Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-10-2014
..... 1. the revenue is in appeal under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961 from a decision of the income tax appellate tribunal dated 7 january 2014. the assessment year to which the appeal relates is 2008-09. 2. two questions of law have been formulated ..... the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has stated that as a matter of fact the order of the cit(a) has been duly given effect to by an order of the assistant commissioner of income tax-6, kanpur dated 27 december 2013. a copy of the order has been placed on the record. the order ..... to reflect the arm's length price. on this basis the revised income of the assessee has been computed. 6. since the order of the cit(a) which was confirmed by the tribunal has since been duly implemented by the order of the assistant commissioner of income tax dated 27 december, 2013, this appeal cannot be entertained as nothing ..... section 92ca(3) on 31 october 2011 and made transfer pricing adjustments of rs.12,97,33,913/-. the assessing officer added the amount to the total income of the assessee. the arm's length price was computed on the basis of these adjustments since the margin of the assessee for exports to the associated enterprise ..... of the assessing officer under sections 251/143(3) notes that after the order of the cit(a) dated 30 january 2012 directing the tpo to compute .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
..... of the orders passed in the case of the assessee for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 under section 143(3) of the income tax act, 1961. when the total turnover was much more than the turnover for the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, 2% was held to ..... which assessments have been framed much after the search in the case of the assessee and therefore they declined to accept 4% adopted by the commissioner of income tax. in those circumstances, the tribunal was of the view that it would be reasonable to estimate the gross profit in the range of 2% taking the ..... profits earned by another firm m/s. srv and sons and concluded rs.2,67,58,592/- as the undisclosed income and levied tax. aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the commissioner of income tax (appeals) (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate authority' for short). 5. the first appellate authority held ..... n. kumar, j. 1. these two appeals are preferred by the revenue challenging the order dated 17-12-2007 passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, bangalore bench 'b' (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short) wherein the tribunal held that it is reasonable to ..... mehta admitted in course of search that the amounts deposited in those bank accounts represented the part of sale proceeds that was not offered to tax in the returns of income filed by him and the firm m/s.shanthilal o mehta. further in the course of search itself, sri.jayesh mehta offered rs.62 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-30-2014
..... show any nexus about the said investments made by it with its business activities and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction under section 80 hhc of the income tax act. she urged before this court that the present appeals may be allowed. 8. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e. revenue department relied on the following judgments. (i ..... to the assessment years 1991-1992 to 1995-1996 has held that the interest income earned by the assessee as the "income from other sources" and not as "income from business" and thereby declined to give benefit for the purpose of computing deduction as contemplated under section 80hhc of the income tax act, to and in favour of the assessee. 4. the respondent/assessee feeling dissatisfied ..... a.s. gadkari, j. 1. the aforesaid appeals preferred by the revenue department under section 260-a of the income tax act, 1961, involves common question of law and therefore are decided together by this common judgment. the aforesaid appeals came to be admitted by order dated 27/11/2006 on the ..... by the assessment orders passed by the assessment officer preferred appeals before the commissioner of income tax (appeals) who in turn held that the "income from the interest" earned by the assessee is the " business income" and not the "income from other sources" and gave the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-23-2014
..... the itat who upheld the order of the cit (appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. from the order of the itat, the revenue approached this court by ..... b.p. colabawalla j. 1. this appeal under section 260a of the income tax act 1961, has been filed by the commissioner of income tax-2 challenging the order passed by the income tax appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the itat) dated 29th june 2011. by the impugned order, the itat dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue in relation to assessment years ..... had enough interest free funds at its disposal for making the investments. the cit (appeals) on examining the said material, agreed with the contention of the assessee and accordingly deleted the addition made by the assessing officer and directed him to allow the same under the provisions of the income tax act, 1961. the revenue being aggrieved by the order preferred an appeal before ..... company if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investment. in this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the commissioner of income-tax (appeals) and the income-tax appellate tribunal. ? (emphasis supplied) 5. we find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of reliance utilities and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-10-2014
..... . he submits that funds were kept idle in an almirah. the said funds were never utilised for other purpose. he readout the relevant part of section-36(1) of the income tax act and submitted that all the three conditions were fulfilled, namely: ?? (i) the funds must have been borrowed or taken for the purpose of the business or profession; (ii) the interest ..... and is for private purpose or is not connected with the business, interest paid on such borrowings cannot be allowed as a deduction under section 36(1) (iii) of the income-tax act, 1961. 4. to support his arguments, he relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases : ?? (i) s.a. builders ltd. v ..... officer or in the appeal itself and the appellant had no opportunity to file the relevant account books to prove the same and whether the income tax appellate tribunal was justified in reversing the order of commissioner of income tax (a) on a reasoning other than the one given by the assessing officer in the order dated 12.2.2004 which was set aside ..... by the commissioner of income tax(a) vide order dated 8.10.2004." 3. the brief facts of the case are that, during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the trading of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-14-2014
