|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 873 Records
-
2010 (1) TMI 1229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and therefore conduction royalty amount is to be taxed under "Income from other sources." 2. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2003-04. 3. The Tribunal arrived at a finding of fact, after considering the terms of the agreement entered into between the assessee and the third party that the assessee had effectively kept control of the business to itself. The term of the agreement was three years. The licenses and permits stood in the name of the assessee. The conductor agreed that on termination of the agreement or upon the expiry thereof, he would vacate the premises and remove himself and the equipment from the premises. In these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the royalty income from the conducting agreement was assessable as income from business. The finding of fact is based on a correct interpretation of the terms of the agreement. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1228 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has not decided issue on merits and while considering the issue on merits the CESTAT observed that the issue as to whether goods imported by the respondent in Free Trade Zone subjected to only certain process like repacking from bulk to consumer pack will be satisfying the condition of exemption Notification No.133/94-Cus dated 22.6.1994 and whether the process undertaken in this case on the imported products will amount to manufacture as per the Central Excise Act, 1944, have been considered by the CESTAT in the respondent's own case and it was decided in favour of the respondent. After reproducing the relevant extract from the earlier order the CESTAT dismissed the Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue. Even this Court has also dismissed the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the said order of CESTAT. 9. In the above view of the matter, we are of the view that no substantial questions of law arise out of the order of the CESTAT and hence the Appeal is summarily dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1227 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ing to the Assessing Officer to reinvestigate the issues. It is for the revenue to take recourse permissible under the IT Act. We have confronted the Learned DR at the time of hearing to show us the material which can pursued us to reverse the findings of the learned CIT(Appeals) and restore that of Assessing Officer. He was unable to bring any material on record. We could understand his logic if some material in the shape of questionnaire or other evidence collected by the Assessing Officer was annexed with the appeal in order to justify the nexus between the estimated income and the material possessed by the Assessing Officer. Learned Assessing Officer has only made a reference of different notices and then all of a sudden observed that income of the assessee is estimated at ₹ 25 lacs. Learned CIT(Appeals) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective and no interference is called for. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1226 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... recting the A.O. to verify whether the assessee had declared sale price of bread at ₹ 8.25 per 800 gms and then to recompute the suppressed sale accordingly. This issue, thus, decided accordingly in the present assessment year also. 46. With regard to the addition on account of commission on exchange of coins/ torn notes, the ld. CIT(A) has held that the commission of conversion worked out at ₹ 42,331/- by the assessee is reasonable as it is 2 of 5 of the sales. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, deleted the addition of ₹ 8,46,625/-. In the light of our decision taken in other assessment years, this issue is upheld. 47. With regard to the disallowance of expenses, the ld. CIT(A) has reduced the disallowance from 20 to 10 against which neither the assessee nor the revenue is in appeal. 48. In the result, all these appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed in the manner as indicated above. 49. This decision is pronounced in the open court on 15th January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1225 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essee. 4. Having heard learned counsels and in view of the well reasoned judgments of the appellate authorities below, this Court does not find any question of law to be arising in the present case at the instance of the petitioner-Revenue under Section 86 of the RST Act, 1994 and the appellate authorities have rightly held that in the absence of the goods in question being notified under the relevant notification requiring production of Form No.ST 18 A, no such penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could be imposed on the respondent-assessee on the ground of absence of Form No.ST 18A at the time of checking goods in transit. There has to be a first requirement of law as breach of which only can entail penal consequences on the respondent-assessee. If there is no requirement at all, there cannot be any question of imposition of any penalty for so called breach. 5. Consequently, this Court finds no force in the revision petition of Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1224 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that since income from the property has to be treated as income from the house property and not as a business asset, therefore, no depreciation could be allowed and the ground has to be decided against the assessee. In view of the above admission by the learned counsel for the assessee, this ground by the assessee is dismissed. 7. Grounds of appeal No. 5 relates to interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. Since the charging of interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory and consequential in nature, this ground by the assessee is dismissed. 8. Grounds of appeal No. 6 relates to initiation of penalty proceedings. After hearing both the sides, we are of the considered opinion that this ground is premature in nature and therefore, we dismiss this ground. 9. Grounds of appeal No. 7 by the assessee being general in nature is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 22nd January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1223 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitration proceedings - Interpretation of the term 'appeal' appearing in Section 7 the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act - Whether the expression 'appeal' used in Section 7 of the Interest Act includes an application to set aside the arbitral award filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act? - Small Scale Industrial Undertaking for the purposes of the Interest Act - The Maharashtra State Electricity Board ('MSEB') issued a Work Order in favour of Maharashtra Small Scale Industries Development Corporation ('the Corporation') - work was completed and the bills were duly submitted - huge delay on the part of the Corporation in paying the said bills - demanded interest on delayed payment under the Interest Act - claim denied by the Corporation - Arbitration Application u/s 11 - the Corporation filed an application u/s 34 - During the pendency of these proceedings the Appellant company pointed out that u/s 7 of the Interest Act the Corporation has to deposit 75 % of the amount awarded by Arbitrator under the Award - Division Bench of the High Court had held that if one considers the expression "appeal" in the context of the expression decree, it can only be a judicial determination by a Regular Civil Court considering the hierarchy of courts.
