|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 1040 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1183
Penalty - reassessment proceedings - assessee offered an additional income of Rs. 50 lakhs for assessment. Out of Rs.50 lakhs so offered, Rs. 35 lakhs was assessed for 2005-06 and Rs. 15 lakhs assessed for the year 2006-07 which were done in terms of the proposal of the assessee accepted by the Assessing Officer. Even though notice under section 271(1)(c) was issued initiating penalty for the year 2005-06 Held that:- after disabling the assessee from filing appeal or challenging an assessment made on agreed basis, the department cannot hold the assessee guilty of concealment. - after accepting the offer of the assessee for assessment of additional income, Assessing Officer cannot simultaneously levey penalty treating such income as concealed income. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1182
Bad debt disallowance of deduction - Held that:- assessee made the deposit with the banking company, so there was relationship of debtor and creditor and as the amount deposited by the assessee with the bank could not be recovered so, there was loss to the assessee, which was claimed as bad debts. The assessee had written off the amount in the books of account, therefore, the claim of the assessee that it is allowable as bad debts. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Non deduction of TDS u/s 194H - Expenditure of brokerage against the transactions of buying and selling properties - Held that:- assessee is an individual and therefore, the provisions of s. 194H are not applicable; however, in the present case, the provisions contained in the second proviso to s. 194H are also not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case because her total sales/gross receipts did not exceed the monetary limit specified in s. 44AB of the IT Act - learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the AO. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Depreciation and administrative expenses - Ownership - Held that:- issue relating to depreciation on building set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication - Regarding disallowance of adminstrative expenditure - disallowance of entire expenses was not justified, to meet the ends of justice deem it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to the extent of 50 per cent out of the disallowances made by the AO on account of the expenses.
Addition in capital account - Held that:- assessee furnished a handwritten receipt issued by one Shri Bhupinder Singh s/o S. Ajmer Singh where the said person had shown that he had paid Rs. 1,50,000 through account payee cheque to the assessee towards purchase of old school furniture from her, it appears that all the information was in his possession and if he was having any doubt regarding the receipt by the assessee on account of sale of old furniture, AO made the addition only on the basis of doubt and the learned CIT(A) had also not given any cogent reason while confirming the action of the AO, addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) deleted.
Interest - Addition on presumption and surmises - Held that:- assessee has not been rebutted at any stage that the loan was given to close relatives i.e., son-in-law and sons and that no interest has been charged from them since friendly loans were given out of surplus money. In the present case, the AO had not brought any material on record to substantiate that the assessee in her money lending business has raised interest-bearing loan which had been utilised for giving interest-free loans, addition made by the AO on the basis of presumption was not justified, addition made and sustained on the basis of presumption deserves to be deleted, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes
-
2011 (1) TMI 1181
Depreciation on the aircraft - disallowed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the ground that the said aircraft was grounded in the relevant assessment year and was not put to use - AO noted that the assessee had given the said aircraft on lease and even the lease rental was not charged and the assessee had granted moratorium in respect thereof - matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall record a specific finding as to whether during the entire year the Aircraft was not put to use, appeal stands disposed of
-
2011 (1) TMI 1175
Dis-allowance of expenditure - Assessing Officer examined each end every aspect of the case, including the expenses relating to manufacturing and/or profit and loss account and disallowed the expenses on estimate basis - Commissioner of Income-tax doubted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and initiated proceedings by issuing notice dated October 12, 2009 under section 263(1) of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, while passing order under section 263 of the Act, held that it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, as the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) on December 29, 2008, is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - Held that:- issue considered and decided by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax within the meaning of Explanation (c) to section 263 of the Act, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the provisions of section 263 of the Act, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax cannot be upheld and the same is set aside, appeal of the assessee is allowed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1174
MAT credit - before charging of interest under Section 234B and 234C - Assessing Officer levied the interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act without giving credit of MAT under Section 115JAA of the Art and passed the assessment orders, Appellate Commissioner held that as per the provisions of Section 115JAA, MAT Credit should be allowed before levy of interest under Section 234B and 234C of the Act Held that:- Section 115JAA did not provide for payment of interest on the MAT credit. To avoid this situation, Parliament amended Explanation 1 to Section 234B by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1,4,2007 to provide along with tax deducted or collected at source, MAT credit under Section 115JAA also to be excluded while calculating assessed tax
