|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1247 Records
-
2015 (5) TMI 1218 - ITAT CHENNAI
Computation of capital gain addition - indexed cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee obtained 75 cents of land from his mother by means of settlement deed dated 23.01.2004. The assessee also sold the land during the year under consideration and claimed capital gain by adopting the value as on 01.04.1981. AO disallowed the claim on the ground that the asset was owned only on 23.01.2004. Therefore, the value as on 23.01.2004 is to be adopted in respect of the property received by the assessee from his mother. We find that the Bombay High Court in the case of Manjula J. Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] had an occasion to consider an identical issue.
Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to compute the indexed cost of acquisition from 01.04.1981 in view. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1217 - ITAT CHENNAI
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - HELD THAT:- As in assessee own case [2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI] Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee. Since, the very project is considered by the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year, viz., Chettinad Enclave, and the Tribunal already held that the assessee is a developer and entitled for deduction under sec.80IB(10) of the Act, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue for this assessment year also.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1216 - ITAT INDORE
Addition on account of processing charges paid for availing personal and home loans - Expenditure not connected with business - disallowance u/s 37(1) - whether section 40a(ia) is applicable to it or not? - HELD THAT:- The assessee has paid interest on housing loan and claimed as business expenditure. We find from the order that the assessee has taken housing loan from HDFC Bank and he has also taken housing loan from Indiabulls Private Limited. It is the contention of the assessee that the assessee has taken this housing loan but this loan has been used in his jewellery business. Therefore, this may be allowed as business expenditure, but we find that the housing loan is taken from Indiabulls and Reliance Capital for construction of house, therefore, we are of the view that the AO, has not verified whether this housing loan has been used for construction for construction of house or not. The AO has also not verified from the Bank as to how the assessee has taken his loan from Indiabulls and Reliance Capital for construction of house and housing loan has been used in business purpose. Therefore, we restore this issue to the file of AO and the AO is directed to verify from Bank and concerned companies for what purpose the assessee has taken this loan and housing loan and how it was used and how it was shown to be taken from India bulls Housing Finanace and Reliance Capital. The AO is directed to make the inquiry and if the AO finds that the assessee has taken this housing loan for which housing loans are given for business purpose, then processing charges and interest payment should be decided accordingly. The AO is directed to verify whether section 40a(ia) is applicable to it or not.
Addition u/s 68 - assessee has taken unsecured loan from the above parties and has not submitted the income tax returns of the depositors - HELD THAT:- The assessee has submitted the balance sheet and list of sundry creditors. The accounts of the two borrowers show that there was no movement in the accounts of the two parties. The borrowing amount was not paid since last three years, therefore, the AO has held that liability is ceased. Therefore, he has added it u/s 41(1) of the Act. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugauli Sugars [1999 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it is clearly held that if any liability which the assessee wanted to pay this amount, then the Limitation Act would not apply and the liability still remains. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in his action and our Pinterference is not required.
Gross profit addition by 2 % - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO has not pointed out any specific explanation or evidence in rejecting the claim of low gross profit rate. The books of the assessee are audited by statutory auditors. The assessee has given the reasons that there was fall in gross profit due to the market condition on account of rate of fluctuation in gold and silver ornaments. Looking to these facts in to consideration, we are of the view that it is proper and appropriate to restrict the addition on account of gross profit @ 2.5 % instead of 2% adopted by the ld. CIT(A). In the result, this ground is partly allowed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1214 - ITAT MUMBAI
Block assessment order u/s.158 BC - Assessment order passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act - undisclosed income for block period - whether or not the panchnama of 6.2.1998 is of the type mentioned in the Explanation 2(a) to Section 158BE(1)? - HELD THAT:- It has to be inferred that the panchnama of 6.2.1998 cannot be understood as a panchnama of type mentioned in Explanation 2(a) to section 158BE(1) - A natural collorary of the aforesaid is that the period of limitation prescribed in section 158BE(1) for passing the block assessment order u/s. 158BC in the present case cannot be computed by considering the panchnama of 6.2.1998 as execution of the last of the authorizations for search initiated by the authorization u/s 132 dated 8.12.1997.
