|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 591 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 490
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a challenge to the correctness of an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. The primary issues are whether a loss debited to the Profit & Loss Account should be added back for computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB, and whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Issue 1: Challenge to Correctness of Order u/s 263:
The appellant challenged the order u/s 263, arguing that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Commissioner required the assessee to show cause as to why the order should not be revised under section 263 due to the non-addition of a loss of Rs. 919.52 lakhs in the computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB.
Issue 2: Treatment of Loss in Profit & Loss Account:
The dispute centered around whether the loss of Rs. 919.52 lakhs debited to the Profit & Loss Account should be added back for computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB. The appellant contended that the loss arising from the transfer of investments was not required to be added back as it was not contemplated under Section 115JB.
Issue 3: Legal Interpretation and Precedents:
The appellant cited various judgments and legal provisions to support their position that the loss should not be added back for computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. However, the Commissioner rejected these contentions and held that the loss should have been added back as it was a fictitious loss on capital reduction, which was required for computation of Book Profit.
Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the issue of adding back the loss in question for computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB. The Tribunal held that unless specific enabling provisions for adjustment in section 115JB were absent, the Book Profit, as per the profit and loss account, could not be altered. The Tribunal also noted that the loss in question was a loss on reduction of capital, which did not violate any provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, the Tribunal vacated the revision order, ruling in favor of the appellant.
This judgment highlights the importance of proper consideration of legal provisions and precedents in tax assessments, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory requirements in computing Book Profit under the Income Tax Act.
-
2012 (3) TMI 489
Issues:
- Disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs. 1,57,12,754 by the Assessing Officer.
- Interpretation of the judgment in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 by the Assessing Officer.
- Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the Revenue.
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2008-09. The primary issue revolves around the disallowance of a depreciation claim amounting to Rs. 1,57,12,754 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer based this disallowance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43, which dealt with the treatment of capital expenditure for acquiring assets. The assessee, a charitable institution, argued that the judgment was not applicable to their case and cited several case laws in support of their claim. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal, finding the Assessing Officer's treatment of depreciation as unjustified.
The Revenue, feeling aggrieved by the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, presented the appeal on the grounds that the denial of the depreciation claim was erroneous. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the assessment order, asserting the correctness of the Assessing Officer's view. In contrast, the Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the judgment in Escorts Ltd. was not applicable and referenced judgments from various High Courts that favored the assessee's position. Notably, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana had distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in a similar case, supporting the assessee's argument.
Upon considering the arguments and case laws presented by both parties, the Tribunal found merit in the High Court's distinction of the Supreme Court's judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue had already been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, and therefore, found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision. Ultimately, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s order.
-
2012 (3) TMI 488
Issues involved: Department's appeal for the assessment year 2007-08 challenging the deletion of certain additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Ground No. 1: The Department contended that the ld. CIT(A)'s order was wrong, perverse, and against the law.
Ground Nos. 2 & 3: The Department challenged the deletion of additions of Rs. 56,57,120/- for repair and maintenance expenses and Rs. 18,09,618/- for depreciation on furniture, fixture, and plant and machinery. The Tribunal referred to a previous order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that the expenses were correctly accounted for and offered for taxation, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.
Ground No. 4: The Department disputed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 23,14,444/- made u/s 14A of the I.T. Act read with Rule 8D of the I.T. Rules. The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient resources to cover the investments, no interest costs were incurred, and the expenditure on portfolio management services was duly accounted for. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition, as the facts remained unchallenged.
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order in all respects.
-
2012 (3) TMI 487
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order for AY 2007-08 regarding restriction of business expenses addition.
Summary:
The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A) order dated 3rd November, 2011 for AY 2007-08, challenging the restriction of addition of Rs. 28,66,103 to Rs. 8,21,636 on account of disallowance of business expenses. During the hearing, the assessee's counsel pointed out that the issue was identical to a previous appeal for AY 2002-03, where the Tribunal had upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The Revenue's appeal for AY 2002-03 had been rejected by the Tribunal on 30th March, 2012. Considering the previous decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order in the current case. Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 30th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 486
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of expenditure under "overburden Cutting and Removal of Ore" as capital in nature.
