideration of the issue, we deem it fit to restore this issue to the AO for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Consequently, Gr.No.2 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1684 - ITAT JAIPUR
Deduction u/s 35(1)(iii) - undisclosed expenditure for acquiring accommodation entry in the name of donation - donation made to M/s School of Human Genetics & Population Health, Kolkata when the said donation was bogus and the whole transaction a SHAM transaction - commission paid for obtaining entry of donation - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) found that he has considered the facts and circumstances of the instant case, which are pari materia to the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of M/s P.R. Rolling Mills P. Ltd. [2018 (7) TMI 737 - ITAT JAIPUR] and allowed the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Act and also deleted the addition made by the A.O. on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining entry of donation.
As the facts and circumstances of the instant case are pari materia to the facts dealt with by the Tribunal in the great deal with respect to the donation given to the very same institution i.e. M/s School of Human Genetics & Population Health, Kolkata after considering the CBDT notification No. 4/2010 dated 28/01/2010. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of donation claimed U/s 35(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of donation to M/s School of Human Genetics & Population Health, Kolkata. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
........
|