Search operations were also carried out at two other premises i.e. at Sonawala Building and at Krishna Niwas. The search operations at these premises came to an end on 16.1.1998 and 8.1.1998 respectively as is revealed by the Panchnama’s on record. In any case, on these aspects, there is no dispute between the assessee and the Revenue.
Last day when the authorization of search dated 8.12.1997 was finally executed / concluded is 16.1.1998 for the purpose of section 158BE(1)(b) of the Act. Considered in the said light, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer on 23.2.2000 is beyond the period of limitation prescribed in section 158BE(1)(b) of the Act. As a consequence the assessment order dated 23.2.2000 is untenable in the eyes of the law and it is hereby quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1213 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exemption u/s 11 - registration u/s 12A denied - CIT, while rejecting the registration sought by the assessee by order dated 28.12.2011, has observed that the Carmel Matriculation Higher Secondary School, which is said to be run by M/s. Carmel Education and Charitable Trust, being the applicant, it is already functioning under the trust called “Little Flower Education Society” - HELD THAT:- School of the applicant is already functioning under a trust, which is registered under the provisions of section 12A - The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has directed the ld. CIT to give an opportunity to the assessee and decide the issue afresh.
CIT gave opportunity to the assessee as per the directions of the Tribunal and passed the order dated 21.03.2013. No infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT for the reason that as per the directions of the Tribunal, the ld. CIT has given reasonable opportunity and decided the issue in accordance with law. Even before us, assessee has not able to point out any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT. Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1212 - ITAT CUTTACK
Addition u/s 40A(3) - Cash payment for transporting charges in excess of ₹ 20,000/- for a single transaction - CIT-A restricted the disallowance @ 10% - assessee argued that the AO has pointed out only two expenses of truck No.1152 and truck No.2096 where each payment on a single day though was below ₹ 20,000/- but after aggregate the expenses is less than ₹ 20,000/- therefore, no addition is called for - HELD THAT:- On one hand, the CIT(A) is holding the order of the AO as wild and capricious and no estimate should have been made whereas on the other hand, he himself is restricting the disallowance at 10% of total claim, which is contradicting his decision.
AO has pointed out only two instances with respect to truck No.1152 and truck No.2096 where each payment is less than ₹ 20,000/- and, therefore, in our view no violation of provisions of section 40A(3) with respect to two instances have been made. No addition is called for and addition so sustained by the ld CIT(A) is directed to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1211 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest paid to Star India Pvt. Ltd. - Addition of interest as loan transactions have not been declared in Form 3CEB and, therefore, escaped addition of Transfer Pricing officer - assessee is engaged in business of trading in rights of cinematographic films and television programme software etc. - as per AO held that advance was not taken as business expediency, but was to evade taxable income in the hands of the assessee - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As found from the record that the financial statements of assessee evidenced utilization of borrowed funds for procuring rights in respect of various genres of films from third parties for sale to SGL Entertainment. As such borrowed funds on which interest has been paid were utilized for purpose or business entitling assessee to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(iii).
Regarding A.O.’s observation that the act of borrowing funds from SIPL is not in business expediency and with a view to avoid taxability in the hands or the assessee, we found that funds were borrowed from SIPL for business purpose, the expenses being wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business based on commercial expediency. Interest expenses were incurred for purpose of assessee's own business, profits of which are chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. Whether a particular expenditure is necessary considering commercial expediency has to be decided from the point of view of businessman alone and not by the Revenue authorities.
