New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Haryana VAT CIN NO. & IEC NO. service tax reverse charges Service tax credit availment on cctv cameras Interpreter service Errection & commissioning service Provision of Rule 8(3) of CER SERVICE TAX ON RENTING OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT Proof of Export Excise registration
Search in Case Laws

Refine Search / Filter

Case Laws
Text
Search as Search in: -

Filter [Optional]
Include In:
Date From To DD-MM-YYYY
Law - Section [Only for Income Tax]
Court - City
Exclude

OR
TMI Citation
or TMI - ID

To use various search filters - clik the link Refine Search / Filter above

Search Results

Showing 1301 to 1315 of 6754 Records

   

1301

2010 (2) TMI 689 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

SA Bhimaraja Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV,

Appeal to High court - The impugned notice, dated 30.12.2009, issued by the second respondent a sum of Rs.1,15,71,391/- has been demanded as the Incom.....

.......... r of Income Tax (Appeals VI), Chennai, to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner, on 20.01.2010, challenging the order of assessment and the demand for the assessment year, 2007-2008, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay 1/3rd of the total amount demanded by the second respondent, by his impugned notice of demand, dated 30.12.2009, before the second respondent, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioner does not comply with the direction of this Court to pay 1/3rd of the amount demanded by way of the impugned notice, dated 30.12.2009, it would be open to the respondent to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner, as per law. 4. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

1302

2010 (2) TMI 730 - ITAT, Mumbai

SK. Finance Versus DCIT

Capital gain or business income - assessee was asked to state the reasons as to why short term capital gains should not be treated as trading income f.....

.......... ance of disallowance of Rs.2,513/- u/s.14A of the Act. 22. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that he does not want to press the above ground which was not objected to by the ld. DR. 23. That being so, and in the absence of any supporting material, the ground taken by the assessee is therefore, rejected being not pressed. 24. Ground No.5 is against the levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D. 25. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that consequential relief in this regard be allowed to the assessee which was to objected to by the ld. DR. 26. That being so, and in the absence of any supporting material, we are of the view that the levy of above interest is mandatory. However, the AO is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee. The ground taken by the assessee is, therefore, partly allowed. 27. In the result, the assessee s appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4.2.2010.

1303

2010 (2) TMI 156 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Vahoo Colour Lab.

Photography service- The assessee was engaged in rendering service relatable to photography, i.e. developing and printing. In processing of photograph.....

.......... process, to provide the service to the recipient. The photography films, printing papers, chemicals and envelopes are the integral and essential ingredients to complete the process of photography. Meaning thereby, the components of sale of photography, developing and printing etc. are clearly distinct and discernible than that of photography service. Therefore, we are of the view that as the photography is in the nature of works contract and it involves the elements of both sale and service, therefore, the service tax is not leviable on the sale portion, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as no other infirmity has been pointed by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is hereby maintained. Consequently, the instant appeals are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.

1304

2010 (2) TMI 959 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/s Nuchem Ltd.

Claim of deduction of the PF and ESI in respect of employees

.......... in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677 where scheme of Section 43 B of the Act was examined, their Lordships of Hon ble the Supreme Court concluded that Finance Act 2003 was to operate retrospectivly w.e.f. 1.4.1988 when the 1st proviso was inserted despite the fact that Parliament has stated explicitly that Finance Act was to operate w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Likewise reliance has been placed on another judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323. It was for the aforesaid reason that the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that Finance Act of 2003 is curative in nature. It has also been held that the Act is retrospective and it would operate w.e.f. 1.4.1988. Once the aforesaid position is clear then no question of law framed by the Revenue requires to be adjudicated. The order of the Tribunal is consistent with the view taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

1305

2010 (2) TMI 942 - Karnataka High Court

Smt. Jyoti Kumari Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Block assessment - Unexplained, undisclosed investment - held that:- a finding recorded by the Tribunal assuming it to be on a fact by the Tribunal to.....

.......... tions holding that they do not warrant separate answers on the facts and cir- cumstances of this case. 169. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 170. In the peculiar circumstance of the case and in view of the mixed fortune for the Revenue, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs, though we were inclined to mulct the assessees with proportionate cost for the unduly long time these appeals engaged our attention. 171. Before parting with, we would like to place on record our appreciation of the quality assistance rendered by Sri M. V. Sheshachala, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri A Shankar, learned counsel for the assessees, who have, with great patience, equipment and thorough study taken us through the nuances of all aspects not only of the provi- sions of Order XLI, rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure but also the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, which is reflected in our judgment as above.

