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

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 6802 Records

   

1301

2010 (4) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI

Boston Scientific International BV India Versus Assistant Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-3(2), Mumbai

Business expenditure - Year in which deductible, Method of accounting - Valuation of stock

.......... f the view that in view of our finding recorded in para 22 of this order the assessee is not liable to interest under sections 234B and 234C and accordingly the same is deleted. The ground taken by the revenue is therefore rejected. ITA No. 5952/M/2006 (assessment year 2002-04) (Revenue Appeal) 45. Ground No. 1 and 2 are against levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C. 46. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record we find that the Assessing Officer while processing the return has charged interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same. In view of out finding recorded in para 22 of this order we are of the view that the assessee is not liable to charge interest under sections 234B and 234C and accordingly the same is deleted. The grounds taken by the revenue are therefore rejected. 47. In the result, the assessee rsquo s appeals are partly allowed and revenue rsquo s appeals stand dismissed.

1302

2010 (4) TMI 680 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

ALLADI DRILLING EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., HYDERABAD

Clandestine manufacture and removal - Revenue claimed that Supervisor has stated that miscellaneous outward register was maintained by security and it.....

1303

2010 (4) TMI 655 - Calcutta High Court

Kusum Goyal Versus Income-tax Officer

Transfer of case - intra city transfer, notice is required to be served and separate orders of transfer are required - petition allowed

.......... nce it has been held in this judgment that it is imperative on part of the respondents to issue order under section 127(3), the letters/notices under challenge are set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential proceedings are also set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the notice dated6th January, 2010regarding the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07 is also set aside and quashed. The application being G. A. No. 81 of 2010 is also allowed. 11. No order as to costs. Later 12. After the judgment and order is delivered Mr. Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue prays for stay. Prayer is considered and is allowed. Let there be stay tillApril 30, 2010. 13. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this order on the usual undertakings. 14. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.

1304

2010 (4) TMI 206 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax 1(1), 2. Union of India

Reopening of an completed assessment income escaping assessment reason to belief - assessment was reopened on four grounds (i) adjustment of los.....

1305

2010 (3) TMI 939 - ITAT PATNA

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh

-

.......... case of Baldev Singh and since the Revenue has not brought any information on record as to what happened in the case of Baldev Singh, we, in the interest of justice, are of the opinion that the addition on the basis of that very document, which has to be considered in the hands of Shri Baldev Singh, cannot be sustained in the assessee s case. Consequently to meet the ends of substantial justice, we set aside this addition and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions that question of computing any undisclosed income on the basis of document placed at page 11 of the Revenue s paper book (supra) may be decided afresh in accordance with law after considering the action having been taken in the case of Baldev Singh and allowing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. Since the assessee has not raised any other issue, the assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on March 31, 2010.

1306

2010 (3) TMI 931 - ITAT CHENNAI

Aircel Cellular Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

-

.......... isdiction under section 263 was not involved. In that case, the assessee had conceded the point, whereas, in this year that is not the case. In any case, when two interpretations are available on the issue and the Assessing Officer has adopted one of them the order cannot be said to be erroneous. Rather, the interpretation which is in favour of the assessee has to be adopted. This is the long cherished law as laid down by the hon rsquo ble apex court in the case of CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 518. Therefore, in view of the factual and legal position, in this case, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the assessment order. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax lacks jurisdiction under section 263. The twin conditions do not co-exist in this case. Therefore, we strike down the impugned order and restore the assessment order. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on March 31, 2010.

1307

2010 (3) TMI 873 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Dinesh Babulal Thakkar Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax , Central Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad

Capital gains - Capital assets

.......... old that capital loss did not accrue to the assessee and, therefore, it cannot be adjusted against capital gains arising to the assessee against sale of jewellery declared under VDIS. This ground of the assessee is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. The next ground is about receipt of gift from Shri Biral M. Patel for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs. The facts and circumstances of the case and evidences furnished by the assessee in support of the gifts are the same as in assessment year 1999-2000. The deficiency in the evidence is also the same, the arguments of the parties for and against the issue are also the same as in assessment year 1999-2000. Following our reasoning given by us in assessment year 1999-2000, we hold that assessee was unable to discharge the onus which lay on him to prove that the gifts are genuine. Therefore, authorities below were justified in treating the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs as income of the assessee under section 68. As a result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed.

1308

2010 (3) TMI 824 - ITAT DELHI

Rubber Udyog Vikas (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Denial of the assessees claim for set-off of brought forward business loss against the income assessed unde.....

1309

2010 (3) TMI 868 - Gujarat High Court

Sajjansinh N. Chauhan Versus Income-tax Officer

Capital gain - abolition of jagir - whether provision of section 45 are applicable where cost is nil - receipt of compensation - agriculture income -.....

1310

2010 (3) TMI 360 - CESTAT, KOLKATA

IOC. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

Interest-Capital Goods- the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture petroleum products and were availing credit in respect of capital goods. Appella.....

1311

2010 (3) TMI 680 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Uzhiyargal Matrum Pothu Thozhilalar Sangam Versus Development Commissioner Mepz Special Economic Zone & Heous

Whether the order of winding up is yet to be passed and consequently, the claim of the appellant in terms of section 529A of the Companies Act cannot .....

1312

2010 (3) TMI 679 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Jaibharat Synthetics Ltd. Versus State Bank of India

Legality and propriety of the notice dated 5th January, 2010, issued by the Tahsildar, Palghar, District Thane, informing the petitioners to handover .....

1313

2010 (3) TMI 879 - ITAT HYDERABAD

B. Ramakrishnaiah Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Hyderabad

Capital gains, Income, Survey

.......... ust be given. The department cannot rely on a statement or material and at the same time, seek to deny cross-examination on the ground that the statement of the assessee also recorded on the same issue. The natural justice requires cross-examination of witnesses, if asked for, must be granted. The assessee should be afforded an opportunity to deal with and rebut such material. Cross-examination to be allowed to the assessee when third party accounts are relied upon by the department. The normal principle is that ordinary cross-examination has to be granted when asked for. If the department to rely on any exceptions, the burden is on the department to establish the existence of any exceptions. The non-providing of cross-examination of witness clearly constitutes infraction of the right conferred on the assessee and that vitiated the order of the assessment made against the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 1152 and 1153/Hyd./2009 are allowed.

1314

2010 (3) TMI 991 - SUPREME COURT

Md. Shahabuddin Versus State of Bihar & Others JUDGMENT

Appellant aggrieved by the notification No.184A dated 20th May, 2006 whereby the Patna High Court in exercise of administrative powers conferred under.....

1315

2010 (3) TMI 832 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

IN RE: SHEETAL EXPORTS

Cenvat credit - Revision application - Rebate claim - during investigation by Central Excise Authorities, it was revealed that the manufacturer-suppli.....

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More 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.