As per the finding recorded by the CIT(A), M/s Star India Pvt. Ltd. is not coming within the purview of Section 40A(2), therefore, it cannot be said that interest so paid to a related party so as to avoid burden of tax on the assessee. The detailed findings of the CIT(A) recorded at para 2.3 and 2.3.1 has not been controverted by department by bringing any positive material on record. No reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) deleting disallowance on interest. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1210 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Cancellation of registration u/s. 12AA(3) - charitable activity u/s 2(15) - as per CIT activities of the assessee's Trust, which involves rendering of services in relation to the port related business of stevedores and clearing and forwarding agents at Visakhapatnam Port, has a prominently commercial tinge about it, which fact has not been denied by the assessee trust so far - HELD THAT:- The undisputed fact is that the objects of the assessee society are charitable in nature. It was for this reason that the Ld. CIT had granted registration to the assessee w.e.f. 19.1.1994 - ITAT in the assessee's own case for the earlier AY [2010 (1) TMI 1276 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM]held that the assessee is a charitable organization. Right from the year 1994-95, the assessee has been claiming exemption u/s. 11 and the Revenue has been granting the same.
Whether the Ld. CIT was right in cancelling the registration by invoking his powers u/s. 12AA(3)? - In the case on hand the Ld. CIT clearly gives a finding that the assessee is carrying on its activities in accordance with the objects. There is no finding arrived at by the Ld. CIT, that the activities of the assessee Trust are not genuine. Hence on facts there is no dispute that the activities of the Institution are genuine and that the assessee trust is carrying on its activities in accordance with its objects. In the absence of contrary findings, we have to hold that the Ld. CIT was wrong in invoking the provisions u/s. 12AA(3)
As the conditions specified under the section 12AA(3) have not been satisfied, the cancellation of registration is bad in law. The finding of the Ld. CIT that the provisions of S. 12AA(3) need to be construed in a holistic manner, with a view to give effect to the object which the legislation intends to achieve and to derecognize the objects of the assessee, on the ground that they are not charitable under certain circumstances prescribed in both the provisions of S. 2(15) of the Act, in letter and spirit, is not the correct position of law. This interpretation is not based on a plain reading of the provisions of the Statute. The Courts have stated the manner in which this section has to be interpreted. Thus, we uphold the contentions of the assessee the very invocation of the power of cancellation of registration by the Ld. CIT u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act is bad in law.
Cancel registration u/s. 12AA(3) with retrospective effect from 1.4.2009 relevant to the AY 2009-10 - This issue is no more res integra. Withdrawal of registration with retrospective effect from 1.4.2009 by the order passed u/s. 12AA(3), is bad in law.
Whether the registration can be cancelled on the ground that the activities of the assessee attract the provisos to S. 2(15) ? - Assessee is not operating with a profit motto and that its activities are not in the nature of business and that the objects and activities of the trust are charitable in nature as recognized by the Ld. CIT when registration was granted. "Profit motto" is sine-qua-non of business or service in the nature of business. As there is no profit motive, there is no business activity.
a) The finding of the Ld. CIT, Visakhapatnam is that the assessee falls under the category "advancement of any other object of general public utility" u/s. 2(15) of the Act. Hence is a charitable organization. The only issue is whether the assessee falls within the ken of the provisos inserted to S. 2(15) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1.4.2009; When the finding of the ITAT is that the assessee activities are not with any "profit motive" and when it is held that the assessee is not carrying on any business, then the provisions to sec. 2(15) of the Act are not attracted in the case on hand and exemption cannot be withdrawn.
(b) In this case the fee/labour charge that has to be charged, are fixed by Visakhapatnam Port Trust through the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and this fee is charged for supply of labour, which is in turn paid to the labour force. Such charge of fee, can not in our opinion be construed as commercial activity carried out by the Trust, when the tests laid down by various Courts are applied to the facts of this case.
(c) The main and predominant object of the assessee is to promote the welfare of the workers. The assessee is admittedly formed for supply of labour when there is shortage of work force in the port and for taking care of the welfare of the workers. The maximum expenditure incurred by the assessee is towards payment for the workers and for their welfare. The prime object of the assessee is not to do trade, commerce or business or rendering of any activity or services in relation to trade, commerce or business etc. The assessee has no profit motto. Hence the Proviso to S. 2(15) does not apply to the case of the assessee.