-
2011 (1) TMI 1173
Waiver of interest - outstanding demand of interest charged under Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that:- discretion has been exercised by the Commissioner to waive the interest to be payable by the petitioner. But, It is a case of detection wherein the petitioner is said to have not assessed the income he was getting from the money lending business. According to the petitioner, the income was unanticipated. However, without giving a finding on the issue whether the source of income had been accrued then and there or it is a future income on the money lending business, the impugned order passed at Annexure-B by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax appears to be vague in rejecting the case of the petitioner declining to exercise his discretion, it is for the petitioner to approach the Board under Section 119 of the IT Act or else, to pay the interest as ordered. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of
-
2011 (1) TMI 1172
Whether the appellate authorities are correct in adopting for the purpose of computation of income from capital gains, the cost of inflation index for the financial year 1992-93 instead of index for the financial year 1987-88 in view of the provisions, of s. 48 r/w s. 45(2) of the Act market value on the date of transfer that is relevant and in arriving at that market value the index cost of acquisition as prescribed on the date of transfer is to be taken into consideration and not the date of conversion, the index cost of acquisition was 223 on the date of transfer in the year ending 1993 and the index cost of acquisition on the date of conversion is 161. Therefore, the AO committed a serious error in taking 161 as the index. The appellate authorities have rightly interfered with the said assessment and have taken 223 as correct index cost of acquisition, decision in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue Whether the appellate authorities are correct in allowing deduction claimed by the assessee as revenue expenditure in respect of the payment made to State Bank of Mysore as a guarantor in the face of the fact that the borrower, namely M/s Rudra Industries sister concern of the assessee, had assets to pay the liability which were offered as security by the borrower and the payment was prompted by extraneous considerations and not necessitated by commercial expediency Held that:- assessee incurred this expenditure to discharge a debt borrowed by the sister concern and thus saved the property which he had offered as security and in turn was able to make out a marketable title in terms of the development agreement. It cannot be said that the payment of the said amount does not constitute business expenditure. Both the appellate authorities on appreciation of the aforesaid material rightly held that the assessee is entitled to a deduction under the head of business expenditure and have rightly set aside the order of the AO disallowing the said deduction. In that, view of the matter, the third substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, appeal dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1171
Whether the Central Government is liable to pay interest on the shares which were seized by the Income-tax Department and retained under section 132 of the Income-tax Act which, of course, were subsequently released after a few years, without adjusting any possible tax liability - contention of petitioner that as the shares seized formed part of the working capital of the business of the petitioner as a jobber, and ultimately, the income-tax authorities returned the shares after coming to a conclusion that the retention of shares is not needed for adjustment against the possible tax liability and, therefore, it should be treated as "money" and under section 132B(4) of the Income-tax Act the Central Government is bound to pay interest at 15 per cent per annum Held that:- merely because the shares seized did form part of the capital assets of the petitioner and the petitioner as jobber was in the process of buying and selling shares which is his avocation, it does not mean that the shares should be construed as money, for the purpose of claiming interest, no illegality in the order of the first respondent, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1170
TDS - refund of taxes deposited at source and to further direct the respondents to pay the interest thereon in terms of s. 244A of the Act on the refund amount - petitioner filed a revision before the 1st respondent during November 2003 seeking revision of the assessment order and the said revision petition came to be rejected, which the petitioner is challenging stating that the said order is nan est and refund lies and the effect of the amendment to s. 143(1) of the Act comes into effect only from the subsequent year and not for the assessment year Held that:- as per s. 143 of the Act, for the refund, petitioner has to approach the assessing authority by filing revised returns though it is belated, as the time is lost by initiating proceedings in revision under the confusion that a revision lies against the said order. The petitioner himself is at fault in seeking revision and there is no fault of the Department in accepting such returns filed and the intimation sent, prayer of the petitioner to direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the returns filed by him or for refund of the amount cannot be granted, since there is no wrong assessing and the revision filed by the petitioner before the CIT itself is not maintainable, AO of the respondent authority directed to consider the application of the petitioner for refund of the amount which was deducted at source by the employer and remitted to be Revenue in accordance with law, writ petition is disposed of
-
2011 (1) TMI 1169
Whether income derived out of the Fixed Deposits kept in the bank to obtain a bank guarantee, constitutes business income and not income from other sources - Held that:- investment of amounts in Fixed Deposits by the assessee, was only to secure a bank guarantee to offer it to M/s. KPTCL in order to acquire a contract work, and therefore it cannot be treated as income from other sources and interest accrued on such Fixed Deposits has to be treated as business income only in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Govinda Choudhury and Sons (1992 - TMI - 5424 - SUPREME Court) , appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1168