..... substantial questions of law and require determination by this court. he submits that the tribunal failed to note that section 28(iv) of the income tax act, 1961 (for short "it act") deals with value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession. 4 ..... commissioner. 6. after having heard mr. tejveer singh and mr. kaka, learned sr. counsel appearing for the assessee and perusing the findings of the income tax appellate tribunal in the light of the above noted factual position, we do not find any perversity or error apparent on the face of record in the ..... and the commissioner relying upon the judgment of this court in the case of mahindra and mahindra v. cit  261 itr 501/128 taxman 394 deleted the additions. the order passed by the commissioner of income tax (appeals) dated 22 december 2008 was challenged by the revenue in appeal and the tribunal upheld the ..... 1. this appeal by the revenue challenges the order passed by the income tax appellate tribunal. the appeal, which was filed by the revenue, is numbered as income tax appeal no.690/mum/2009. the assessment year is 2005-06. 2. we are essentially concerned with the correctness of the ..... a receipt or claim a set off. that is how the tribunal concluded that the assessing officer charged to tax receipt of waiver of loan of rs.116.52 crores as business income together with interest at rs.5.47 crores but did not allow the deduction for waiver of the loan granted .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-24-2014
..... filed its return for the assessment year 1996-97 on 30.10.1996, declared total income of rs.20,35,000/-. thereafter, the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the income tax act. the assessing officer, after scrutiny, passed order under section 143(3) of the income tax act and the amount of registration fee paid to sebi was disallowed as capital expenditure. ..... against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the commissioner of income tax (appeals). the cit(a) partly allowed the said appeal. being aggrieved ..... are being head and decided by this common judgment. 2. by way of these appeals, the appellant-revenue has challenged the common order dated 24.03.2006, passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, ahmedabad (for short "the tribunal") in ita nos. 1641 and 1642/ahd/2001, whereby the appeals preferred by the assessees were allowed by the tribunal. 3. ..... and dissatisfied by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal vide impugned order dated 24.03.2006 allowed the appeal of the assessee. hence, these appeals are filed at the instance of the assessees. 5. while admitting tax appeal no.832 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-22-2014
..... the obligation. therefore, the assessee therein had incurred a liability during the assessment year which was entitled to deduction u/s.37 of the income-tax act, 1961. 3.1 in tax appeal no. 966 of 2007 and allied matters, similar facts and question of law were raised and this court vide judgement and order ..... being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the income tax appellate tribunal, ahmedabad bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 28.04.2006 in ita nos. 762/ahd/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98, the revenue has preferred the present tax appeal. 1.1 this appeal was admitted by this court ..... the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by a judgment of the apex court in the case of rotork controls india (p.) ltd. v. cit  314 itr 62/180 taxman 422 . in that case, the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of valve actuators, which were sophisticated ..... one which pertains to an actual and existing liability. 2.1 being aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed appeal before cit(a). the cit(a) deleted the addition made by the assessing officer. the revenue therefore preferred appeal before the tribunal. the tribunal confirmed the findings of ..... cit(a) and dismissed the appeal. being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 3. we have heard learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-02-2014
..... . jhaveri, j. 1. this tax appeal u/s. 260a of the income-tax act, 1961 is filed against the order dated 23.12.2005, passed in ita no.1494/ahd/2000 for the assessment year 1990-91, whereby, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, sustaining the order passed by the cit(a). 2. briefly stated, the ..... pool @ 33.33% treating it as plant and machinery. 3. being aggrieved by the order passed by the a.o., the assessee has preferred appeal before cit(a) and cit(a) has partly allowed the appeal, allowing depreciation @ 33.33% on swimming pool, treating it as plant and machinery. being aggrieved by the said order, ..... issue raised by question no.2 stands answered against the revenue by decision rendered by the apex court in the case of allied motors (p.) ltd. v. cit,  224 itr 677 (sc)." 6. since the issue is already concluded vide the judgment rendered in the above decision, we are not assigning elaborate reasons ..... has conceded to the position that in so far as question no.1 is concerned, it stands answered against the assessee in light of decision in case of cit v. anand theatres,  244 itr 192 (sc). 4. hence, question no.1 is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue ..... is admitted in terms of the following questions:- "(a) whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the cit (a) holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on swimming pool at the rate of 33.33% treating it as plant and machinery?" issue notice .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-11-2014
..... for the b ed course which would violate the objects as stated in clause (6) of the memorandum. 3. the exemption provision of section 10(23c) (vi) of the income tax act, 1961 refers to the following: "(vi) any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit, other than those mentioned in sub-clause ..... 1. the writ petition seeks to impugn the legality of an order passed by the chief commissioner of income tax, ghaziabad on 10/11 october 2013 denying to the petitioner an exemption under section 10 (23c) (vi) of the income tax act, 1961. 2. the petitioner is stated to have established an educational institution called ch. natthu singh yadav mahavidyalaya in a rural segment situated ..... a fresh decision. we, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 10/11 october 2013 (annexure - ix). the proceedings shall stand restored to the file of the chief commissioner, income tax, ghaziabad. the chief commissioner would now hold an enquiry as required under section 10 (23c)(vi) and pass a fresh order after furnishing to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of ..... , it has been submitted that the chief commissioner has failed to act in accordance with the terms of the remit which was made by the division bench in the earlier round of proceedings in which the previous order declining exemption was set set aside. 6. the chief commissioner of income tax, as noted earlier, had rejected the application for exemption under section .....Tag this Judgment!