1306

2010 (2) TMI 939 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Smt. Jyothi Kumari Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Inv) Circle - 2

Appeal before high court - filing of cross objection - maintainability of cross objections - Application of code of civil procedure - second round of .....

.......... nd therefore we ignore these two questions holding that they do not warrant separate answers on the facts and circumstances of this case. 169. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. 170. In the peculiar circumstance of the case and in view of the mixed fortune for the revenue, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs, though we were inclined to mulct the assessees with proportionate cost for the unduly long time these appeals engaged our attention 171. Before parting with, we would like to place on record our appreciation of the quality assistance rendered by Sri M V Sheshachala, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue and Sri A Shankar, learned counsel for the assessees, who have, with great patience, equipment and thorough study taken as through the nuances of all aspects not only of the provisions or Order XLI Rule 21 CPC but also the provisions of Chapter XIVB of the Act, which is reflected in our judgment as above.

1307

2010 (1) TMI 973 - ITAT MUMBAI

Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Rallis India Ltd.

-

.......... n cross-objection ldquo 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer in treating as capital loss the aggregate expenditure of Rs. 4.81 crores paid to Ralliwolf Ltd. (RWL) and Indian Standard Metals Ltd. (ISM) which form part of the respondent rsquo s business activities in the engineering line. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not holding the expenditure referred to in ground No. 1 as business expenditure/loss that is revenue in nature. rdquo This ground of cross-objection has been decided along with ground No.1 of the Revenue rsquo s appeal in paragraphs 3 to 8.13 of this order. For the reasons stated therein the cross-objection is dismissed. In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced on this 29th day of January, 2010.

1308

2010 (1) TMI 705 - ITAT, Bangalore

ACIT Versus Islamic Academy of Education

Interest on refund - application of seized cash or requisitioned asset u/s 132B -AO allowed interest under section 244A to the extent of Rs.6,34,707. .....

.......... We, therefore, feel that the Assessing Officer was not justified in withdrawing the interest under section 244A because the issue was debatable. It is true that the learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to adjust the self assessment tax and pay the interest under section 244A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Our finding is that the Assessing Officer was not justified in withdrawing the interest under section 244A(1) because the seized cash was adjusted against the existing liability and interest under section 244A was liable from the date on which the amount was adjusted against the existing liability to the date when the amount was refunded. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the revenue and we uphold the appeal of the assessee that the Assessing Officer was not justified in passing order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 29.1.2010.

1309

2010 (1) TMI 695 - Allahabad High Court

Sultanpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-tax

Condonation of delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground a copy of order was served to Representative counsel not Appellant and Representati.....

.......... efinite point and it cannot be left to be guessed. Nor the said event can be left at the sweet will of either party to a litigation. On the facts of the present case, if the date of service on an assessee is taken as the learned counsel contends for the purposes of calculation of limitation, it will be on the sweet will of such assessee not to collect a copy from the office of his lawyer and to extend the period of limitation to the extent one desires. Such an interpretation would be against the judicial norms and will amount travesty of justice. 20. So far as the cases relied upon by the appellant are concerned, they were delivered under different statutes and cannot be pressed into service in view of specific provisions in this regard under sections 282 and 288 of the Income-tax Act, therefore, need not be discussed. 21. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the application. The application is accordingly dismissed. The appeal is dismissed as barred by time.

1310

2010 (1) TMI 510 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD

Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Versus. Famy Care Ltd.

GTA service - abatement of 75 per cent from the value - if the service provider has not availed the benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goo.....

.......... ications have been satisfied. He submits that this requirement is mandatory and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the benefit of Cenvat credit. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned DR. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal to come to the conclusion that subsequent filing of reservation would be sufficient. In addition to the decision cited by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Shri J.C. Patel, learned advocate, on behalf of the respondents submitted three more decisions which have taken the same view which are listed as under 1. Sunhill Ceramics (P.) Ltd. s case (supra). 2. CCE v. Neral Paper Mills (P.) Ltd. 2009 22 STT 330 (Ahd. - CESTAT). 3. CCE v. Advance Diesel Engg. (P.) Ltd. 2008 16 STT 156 (Ahd. - CESTAT). 4. In view of the precedent Tribunal decisions cited by the advocate for the respondent, Ifind that the appeals filed by the revenue have no merits and accordingly rejected

1311

2010 (1) TMI 457 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III Versus MAC CHARLES (INDIA) LTD.