Thus the cancellation of registration granted u/s. 12A(a) of the Act is bad in law.
Violation of provisions of S. 13(3)(g) r.w.s. 13(cc) - Representative of M/s. South India Corporation Ltd. was not a trustee of the assessee trust, during the period when excess fee collected was refunded. This factual position, as already stated, was not controverted by the Ld. CIT, D.R. Thus prima facie, invocation of S. 13(2)(g) of the Act rws 13(3)(cc) is bad in law.
Fee to be charged by the assessee trust is fixed by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust through the Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board - Visakhapatnam Port refunded an aggregate amount of ₹ 7.99 crores, of which, an amount of ₹ 4.39 crores was adjusted by credit notes and the balance only was refunded to the party to which it was due. This amount was refunded to South India Corporation Ltd. on various dates during the A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Refunding the amount legally due to a party cannot be considered a violation of any of the provisions of the Act much less violation of S. 13 of the Act. The amount is rightfully and legally due to M/s. South India Corporation. In fact the Ld. CIT, Visakhapatnam has without proper verification of the facts, come to such wrong conclusions. Thus we reverse this finding of the Ld. CIT, Visakhapatnam and hold that there is no violation of Sec. 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2)(g) and 13(3) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1209 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of assessing officer to levy of compounding fee - Agreeing of petitioner for levy of compounding fee - release of detained goods on payment of tax - non-application of mind - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Following the decision in the case of M/S. TRISTAR KITCHENS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) , CHENNAI [2015 (3) TMI 1375 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], this Court is constrained to set aside the impugned order - petition allowed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction u/s 80IC - AO denied deduction on the ground that assessee had not filed the return within specified time u/s 139(1) because as per records the return was filed on 1-10-2009 and not on 30-9-2009 - assessee’s contention that the return was actually uploaded and filed on the site of the Income-tax department at 12.46AM on 1-102009 and thus there was only a technical delay of 46 minutes in filing of return which, in any case, was filed before the commencement of the next working day - HELD THAT:- Section 80AC provides that deduction u/s 80IC shall be allowed to assessee if the return is filed on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. The provisions of section 80AC are directory and even the Board may, under the provision of section 119, condone the delay in order to avoid undue hardship.
In the present case it cannot be said that the delay was, in any manner, mala fide. On the contrary, the assessee was vigilant enough to file the return at the midnight. We, therefore, condone the delay in filing the return.
As far as ld. CIT(A)’s direction to the AO is concerned, we find that the assessee itself has clearly stated in its reply reproduced by AO in the assessment order, that the return was uploaded at 12.46 AM on 1-10-2009. Therefore, there was no necessity for restoring the matter to the file of AO for any verification.
Cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed and, therefore, the department’s appeal has become infructuous. However, since the AO has not examined the assessee’s claim u/s 80IC in detail and has rejected the same only on the ground of delay in filing of the return, we restore the matter to the file of AO for examining the assessee’s claim u/s 80IC. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1207 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Regularization of Land - petitioner would submit that the petitioner is from schedule tribe and was not aware about the procedure for regularizing the land, which is under his cultivation, situated in forest area, he could not apply for the same within time - HELD THAT:- The concerned department or president or secretary of village, where the land is situated, shall inform the petitioner in advance at the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition as and when the procedure to regularize such lands is undertaken - petitioner shall, thereafter, apply immediately to the concerned authority with regard to his claim.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1206 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Instruction to accept the defendants’ offer of payment alongwith interest - HELD THAT:- Defendants are directed to pay to plaintiff ₹ 4,00,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 12% per annum within twelve weeks. But, 25% of the principal sum, namely, ₹ 1,00,00,000/- shall be paid on or before 7th July, 2015. It is also agreed between the parties that in the event of default of payment of 25% of principal amount within the time stipulated here in above, the entire suit shall stand decreed.