Whether Tribunal has erred in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition on account of disallowance of entertainment expense even though the assessee had failed to produce any supporting evidence/papers in respect of the expenses during assessment - Tribunal in the impugned order has recorded that if the expenses are extended for the purpose of business of the assessee, the entertainment expenses are allowable under section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record found that the expenses had been incurred during the business hours at mid-sea for the employees; the nature of the business was such that workers were required to work day and night on shore Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded findings of fact to the effect that the expenses had, in fact, been incurred by the assessee and considering the nature of expenses incurred, restricted the same to 1/3 rd of the amount claimed - order of the Tribunal, insofar as the first ground is concerned, being based upon findings of fact does not give rise to any question of law, appeal is, therefore, dismissed Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in upholding the findings of the CIT(A), restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of balances for which no confirmation/details/evidences were furnished by the assessee - activity of the assessee was mainly labour oriented and various outside agencies were engaged to support the business - Commissioner (Appeals) had discussed about each and every creditor and had found that the difference in most of the cases was due to accounting treatment or some rate difference or due to some reconciliation Held that:- assessee had also furnished documents like copies of bills, vouchers, copies of accounts, the nature of work done, payment details and in some cases tax was also deducted at source. The Tribunal, accordingly, found that the assessee had duly discharged the onus which lay on it, no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, appeal is, accordingly, dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1167
Pre-deposit - Whether the appellate Tribunal was justified in imposing pre-deposit condition in a matter which arises out of remand proceedings when on earlier occasion in the same proceedings, the appeal was entertained without pre-deposit condition Held that:- on the modification application filed by the appellant the Tribunal had reduced the amount of pre-deposit to ₹ 20 lakhs. However, on account of non-compliance of the said order, vide the impugned order the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant, appellant has submitted that since the appeal is of the year 2007, the Tribunal be directed to dispose of the same at an early date. The said request appears to be reasonable. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible
-
2011 (1) TMI 1164
Whether Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) deleting the addition made on account of purchase of Crane and allowing depreciation on the same - assessee had never claimed the cost of the crane in the return nor had it debited the expenses to the profit and loss account, and as such the question of disallowing the same and adding the same to the income would not arise Held that:- in the absence of any evidence to indicate that the purchase was bogus or that the crane in fact did not exist, the question of disallowing the deprecation in respect of the same also would not arise. When the assessee had conclusively proved the purchase and existence of the crane, and had not debited the expenses to the profit and loss account, no addition could have been made in respect of the purchase price nor could have depreciation been disallowed in respect thereof, Tribunal justified in deleting the addition as well as disallowance of depreciation
-
2011 (1) TMI 1163
Whether Tribunal was right in law in holding that the profits eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and 80IB of the Act should be included in the computation of "Book Profits" for the levy of MAT as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act Held that:- amounts which are required to be reduced from the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account while computing the book profit are specifically laid down in section 115JB, which interalia, include the amount of profits eligible for deduction under section 80-HHC, section 80-HHE and section 80-HHF of the Act in the manner provided thereunder. Section 80-IB of the Act does not find reference in the categories enumerated therein, in the light of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 115JB, the other provisions of the Act except as provided in the said section would not be applicable while computing book profit for the purposes of section 115JB of the Act. Thus, reliance placed by the appellant on sub-section (5) of section 115JB of the Act is misconceived. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act while computing its book profits under section 115JB of the Act Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest is leviable u/s 234B and 234C of the Act in case of assessment order being framed on "Book Profits" u/s 115JB of the Act - Held that:- in the case of M/s. Rolta India Ltd. (2011 - TMI - 201466 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) , interest under sections 234B and 234C is payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under section 115JA/115JB of the Act. Thus, it is apparent that the controversy raised vide the said question stands concluded against the assessee by the said decision. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail, no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, appeals are accordingly dismissed
-
2011 (1) TMI 1162