Penalty - payment of duty before the issuance of SCN. Tribunal holding that bonafides of assessee indicated in their letter to superintendent of Centr.....

.......... in 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). 12. While it may be true that in that case the Supreme Court on examining the facts and circumstances opined that the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act was inevitably attracted, levy of penalty in each case is dependent on the facts and circumstances of the particular set of facts as they prevail. 13. We do not find that the present set of facts as noticed by the Tribunal which is a finding of fact, which we should accept under Section 35G of the Act which definitely indicates that neither the provisions of Section 11AC is attracted nor the Judgment of the Supreme Court is applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. We find the Judgment of the Supreme Court is clearly distinguishable in the present set of facts and in this appeal and accordingly we do not admit this appeal for disturbing the order passed by the Tribunal which in our opinion is a correct order both on facts and law. 15. The appeal is dismissed.

1312

2010 (1) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus ACC RIO TINTO EXPLORATION LTD

Applicability of Section 35E - business of prospecting and exploring ores and minerals AO did not accept the argument on the ground that The apparen.....

.......... mercial production, the phrase year of commercial production, appearing in Section 35 E (2), would be rendered meaningless. 9. In the present case, the Tribunal has, on facts, come to the conclusion that the assessee company s objects did not include mining of ores or minerals or commercial production, in the sense understood within the meaning of Section 35 E of the said Act. Consequently, the Tribunal agreed with the assessee s contention that there would never be commercial production of any mineral or ore as a part of the activities of the assessee in view of the very objects of the assessee company and the FIPB permission given to the assessee company. Consequently, the provisions of Section 35 E would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as there was no possibility of any commercial production. We agree with this reasoning. 10. Consequently, we find that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.

1313

2010 (1) TMI 913 - ITAT, Mumbai

Tops Security Ltd. Versus DCIT

Disallowance of employees and employer ESI and contribution to provident fund beyond the grace period allowed under the respective statute Held that.....

.......... h is not the expenditure of the assessee just because the assessee taken certain deposits from the security guards. In our considered opinion, the first appellate authority was right in holding that the AO has done a fundamental mistake while analyzing the accounting entries passed by the assessee. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab Distilling Industries Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the case as there were certain deposits in that case, which were not refunded and in such circumstances those deposits were treated as income. In this case it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee had not refunded the security deposit. On these facts, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority at page 15, 16 and 17 of his order and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 17. Respectfully following the same, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 18. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27.1.2010.

1314

2010 (1) TMI 579 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Ishwar Industries Ltd. Versus Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. (No. 2)

Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up

.......... y, which is exactly the subject-matter in the company petition and the fact that pursuant to the substantial defence, necessary issues have also been framed in that suit, this Court is of the considered opinion that at no stretch of imagination, an order of winding up could be made and hence this Court is unable to see any reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge. 12. In the instant case, a decree has been passed and the said decree is the subject-matter of appeal at the instance of the respondent. Till it is over, winding up petition cannot be brought forth at this stage. As pointed out in the aforesaid decision, it is nothing but a device to pressurise the respondent-company for payment. It is pertinent to point out that the appellant has not put the decree in execution, but has come forward with the winding up petition. The appeal does not carry any merit whatsoever and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.

1315

2010 (1) TMI 908 - ITAT, Mumbai

Aptech Ltd. Versus DCIT

Disallowance of belated payment of Employees P.F. and E.S.I.C. u/s 36 (1)(va) - held that:- following the decision of apex court in CIT vs Alom Extrus.....

.......... added back to the Net Profit as per Profit and Loss account to arrive at the book profits. However, in my view, wealth tax is not income tax and therefore the appellant contends that the same should not be added back to the Net Profits while computing book profits u/s 115JB. This ground is allowed in favour of the appellant. 54. Aggrieved the Revenue is on appeal. We find that the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Eschjay Forgings Ltd (251 ITR 15) has held that provision for wealth tax is not be added to the Book profits while computing Book Profits u/s 115J. The ratio will be equally be applicable to sec 115JB also. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court we uphold the order of the CIT(A) that provision for wealth tax of Rs.81,024/- should not be added back while computing the Book profits u/s 115JB and dismiss the revenues appeal on this issue. 55. In the result the revenue s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 25.1.2010.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options


Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.