|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 959 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 1 On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of Mumbai High Court, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that he may examine the facts of the case in the light of the decision. The learned counsel had no objection to this course of action. 4.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A for this year stands squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai High Court. The facts of the case have not been examined by the lower authorities in the light of propositions laid down in the decision. Therefore, we think it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the matter de novo as per law after hearing the assessee. 5. In result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 958 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... R 684 and the learned first appellate authority has wrongly held that such service of notice cannot be deemed to have been effected and has wrongly cancelled the assessment order passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act dated 05.12.2006. We cancel the same. 8. As admitted by both the parties that the learned first appellate authority has not adjudicated / decided the addition on merits, in the interest of justice we are directing the learned first appellate authority to adjudicate / decide the same on merits after hearing the parties. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. As regards to the cross-objection, keeping in view of the order passed in Revenue’s appeal, the cross objection becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 957 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sessing Officer and the agricultural income as shown by the assessee at ₹ 5 lacs was taken for rate purposes, in addition to the income from other sources being assessed at ₹ 1 lac on surrender basis. We find no merit in the present re- assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer by holding that the mushroom farming undertaken by the assessee is not an agricultural activity. Further, even the Ministry of Agriculture had approved that the cultivation of mushroom is an agricultural activity. Accordingly, we hold that the reopening of assessment under section 147 and subsequent issue of notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same is quashed. The assessment proceedings completed thereafter are cancelled. The ground Nos.2 & 3 raised by the assessee are allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21st day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 956 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... tion is of business transaction. It is also to be seen that the business relation is justified as M/s. Holy Satellite Town Ltd. is supplying ready mix concrete at a lower rate to the assessee- trust. 35.8. Therefore, it is our considered view that the balance available in the running account of M/s. Holy Satellite Town Ltd. cannot be construed as a deposit or investment so as to catch the mischief of sec.13(1)(d). The lower authorities are not justified in making additions on this ground. 35.9. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the ground of violation of sec.13(1)(d) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08 are deleted. 36. Accordingly, the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly successful. 37. In result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are partly allowed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday, the 15th day of June, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (6) TMI 955 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... our view, in the case before us so long the Assessing Officer was unable to arrive at a finding that the particulars given by the assessee were false, there was no scope of adding those money under section 68 of the Income tax Act and the Tribunal below rightly held that the onus was validly discharged. We, thus, find that both the authorities below, on consideration of the materials on record, rightly applied the correct law which are required to be applied in the facts of the present case and, thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact based on materials on record. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed summarily as it does not involve any substantial question of law. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself, the connection application has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. Photostat certified copy of this order be made available to the parties upon compliance of usual formalities.
-
2011 (6) TMI 954 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... on the ground of not accepting the change in method of valuation. However, the AO has not considered the aspects as to whether events in respect of reduction in valuation of stock have occurred during previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. We are not having full facts in respect of the stock which have been valued at nil to ascertain the nature of litigation or encroachment and the period when such lands were acquired and when the assessee became aware of encroachment or litigation. Hence, the issue of addition of ₹ 145.33 lacs is restored back on the file of the AO. We do feel that litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock and such stock cannot be valued at cost price. With this observation, the matter is restored back on the file of the AO. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 24-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 953 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... e retail shop of liquor, cash sale is made. However, the sales effected were duly taken into sales account. There is no evidence on record to prove that either the sales were under recorded. There is a further finding that the net profit of 1.77% was reasonable, considering the prevailing rates in the trade. In view of these facts, we find no justification for invoking the provisions of sec. 145(3) of the Act and estimation of sales at higher figure. Thus we direct the Assessing Officer to compute business income by applying net profit rate of 1.77% on the disclosed turnover of the assessee. 5. As far as interest income is concerned, that is to be separately added in total income as income from other sources as the same has nothing to do with the liquor business of the assessee. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 15th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 952 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... er or by the ld. CIT(A), who has got co-terminus power with that of the AO. Under these circumstances, there is no justification for applying the propositions of law as laid down in the case of Badri Prasad Bhagwandas & Co.( supra), wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that where books of account are rejected by the Assessing Officer u/s 145(2), the sales and profit of the assessee being a liquor contractor is to be estimated in a particular manner. As the books of account were not rejected in the instant assessee before us, there is no justification for applying the proposition of law laid by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Badri Prasad Bhagwandas & Co.( supra). Accordingly, we are inclined to reverse the order of the lower authorities and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him by estimating sales and profit thereon. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 951 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... o in the books of account by crediting the sundry debtors on the asset side of balance sheet. This methodology was in conformity with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank’s case (supra) and, therefore, could not be disputed. 6.1 The other aspects pointed out by Ld. CIT regarding circumstances under which the assessee wrote off the amount could not be gone into because after 01.04.89, the only requirement is of writing off the amount. Once actual write off of the amount is there, then the deduction on bad debt is to be allowed. Since from the records, it is evident that assessee had actually written off this amount, which was allowed by Assessing Officer, it could not be said that the assessment order was erroneous. Hence, Ld. CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. We, accordingly, cancel the order of Ld. CIT. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 10. 06. 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 950 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ion 13(1)(b) would not be applicable.” For applying the ratio of the above decisions, we have gone through the objects of the Trust deed and we find that though several objects are for the benefit of particular religious community, but there are various objects especially objects no.23 to 33, which are charitable in nature and which are applicable to public at large without any discrimination of caste. Therefore, we hold that the assessee-trust is also a charitable-cumreligious trust to which section 13(1)(b) would not be applicable. The CIT in his order under Section 12AA has not pointed any other reasons for refusing the registration of the assessee trust. In view of the above, we respectfully relying upon the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court direct the CIT to grant registration to the assessee-trust under Section 12AA of the IT Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 24th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 949 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sputed taxes on the ground of deemed vacation of stay. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited 50 of the disputed taxes at the time of filing of the appeals. It is the case of the petitioner that it is not responsible for delay in disposal of the appeals. It is submitted that petitioner has a good case on merits and if the assessing authority recovers that balance of the taxes, it will be put to great hardship. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the view that the respondent should not take steps to recover the balance of the taxes till the disposal of the appeals. The appellate authority, namely, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-3, is directed to dispose of the appeals in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 5. Learned HCGP is permitted to file his memo of appearance within eight weeks from today. No cost.