2. Disallowance of interest u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
3. Disallowance of expenditure under "amortization of lease rent" as capital expenditure.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure under "Overburden Cutting and Removal of Ore"
The assessee contested the confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 17,75,71,809 as capital expenditure for "overburden Cutting and Removal of Ore." The Assessing Officer (AO) held this expenditure as capital nature within the ambit of Section 35E of the I.T. Act, 1961, relying on the decision in Muthalah Chettair (M.L.M) v. CIT. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, citing various precedents that classified such expenditures as capital nature. However, the Tribunal found that the removal of overburden is a continuous operation carried on simultaneously with the production of iron ore, and thus, the provisions of Section 35E are not applicable. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT and CIT v. Amalgamated Jambad Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., concluding that the expenditure is revenue in nature and directed the deletion of the disallowance.
Issue 2: Disallowance of Interest u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961
The AO disallowed Rs. 2,44,31,579 u/s 14A, asserting that the assessee used borrowed funds for investments generating exempt income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that the investments were made from surplus funds and internal accruals, not borrowed funds, and provided cash flow statements to support this claim. The Tribunal found that the investments were indeed made from the assessee's own funds, and the borrowed funds were used for specific business purposes. Citing decisions in CIT v. Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd., Godrej Industries Ltd. v. DCIT, and others, the Tribunal held that the disallowance u/s 14A was not justified and directed its deletion.
Issue 3: Disallowance of Expenditure under "Amortization of Lease Rent"
The AO disallowed Rs. 6,00,000 claimed as amortization of lease rent, treating it as capital expenditure. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, relying on decisions in Ramkrishna & Co. v. CIT and Green v. Favourite Cinemas Ltd. The assessee argued that the lump sum lease payment should be amortized over the lease period. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting that the lease rent paid in advance for the lease period is a revenue expenditure and should be spread over the lease term. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the disallowance.
Conclusion
The Tribunal set aside the disallowances made by the lower authorities on all three issues and directed the deletion of the respective additions. The Stay Petition filed by the assessee was rendered infructuous and rejected.
-
2012 (3) TMI 485
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- The ideal situation to find out that Assessing Officer has investigated an issue in a purposeful manner is that discussion in respect of that issue should discern from the order itself. If no discussion is available in the order then it has to be gathered from the material available on record. On an analysis of the record, we find that Assessing Officer issued questionnaire on 7.4.2008. No specific details were submitted qua this issue in the letters submitted on the date of hearing taken place in between 23.4.2008 to 15.12.2008.
In the details submitted during 263 proceedings and in the detail which alleged to have been submitted vide letter dated 15.12.2008, it is discernible that assessee has undertaken large number of transactions of 39 scripts. The record does not inspire credence with the angle that Assessing Officer has conducted a proper inquiry before accepting the claim of assessee. It gives an impression to us that at the close of the hearing at the most some information were placed on the record which appears to have not come to the notice of the Assessing Officer. In any case, it is not discernible that the Assessing Officer appears to have applied his mind analytically and logically and thereafter he took one of the possible view.
-
2012 (3) TMI 484
Denial of exemption u/s 11 - Held that:- It is not a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Act for denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act.
Addition being interest recoverable from Mr. Jignashu Patwal misappropriated - Held that:- The assessee’s submission before us was that this amount has already been shown as income of the assessee trust and if it is again taxed, it will amount to double addition. This submission of the assessee requires verification and if the contention of the assessee is found correct, then, no addition is called for. We, therefore, restore this issue to the file of the AO for this purpose. This ground is allowed for statistical purpose.
Addition being the amount misappropriated by Shri Pratap Rathwa - Held that:- This amount has not been claimed by the assessee as expenditure nor has been claimed as application of income for the objects of the trust. In view of this, we find that this submission of the assessee also requires verification. The issue is therefore restored to the file of the AO for this purpose.
-
2012 (3) TMI 483
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of expenses.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Expenses:
The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of Dmat charges and service tax claimed as business expenses. The AO disallowed these expenses, adding a total of &8377; 5,72,456 to the total income of the assessee, alleging inaccurate particulars of income.
2. AO's Decision and Penalty Imposition:
The AO disallowed the expenses related to share transactions, claiming they were not allowable deductions for short or long term capital gains. He imposed a penalty of &8377; 1,71,750 u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A) sustained the penalty in part, holding that Dmat charges and service tax should have been disallowed and added back to the total income as they were for business purposes. He found the AO's penalty justified for these expenses.
4. Tribunal Decision:
In an ex-parte hearing, the Tribunal considered the nature of the assessee's business and the bonafide claim for deduction of Dmat charges and service tax. Referring to the case law, the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of these expenses did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was canceled, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A), allowing the appeal of the assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 482
Issues Involved: Appeal against the order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-III, Surat allowing deduction u/s.80IB(10) for A.Y. 2006-07 based on ownership of land for housing project development.