The present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1205 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions/disallowances while completing the assessment order based on the comments/observation made by the special auditor and C&AG, that the FAA confirmed the additions/disallowances - HELD THAT:- AO had made additions/disallowances on four counts and first among them is about income accrued to the assessee on account of OWK Tunnel Project. The FAA found that because of the dispute going with the Govt. of AP the assessee was not sure as to how much additional compensation would be given to the sub contractor or when it would be paid. In these circumstances if the assessee had showed the income in the year of receipt it cannot be said that it had concealed its particulars of income. It is not the case of the AO that the assessee had not disclosed the fact of ongoing dispute with the AP Govt. or the fact that amount was to be paid to sub -contractor.
Income arising from the other projects had been shown by the assessee in the return so there was no justification of invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) - As far as the disallowance of certain item and capitalization of those expenses is concerned we are of the opinion that no concealment was involved in those transactions. The assessee had furnished all the details and claimed 100% depreciation as per the advice of the ICAI. The difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO about the allowability of the depreciation cannot and should not lead to levy of concealment penalty. Penalty could not be imposed, as a matter of course.
The assessee was truthful in submitting its return and making a claim for depreciation on its understanding of law. This was not a case of claim of depreciation on machinery which was not purchased. Courts are of the view that where basic information has been provided by the assessee then for a claim made by the assessee and disallowed by the AO penalty u/s.271(1) (c)cannot be levied. Here one more thing is to be remembered that the C&AG had dropped the comments made by it about the disputed amounts. Similarly on the issue of as to whether an expenditure is capital or revenue no concealment penalty can be levied.
No authority is required to support the view. Making additions or disallowing certain expenses during the assessment proceedings is totally different from invoking penal provisions. There is no provision in the Act of automatic levy of penalty for the additions/disallowances made. Penalty can be levied if it is established that the assessee had not disclosed necessary facts or that the explanation filed by it is not bona fide or plausible. We find that the FAA has given a clear finding of fact that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars that the explanation given by the assessee was bonafide.
As decided in RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (5) TMI 1204 - ITAT JAIPUR
Characterization of income - profit from sale of land - assessee was engaged in the business of real estate development - whether asset referred was agricultural land? - As per DR there was no agricultural activity on the said land and assessee is in the real estate business individually or through companies - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that the assessee purchased a land in individual capacity from Shri Sitaram Meena and Shri Ramu Jat as agricultural land on agreement to sale. Thereafter the assessee had sold this land to GFFR on agreement to sale as per Section 2(47) of the Act. The NA was got done by GFFR in both the cases. Thereafter land was transferred to M/s Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Pvt. Ltd. The land was beyond 8 kms from the municipal limit which has not been controverted by the ld DR as well as by the ld Assessing Officer. The ld CIT(A) had given detailed findings on it. The assessee claimed this gain on transfer of these lands as exempted. As the use as per land revenue record was agricultural land. Thereafter GFFR has disclosed the income on transfer of this land to M/s Grass Field Fire Capital Developers Pvt. Ltd.. The assessee had purchased these lands for investment not for trading. The frequency of transactions showed that the assessee was not in trading of land. The land transaction of village Khatwad was not even pertained to year under consideration. Therefore, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1203 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Forgery - cheating - Confirmation of the authenticity of documents submitted by the respondent - HELD THAT:- There is no legal infirmity in the same. Sitting in this jurisdiction after the dismissal of revision petition, there is no scope our interference unless the orders passed by the trial Court or revisional Court are perverse and against the law. No such material is available in this regard.