Writ petition - sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner to put forth its case Held that:- sufficient opportunity was given for filing documents and to file the submission request for further time by the petitioner was not acceded and that the order was passed on the submission and the details available in the file and that as a result the second respondent has not considered the material which was available on record in its proper perspective since there was no hearing given and also the documents which were to be produced and for which time was sought was also not granted and as a result there has been grave prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of the impugned order, respondent is directed to re-consider the matter by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit the documents on which it places reliance and also give a personal hearing to a petitioner, writ petition set aside, time for making of the draft assessment order based on the order to be passed by the second respondent is accordingly extended. Writ Petition is disposed of
-
2011 (1) TMI 1161
Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner while passing the order under Section 263 had merely substituted his own judgement for that of the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Assessing Officer had gone into the detailed facts of the case - Commissioner found that as per the record the assessee had claimed that he had engaged 10 to 11 workers at Baddi and manufacturing process was carried out through the whole year. The assessee did not file the details of the salary and wages paid to each worker. The total sum debited on account of wages was Rs.2,49,436/- per annum i.e. Rs.20,786/- per month and the salary of each worker would come only Rs.2,078/- per month, which was barely equal to the minimum wages - Commissioner also found that the assessee had availed a packing credit limit of Rs.40 lakhs but no interest expenditure had been debited in the profit and loss account of the Baddi unit Held that:- assessee claimed a sum of Rs.23,71,100/- on account of foreign travel by one Shri Himanshu Singhal. It cannot be believed that an employee who is getting a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month would be given the duty of going abroad and be permitted to spend Rs.23,17,100/- during foreign travel which is almost 100 times his annual salary, Further the assessee had availed bank credit limit of 40 lakhs but the interest expenditure had not been deposited in the profit and loss account of the Baddi unit. This clearly shows that the books were not being maintained in a proper manner, Tribunal has totally misread the provisions of Section 263 and has wrongly held that the initiation of the proceedings under Section 263 was not justified in the present case, order Tribunal set aside and reaffirm the order of the Commissioner, questions are answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (1) TMI 1160
Reopening of the assessment - assessees are directors of the company holding more than 10 per cent share and therefore, in terms of s. 2(22)(e) any amount paid by the company to such directors constitutes deemed dividend and is liable to tax - directors had not filed returns. They filed returns only after the proceedings were initiated under s. 147. Though they disclosed this income in the return Held that:- assessee is liable to pay tax if the said payment is made out of the accumulated profit of the company, AO was justified in initiating proceedings under s. 147 of the Act for reopening the assessment to bring to tax income that has escaped assessment, decision in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee
-
2011 (1) TMI 1159
Long-term capital gain - assessees entered into an agreement to purchase the immovable property and paid Rs. 1,00,000 as advance amount. It is the cost of acquisition. They filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is thereafter under an agreement entered into between them and the purchasers, they gave up their right to sue for specific performance in lieu of a payment of Rs. 7,50,000 Held that:- amount received by them for giving up the right of specific performance i.e., to give up their right in a capital asset constitutes capital gains, they are entitled to deductions as per s. 48, both regarding the investment made as well as the expenditure incurred and only after such deduction the amount arrived at would be exigible to capital gains tax.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1155
Refund claim claim rejected on the ground that the appellant had not established that the excess customs duty paid on import of crude petroleum by MRPL had not been passed on to its customers - appellant followed provisional assessment - it was found that the appellant had paid excess duty than due. It claimed refund which was allowed. In respect of certain consignments, the appellant was not able to establish that the excess duty paid had not been fully or partly passed on to its buyers - authority sanctioned refund to the tune of Rs. 25,42,726/- and credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund Held that:- under Section 27(3), no refund of duty and interest can be made without satisfying the requirements of sub-section (2). Therefore, even though under Section 18, sub-section (5) has been introduced w.e.f. 13-7-2006, the issue of refund was always subject to the provisions of Section 28(3), considering that Sections 18(2) (a) applies to final assessment, order of this Court dated 30-10-1991 in the matter of restitution would be subject to the provisions of Section 27(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, refund claim rejected
-
2011 (1) TMI 1153
Liquidation secured creditors - application filed by a secured creditor of the company in liquidation, seeking a direction to the official liquidator to jointly advertise for the sale of the assets of the company - a company which supplied boiler to the company in liquidation, seeking to exclude the same from the list of properties sought to be sold by the secured creditor Held that:- applicant manufactured two sets of turbo generators and supplied them to the company in liquidation. The company had taken possession lawfully. The title in the goods had passed onto the buyer. Inasmuch as title as well as possession had passed on to the buyer, the applicant herein has no right to claim any lien over the goods. As an unsecured creditor, the applicant has only one remedy viz., to prove their claim before the official liquidator and wait in the queue, objection of the applicant herein to the sale of the turbo generators supplied by them to the company in liquidation, cannot be sustained and their applications under section 9 dismissed
............
|
9911796707