HELD THAT:- We fail to understand why the expression "appeal" shall be construed solely in the context of a decree or order when the Section clearly makes reference to 'Awards' as well. According to the Respondents, the word 'award' appearing in Section 7 relates to those that result from a reference made under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act to the Industry Facilitation Council. The provisions for such reference, which is to be governed by Arbitration Act, were incorporated in 1998 by way of an amendment in the INterest Act. However, section 7 contained the word 'award' even before such reference mechanism was incorporated in the Interest Act by way of the Amendment Act, 1998. Therefore, it is difficult to see why 'award' in section 7 should not include an arbitral award other than the one arising from reference made to the Industries Facilitation Council.
It is true that in almost all definitions of appeal', there is reference to removal of a cause from an inferior Court to a superior Court. It is also trite that an arbitrator deriving his authority from a private agreement does not fit into the ordinary hierarchy of Courts. In our opinion, however, an appeal need not necessarily lie from an inferior Court to a superior Court, especially within the meaning of Section 7.
We are of the view that "appeal" is a term that carries a wide range of connotations with it and that appellate jurisdiction can be exercised in a variety of forms. It is not necessary that the exercise of appellate jurisdiction will always involve reagitation of entire matrix of facts and law. We have already seen in the case of Abhayankar [1969 (4) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] that even an order passed by virtue of limited power of revision u/s 115 of the Code is treated as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, though under that provision, the Court cannot go into the questions of facts.
There is no quarrel that Section 34 envisages only limited grounds of challenge to an award; however, we see no reason why that alone should take out an application u/s 34 outside the ambit of an appeal especially when even a power of revision is treated as an exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this Court and the Privy Council.
While the learned counsel for the appellant company urged that the Legislature had used the terms 'appeal' and application' interchangeably, we are of the view that we cannot conclusively infer the same. Use of the term 'application' appears to be in the context of the dispute resolution mechanism provided for under Section 17 which essentially comprises of conciliation and arbitration, to be governed by Arbitration Act, 1996. The legislature has intended to bring about improvements to the Interest Act as stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2006. Indeed, it might have contemplated a change in the legal position while enacting the Act of 2006, but we cannot make that change apply retrospectively. In this respect, we agree with the reasoning of the High Court and with the contentions of learned counsel for the respondents as we cannot read the provision of a subsequent enactment into an Act which was repealed by the former.