Petition dismissed.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80 HHC by excluding 90% net profit on account of hire of barge charges, Machinery and Shipping agency fees - HELD THAT:- Aforesaid question now stands concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT]
We must record the caveat put forth by Mr. Pardiwala, the learned counsel for the respondent that this agreement is without prejudice to the contentions taken in the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment (Assessment Year 1996-1997) - Substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent – assessee and against the revenue.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1201 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Appointment of an Arbitrator - case of petitioner is that Petitioner was made to sign the supplementary agreement under duress and coercion - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the view that the above question whether the discharge certificate and supplementary agreement were signed by the Petitioner under duress, would require evidence to be led and is therefore required to be examined by the learned Arbitrator.
Appointment of an Arbitrator - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the Respondent forfeited its right under the arbitration clause since it failed to appoint an Arbitrator despite invocation of the arbitration clause by the Petitioner on 5th May 2014, followed by another letter dated 12th January 2015.
The Court appoints Mr. Ram Prakash, former District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, residing at B-52, Sector 49, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201301 (Mob. No. 9990177710) as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties including their claims and counter-claims. The arbitration shall take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DAC) - The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be in terms of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules.
Petition disposed off.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1200 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - rejection of claim of registration u/s 12AA - Validity of reasons to believe - HELD THAT:- In the reason recorded by the AO dt. 29th Jan., 2008 (for all the three assessment years) he has referred to the opening balance of the Trust fund at ₹ 15,92,245 which is the basis of formation of belief that a part of the above donation exceeding ₹ 1 lac, being the income as per s. 2(24)(iia) has escaped assessment; whereas the returns of income already stood filed as stated hereinabove with no donation exceeding ₹ 1 lac having escaped assessment demonstrating clearly that the very basis of forming the belief had no rational connection or relevant bearing on the formation of the belief. In other words, the belief entertained by the AO was not at all bona fide. In fact, the opinion formed is based on wrong and incorrect facts and suspicion.
AO proceeded for reopening of assessment on non-existent and factually incorrect reasons and he did not apply his mind prior to recording of reasons. In the reasons recorded by the AO, it is clearly stated that, "For the asst. yr. 2001-02, the assessee has not filed any income-tax return. Moreover, no returns for the asst. yrs. 2002-03 and 2003-04 have been filed." On the contrary, the AO himself has admitted in the assessment orders that the returns for all the three years under consideration were filed by the assessee. Not only this, even the learned CIT(A) has affirmed this fact. It is relevant to observe here that the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments reproduced by the AO in the assessment order and by learned CIT(A) in para 3.1 of the impugned order are not the actual/original reasons recorded by the AO for reopening of the assessments.
These are the findings given by the learned CIT-I, Ludhiana for refusing to grant registration to the assessee trust. It is clear that both the authorities below have wrongly considered the findings given by the learned CIT-I, Ludhiana as reasons recorded for reopening of the assessments. Therefore, on this score alone, the reassessment orders are not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (5) TMI 1199 - ITAT COCHIN
Proceedings u/s. 153C - Whether the addition made to the total income on account of income generated on sale of liquor not recorded in the books (suppressed sale of liquor) for A.Y. 07-08 can be sustained? - difference of opinion between the two Members constituting the Division Bench of ITAT, Cochin, the matter was referred to the Third Member by the Hon’ble President u/s. 255(4) - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Third member has agreed with the view taken by the Hon’ble Judicial Member in respect of both the questions referred above. Accordingly, as per the majority view, both the issues cited above are decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2015 (5) TMI 1198 - ITAT DELHI
TP Adjustment - A.O. passed a draft assessment order - assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (D.R.P.). Thereafter the D.R.P. passed its order u/s 144C(5) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. passed order u/s 143(3) read with section 144C - HELD THAT:- We find that the D.R.P. has not passed a speaking order in this case for both the A.Ys. The assessee has raised a number of contentions before the D.R.P. and none of these contentions were considered by the D.R.P.
Under these circumstances we have no other alternative but to remand the matter back to the file of the D.R.P., with a direction that D.R.P. shall pass a speaking order on each and every contention raised by the assessee. It shall also give its views on various case laws cited by the assessee. In the result both these appeals are set aside to the file of the A.O. and are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
........
|