Summary:
Issue 1: Claim of Deduction u/s.80IB(10) based on ownership of land
The appellant, a construction firm, claimed deduction u/s.80IB(10) for a housing project despite not owning the land on which the project was developed. The AO contended that ownership of land is a prerequisite for claiming the deduction. However, the CIT(A) relied on a Tribunal decision stating that ownership of land is not mandatory for the deduction. The appellant demonstrated authority to develop the land as a developer, not a contractor. The High Court confirmed the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the developer assuming all risks and expenses is eligible for the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues and arguments presented in the case regarding the claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) based on ownership of land for a housing project.
-
2012 (3) TMI 481
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for excess depreciation claimed by the assessee.
2. Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for addition made on account of alleged fund transfer from M/s R.K. Video Distributor.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Penalty for Excess Depreciation
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. The AO had imposed a penalty of Rs. 62,77,400/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, specifically for claiming 100% depreciation on a Solvent Recovery Plant, which the AO argued was eligible only for 25% depreciation. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the assessee had not concealed any income and that the difference in depreciation rates was a matter of opinion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee was assessed at a loss of about Rs. 58 crores and had no immediate tax advantage from the higher depreciation claim. The Tribunal cited the Delhi High Court's judgment in Brahamputra Consortium Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., concluding that the claim did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Issue 2: Confirmation of Penalty for Fund Transfer
The assessee's cross-objection challenged the CIT(A)'s confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for an addition of Rs. 2,25,088/- made on account of an alleged fund transfer from M/s R.K. Video Distributor. The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty, stating that the transaction was held as bogus and the assessee did not appeal against this finding. The Tribunal, however, deleted the penalty, noting that M/s R.K. Video Distributor was a genuine selling agent of the assessee and had dealings in earlier years. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument that the inability to file confirmations as required by the AO did not justify the penalty, especially given the assessee's substantial losses and unabsorbed allowances.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection, thereby deleting the penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for both excess depreciation and the alleged fund transfer from M/s R.K. Video Distributor.
-
2012 (3) TMI 480
Issues involved: Determination of whether an amount should be treated as business income or short term capital gain, and treatment of loss from derivative transactions as speculative or non-speculative.
ITA No. 2741/Mum/2009:
The Assessing Officer treated an amount as business income instead of short term capital gain. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to an appeal. The appellant argued that the findings were not based on record and provided details to support the claim of being an investor. The Departmental Representative contended that the orders were in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that the distinction between stock investments as business income or short term capital gains depends on the facts of each case. They found that the holding period of shares was crucial, and since this was not adequately considered by the lower authorities, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
ITA No. 385/Mum/2009:
The appellant claimed a net derivative loss as a business loss, which the Assessing Officer disallowed for set off against business income. The CIT(A) held that the loss from derivative transactions should be treated as notional speculative business loss. The revenue appealed this decision. The Departmental Representative argued that the CIT(A) had erred in reversing the Assessing Officer's order. The appellant cited a previous ITAT Mumbai order to support their position. The Tribunal found that the issue raised by the revenue was no longer res-integra as per a previous decision, and therefore, the appeal was rejected.
The ITAT Mumbai allowed ITA No. 2741/Mum/2009 for statistical purposes and dismissed ITA No. 3856/Mum/2009.
-
2012 (3) TMI 479
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income from sale of shares as short-term capital gain or business income.
2. Applicability of penalties u/s 271A and 271B.
Summary:
Issue 1: Classification of Income from Sale of Shares
The revenue appealed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 18.10.2011 for the assessment year 2008-09, challenging the treatment of Rs. 4,89,64,389/- as short-term capital gain instead of business income. The assessee filed its return on 1st July 2008, declaring an income of Rs. 4,91,39,431/-. The AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) and subsequently passed the assessment order u/s 143(3), treating the receipts from the sale of shares as business income. The AO based his decision on several factors, including the frequency and volume of transactions, short holding periods, and the use of borrowed funds. The AO cited CBDT Circular No. 4/2007 and Supreme Court judgments to support his stance.
The Ld. CIT(A) reversed the AO's decision, noting that the assessee's transactions were limited to 12 companies, the holding period was reasonable, and the transactions were not continuous but sporadic. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee did not use borrowed funds and treated the shares as investments in its books. The CIT(A) concluded that the transactions were investments rather than trading activities.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the difficulty in distinguishing between investment and trading activities. It referred to the broad principles laid out in the ITAT Lucknow case of Sarnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which included factors such as the intention at the time of purchase, the treatment in books of accounts, the use of borrowed funds, and the frequency of transactions. The Tribunal found that the assessee's actions aligned more with investment activities and upheld the CIT(A)'s order.