The interest Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to expedite timely payment of money owed to Small Scale Industries. Most of the contracts of supply or sale that Small Scale Industries enter into contain arbitration clauses. These arbitration proceedings result in an 'award'. If the term appeal' is interpreted in the limited context of a 'decree or order' and as excluding an application to set aside or remit such awards, the very purpose behind the enactment of Interest Act will be defeated.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1222 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ction 2(47) are attracted only in relation to capital asset while working out the capital gains. In this case, the asset is stock-in-trade and the assessee has given for developing and offered the income under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”. Therefore the finding of the learned CIT (A) that provisions of section 2(47) are applicable is wrong, both on facts and in the eyes of law; therefore the findings of the learned CIT (A) in this respect is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside those findings. The learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer on basis of his findings by applying provision of section 2(47) to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2001-02. The directions were also unwarranted and without any basis; therefore these directions are also liable to be quashed. Accordingly, those directions are also quashed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this day of 22nd January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1221 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Court shall stand automatically restored. Within two months from today, the respondents shall hand over vacant possession of the schedule land to an officer not below the rank of Additional Collector, who shall be nominated by District Collector, Rangareddy District. Needless to say that if the respondents fail to hand over vacant possession of the schedule land to the officer nominated by the District Collector then he shall take possession of the land and, if necessary, use appropriate force for that purposes. 36. With a view to ensure that the respondents are not able to manipulate the State apparatus for continuing their illegal occupation of schedule land in question, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries not to regularise their possession. The respondents shall also not be entitled to invoke jurisdiction of any court including the High Court for securing an order which may result in frustrating implementation of this Court's order.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1220 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed in section 80HHC(1B). The computation shall be with reference to book profit and not as per the income computed under the regular provisions of Income Tax Act but only subject to restriction put under sub-section (1)(B) Of Section 80HHC. 11. We now, take up the appeal of the revenue. 11.1. At the time of hearing both the parties agreed that in view of retrospective amendment in Finance Act(No.2) made by 2009 w.e.f.1.4.2001, the amount set aside as provisions for diminution in the value of assets being the debts is also to be added while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the provisions for bad debt amounting to ₹ 51,72,707/- shall form part of book profit. 12.. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2004-05 is partly allowed. The appeal of the revenue for the assessment year 2004-05 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2000-01 is also allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.1.2010
-
2010 (1) TMI 1219 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... conducted any enquiry. As per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapur Chand Shrimal (supra) CIT(A) could also make appropriate enquiry, if anything was found lacking in the Assessment Order. 8. From the facts as discussed above, it can be seen that the assessee has not been even able to establish the identity of the shareholders as after the commencement of assessment proceedings, no fresh confirmation has been filed from the shareholder and no fresh address has been given. The address, which was given, was not found correct. However, in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that this matter should be restored back to the file of the AO with a direction to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing to establish the identity of the shareholders. With these directions the matter is restored back to the file of the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1218 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... opinion of the AO, is meager. But, the AO has not brought any material on record for coming to a conclusion that the expenses on account of traveling and conveyance to Unit - II are meager, and to show that the expenses on account of traveling and conveyance relatable to Unit - II has been debited to other units. No material to that effect has been pointed out by the AO. We, therefore, hold that the allocation of expenses amounting to ₹ 2,50,000/- as reduced by the CIT(A) from ₹ 5 lacs, made by the AO, is also unjustified. We, therefore, hold that no such allocation to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/- as done by the CIT(A) shall be made. 28. In the light of the above discussions, the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal are partly decided in the favour of the assessee. 29. In the result, the appeal for the A.Y. 1998-99 is allowed and the appeal for the A.Y. 2004-05 is partly allowed. 30. This decision is pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1217 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ssee to meet various expenses incurred in between 3rd March, 2005 to 5th March, 2005. However, difference was to the extent of ₹ 20,888 against which the AO has made the addition of higher amount of ₹ 30,000, which has also been confirmed by the CIT(A). There is no basis pointed out by the assessee as well as by the CIT(A) to increase the amount of addition from ₹ 20,888 to ₹ 30,000. In the light of the facts of the case, the addition which is called for is only to the extent of ₹ 20,888, as so revealed from the cash book maintained by the assessee. We, therefore, sustain the addition only to the extent of ₹ 20,888 as against ₹ 30,000 sustained by the CIT(A). Therefore, the addition of ₹ 30,000 is reduced to ₹ 20,888. The assessee shall get a relief of ₹ 9,112 on this account. We order accordingly. 47. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1216 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ness will increase and the Learned Assessing Officer wrongly held that the same will be reduced. As the profit of the Dairy Business will increase on acceptance of the finding of the Learned Assessing Officer as recorded in the order of assessment, it cannot be held that the assessee has claimed higher amount of deduction u/s 80IB by claiming the same at ₹ 82,84,339/- rather as per this finding it has claimed deduction for the lesser amount by debiting the common expenses against the eligible profits. As the issue of eligibility of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of profit derived from Banas-II Dairy Expansion Plant has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of the assessee for Assessment Year 2004-05, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1215 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is in appeal before us. 22.4 We have heard both the counsels and perused the records. We find that assessee had itself in its accounts debited these expenses as prior period expenses in the profit and loss appropriation account. The claim for allowing the expense in the current year is that they have been determined and crystallized during the current year. However, in the absence of the necessary evidence, the authorities below have not accepted this claim. Before us also the assessee has not brought any fresh material to prove these expenses pertaining to prior period have crystallized during the current year. Under the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, we confirm the same and the assessee’s appeal on these issues is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 23. In the result, both the assesse’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1214 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nding anything to the contrary contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court or other authority, where no review, revision or corrective action could be initiated or finalised in respect of any assessment order, proceeding under the said Act prior to or after 1st April, 2003 because of judgement or decree of any court or Tribunal and the said assessment or order passed under the said Act had attained finality, the limitation of five years as specified under Section 40 of the said Act shall be deemed to be eight years.” 5. It is clear that the above provision has no applicability. The extended period laid down thereunder is applicable only where power could not be exercised because of a judgement or decree of any Court or Tribunal, which is not the case of the State for delay for exercising the power. 6. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned notices are set aside. The exercise of revisional power is quashed being beyond the period of limitation.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... hat the ITAT held the interest varying between 15 to 24 per annum to be reasonable. Therefore, the interest paid at the rate of 18 per annum by the assessee to the relatives cannot be said to be unreasonable or excessive. Moreover, the AO himself has accepted the interest at the rate of 18 to be reasonable in the immediately preceding year, therefore, the same rate of interest cannot be become excessive ITA.No.901/Ahd/2010 in the subsequent year. In view of the above, we delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,31,682/- made by the AO under Section 40(A)(2)(b). Accordingly the ground no.1 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 5. Ground no.2 of the assessee's appeal is against the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Both the parties agreed that it is consequential, we therefore direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest, if any, after determination of the income as per our above order. 6. In the result, assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1212 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ituation, it cannot be said that assessees have concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. There is no allegation by the AO that assessees have not disclosed the complete particulars. The only allegation is that assessees have claimed deduction on DEPB and duty drawback under s. 80-IB which is not admissible to them. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, we allow all these appeals and delete the penalty." o p /o p There is no disparity on facts. The findings of the Tribunal in the assessee’s case for asst. yrs. 2002-03 and 2003-04 are also on the similar lines. The learned CIT(A) has considered all these aspects before deleting the penalty and on due consideration of the order of the learned CIT(A) coupled with the discussion made by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, we do not see any reasons to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). o p /o p In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2010 (1) TMI 1211 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the advertisement that they are in no way related to the appellant, the Division Bench should have set aside all the directions impugned before it. We find merit in the contention of the respondents. When the Division Bench found that the learned Single Judge ought not to have given direction restraining the respondents from starting new courses in business management etc. and directed them to append a note in the advertisement that they are not related to the appellant, then it should have set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in its entirety. The omission on the part of the Division Bench of the High Court to do so calls for a corrective action by this Court. 23. In the result, Civil Appeal Nos.1360-1361 of 2005 are dismissed and Civil Appeal No.1362 of 2005 is allowed and the modified injunction granted by the learned Single Judge is vacated in its entirety. The appellant shall pay ₹ 50,000/- as cost of unwarranted litigation thrust upon the respondents.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1210 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ncome of ₹ 25 lakhs. The assessee was further asked to bifurcate the income head-wise. In answer to Question no.3, it was stated that the unaccounted income is on account of stock difference (job work party), the jobs of unaccounted debtors, realization of profit and commission etc. Thus, it is clear that the additional income declared of ₹ 25 lakhs includes stock difference also. During the search, the assessee was found to be carrying on processing on job work basis only. The assessee was never carrying own trading. Under these circumstances, the stock different is adequately explained by the disclosure made and offered for taxation. Under these circumstances, no further addition on account of excess stock found during search is called for. We, therefore, delete the entire addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. . 12. In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.1.2010
........
|