Issue 2: Applicability of Penalties u/s 271A and 271B
The revenue also contested the CIT(A)'s decision to drop proceedings u/s 271A and 271B. The Tribunal noted that since the assessee was deemed an investor and not a trader, it was not mandatory to maintain books of accounts, and thus, penalties u/s 271A and 271B were not applicable. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order on this issue.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the order of the CIT(A) was upheld, treating the income from the sale of shares as short-term capital gain and not imposing penalties u/s 271A and 271B.
-
2012 (3) TMI 478
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the addition of pack up income and the addition on account of suppression of liquor sale.
Addition of Pack Up Income:
The appellant, a private limited company, was found to have suppressed income from its business activities during assessment years 1998-99 to 2004-05. The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated the pack up income for the current year at a higher amount than declared by the appellant, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,14,44,964. The AO also made an addition on account of suppression of liquor sale, observing discrepancies in menu card rates. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions. However, the Tribunal found that the AO's estimation was based on the preceding year without considering the factual details of the current year, where two dance floors were under renovation. The Tribunal held that when book results are available and audited, estimation should not be resorted to, and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,14,44,964.
Suppression of Liquor Sale:
Regarding the addition on account of liquor sales, the Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's own case where a similar addition was deleted. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had made the addition based on a menu card with higher rates, but there was no evidence of actual receipt of money at those rates. As the only evidence was the menu card, the Tribunal found the addition to be based on presumption and deleted the addition of Rs. 4,72,084 for this assessment year.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting both the additions of Rs. 1,14,44,964 and Rs. 4,72,084.
-
2012 (3) TMI 477
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of the application u/s 127B of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. True and full disclosure of duty liability by the applicants.
3. Valuation of imported cranes and corresponding duty liability.
4. Grant of immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution.
Admissibility of the Application:
The applicants filed a composite application u/s 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, for settlement of their cases. The application was filed after the expiry of 180 days from the seizure of documents, and no SCN was issued at the time of filing. The application was allowed to be proceeded with vide orders dated 23-5-2011.
True and Full Disclosure of Duty Liability:
The applicants admitted a collective additional duty liability of Rs. 1,27,56,868/- and interest of Rs. 13,23,839/-. They submitted that the undervaluation was based on export documents from the US Department of Commerce. The DRI opposed the application, stating that the applicants had not made a true and full disclosure and had deliberately suppressed facts.
Valuation of Imported Cranes and Corresponding Duty Liability:
The DRI recovered private records showing local sale prices of the cranes, which were significantly higher than the declared import values. The DRI determined the differential duty based on these records and Chartered Engineer certificates. The applicants, however, relied on export documents and purchase invoices from the US to support their declared values. The Bench accepted the FOB values declared before the US Customs, resulting in a differential duty of Rs. 1,65,46,762/-.
Grant of Immunity from Fine, Penalty, and Prosecution:
The applicants requested immunity from fine, penalty, and prosecution. The Bench imposed fines and penalties on the applicants and co-applicants but granted immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the condition that if a case is booked against any of the applicants/co-applicants within one year, the immunity will be liable to be withdrawn.
Order:
The Customs duty liability was settled at Rs. 1,65,46,763/-, and the interest was settled at Rs. 25,55,439/-. The fines and penalties imposed were as follows:
- M/s. Bajranglal Vijaykumar: Rs. 12,00,000/- (fine), Rs. 1,80,000/- (penalty)
- M/s. AVI Trexim Pvt. Ltd.: Rs. 1,00,000/- (fine), Rs. 5,80,000/- (penalty)
- M/s. Opel Trade Corporation: Rs. 3,00,000/- (fine), Rs. 65,000/- (penalty)
- Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta: Rs. 50,000/- (penalty)
- Sh. Sachin Gupta: Rs. 25,000/- (penalty)
- Sh. Karan Gupta: Rs. 25,000/- (penalty)
- Sh. Rajkamal Singh: Rs. 25,000/- (penalty)
- Sh. Mahesh Agarwal: Rs. 25,000/- (penalty)
Immunity was granted from payment of fine and penalty in excess of the amounts specified and from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the conditions mentioned.
-
2012 (3) TMI 476
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty levy u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2006-07.
Summary:
1. Issue 1 - Penalty levy on account of short stock found:
The appeal was filed against the penalty of &8377; 21,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) due to a shortfall in stock found during a survey u/s 133A at the business premises. The stock was physically verified to be &8377; 9,99,008/-, while the recasted trading account showed it as &8377; 9,33,964/-, resulting in a shortfall of &8377; 65,044/-. The Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A) upheld the penalty based on this discrepancy.
2. Issue 2 - Justification of penalty levy:
Upon review, the Tribunal found that the levy of penalty was not justified. It was observed that the stock discrepancy was due to the stock being sold but not entered in the books of account, leading to an underestimation. The Tribunal opined that any addition should have been made on the profit of the short stock found, rather than imposing a penalty. Considering the estimation nature of the stock discrepancy during the survey, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should not have been levied.
3. Decision:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, canceling the levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the shortfall in stock found during the survey. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23.03.2012.
This judgment highlights the importance of justifying penalties based on accurate assessments and considerations of the circumstances surrounding discrepancies in stock valuation during income tax assessments.
-
2012 (3) TMI 475
Disallowance of interest relatable to earning Dividend Income u/s. 14A - Held that:- Direct the AO to restrict the disallowance attributable towards earning of the dividend u/s 14A at 2% of the earning of dividend received. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed.
Deduction u/s 80HHC - disallowance of the contribution made to PF and ESIC - disallowance of depreciation - disallowing the payment made for non-competition - weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) - treat the profit on sale of DEPB license as export incentive and allow the deduction under section 80HHC under proviso to section 80HH(3) - computation of deduction under section 80HHC - deduction u/s 115JB on account of profits eligible for deduction u/s.80HHC - block assessment u/s. 158BC - brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Alchemie Organics Limited u/s 72A while computing the profits of the business for the purpose of S. 80HHC - Allowable business exp - SAP accounting package was scraped by the assessee due to commercial expediency.
-
2012 (3) TMI 474
Sale of the plot of the land attract the provision of sec.50C for the purpose of computing the capital gain u/s.48 - Held that:- Set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the issue of valuation to the file of the A.O. with the direction to refer the same to the DVO in the light of our above observations. The DVO should only consider net of land transfer to Developer by the assessee after considering acquisition made by the Govt as well as Thane Municipal Corporation as discussed hereinabove and also to exclude the value of TDR or additional FSI included in the consideration shown in the Development Agreement. Needless the say the A.O. should give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 473
Penalty u/s 271AAA - Held that:- Whatever question was put to assessee, she replied, she was not asked about the manner in which such income was earned and she was never asked to substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. During assessment proceedings u/s 271AAA the question about manner in which income was derived were asked to assessee and she had replied to that. From here it implies that had this question been posed before her during recording of statement u/s 132(4) she might have replied that. The question of penalty as contained in section 271(1)( c) prior to 1.6.2007 has been decided by various High Courts. Before 1.6.2007, the penalty provisions on search & seizure were contained in section 271(1)( c) and immunity was granted to the assessee vide clause (2) of explanation 5 appended to section 271(1) (c). Provisions of clause (2) of explanation 5 appended to section 271(1)( c) are similar to immunity granted to assessee under clause (2) of section 271AAA.
Considering the social environment it is not possible to expect from an assessee, whether literate or illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated by Exception No. 2 while making statement under s. 132(4) of the Act In view of the above, the penalty is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 472
Non speaking order - validity of an assessment - Held that:- When as assessee objects to the validity of an assessment, it is the AO is bound to dispose off the same by a speaking order. In this case we find that the AO has not at all dealt with this important issue regarding jurisdiction. Hence applying the decision fo the Apex Court in the case of GKN Drive shafts (India ) Ltd v CIT (2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court ), in the interest of justice we set aside this issue to the files of the AO for redoing the same in accordance with the provisions of the law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Assessee to raise their objections on this issue and giving a reasoned order.
-
2012 (3) TMI 471
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the appeal by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A), Panchkula dated 31.1.2011 relating to assessment year 2001-02 under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Reopening of Assessment (Ground No. 1):
The Revenue challenged the quashing of the assessment reopened under section 147, contending that the reasons recorded by the AO lacked basis. The CIT(A) held that the reasons for reopening did not have a rational connection to the formation of belief of income escapement, citing the Supreme Court's decision in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the re-assessment proceedings were without basis and bad in law.
Additions Made by AO (Ground Nos. 2-5):
The Revenue contested the deletion of various additions made by the AO, including an addition for an alleged FD, expenses on a ring ceremony, unexplained jewelry, and expenditure on clothes. The CIT(A) examined each addition and found in favor of the assessee, citing evidence provided and financial capacities. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on each item, dismissing the Revenue's grounds.
General Grounds (Ground Nos. 6-7):
The general grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal on March 29, 2012.
............
|
9911796707