-
2011 (6) TMI 948 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... during the course of initial assessment proceedings, the assessee referred to page No. 61, 62, 71, 81, 88 and 91 of the paper book. 10. Having regard to overall circumstances of the case we are of the view that it is not a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act. Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance (supra), had an occasion to consider this issue wherein facts and circumstances are identical. Since view taken by learned CIT(A) is in consonance with the view taken by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue and therefore the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 11. Consequently grounds urged by the assessee in the cross objections are not taken up for adjudication since it is academic in nature. 12. In the result appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 24th Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 947 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... .2. The copy of Profit & Loss account is placed on record and after going through the same it is found that the gross profit shown by assessee is 19.7 and not 20 . Therefore, deduction has to be allowed 19.7 of the gross profit. The valuation of the closing stock at 14, Vishnupuri and 14A, Vishnupuri is of ₹ 6.67 crores and ₹ 0.06 crores respectively. Total of both will be of ₹ 6.73 crores and 19.7 g.p. the figure will come to ₹ 1.31,40,000/-. Therefore, to this extent the deduction has to be allowed only and not ₹ 1.38crores. Accordingly, we direct the AO to modify his order to give benefit of reduction of gross profit at ₹ 1,31,40,000/- against claim of ₹ 1.38,00,000/-. In this way, this ground of the assessee is allowed partly and the ground of the department fails. 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and appeal of the department is dismissed. 22. The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ail discussion, I find considerable force in the argument that the time limit under Section 11A would be applicable to the present case. 8. Further I also take note of the fact that in the case of Krishna Engg. Works Ltd. reported in 2010 (261) ELT 801 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Annavarma Concrete (P) Ltd. reported in 2011 (263) ELT 469 (Tri.-Del.), Tribunal has taken a view that principle of limitation of time for demanding the principal amount is also applicable for recovery of interest. In both the cases, the Tribunal took a view that extended period of limitation is not available to the Revenue. It is to be noted that in both these decisions, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SKF India Ltd. was referred to. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the demand for interest confirmed against the appellants cannot be sustained and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed. (Pronounced & dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (6) TMI 945 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... team did not make any queries nor did it ask for the supporting documents at the time of inspection. 5. It must be remembered that the purpose of carrying out inspection is not punitive and the object is to make the intermediary comply with the procedural requirements in regard to the maintenance of records. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that every minor discrepancy/irregularity found during the course of inspection is not culpable and the object of the inspection could well be achieved by pointing out the irregularities/deficiencies to the intermediary at the time of inspection and making it compliant. This will, of course, depend on the nature of the irregularity noticed and we hasten to add a caveat that it is not being suggested that if any serious lapse is found during the course of the inspection, the Board should not proceed against the delinquent. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order set aside with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 944 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n respect of the goods sold, the addition has to be made towards normal average GP margin on sales and thereafter deduction is to be made towards marketing expenses and other adjustments i.e., towards functional, economic differences and working capital at 3 of the ALP as determined by the DRP. Accordingly, with these directions, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and remit back the entire issue to the file of Assessing Officer to re-determine the ALP in accordance with Rule 10B(1) (b) of the IT Rules and thereafter compute the additions if any required to be made u/s 92C(A) with regard to the difference between ALP and purchase price of international transactions after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 13. The other grounds are not seriously pressed by the AR before us and hence dismissed as not pressed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open court on 30.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 943 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in the cases of S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd.; N.K. Wahi; and Ramrajsingh on one hand and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rallys India Ltd. on the other hand. In any case, since the judgment in Rallys India Ltd. is of two judges bench whereas judgment in Ramrajsingh is of the bench having strength of three judges, the judgment rendered by the larger bench will have to be followed by this Court. 21. At this stage, it is made clear that the present petitions are only at the behest of the Directors of the company and not at the behest of the Company, Managing Director, Joint Managing Director or the signatory of the cheque. In that view of the matter, I find that all these petitions deserve to be allowed. Rule in all these petitions is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). 22. Needless to mention that the proceedings in so far as other accused are concerned, the same shall proceed in accordance with law.
-
2011 (6) TMI 942 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... every trade establishes the price. In addition to this trade, the appellant had executed two similar trades on behalf of Nirjay on the same day. We are satisfied that the appellant on behalf of Nirjay not only executed artificial trades but also raised the price upwards. Since the three trades in question were fictitious, they also increased the volumes. The charge, thus, stands established. It is not really necessary for us to examine the other trades executed by the appellant in settlements no. 27 and 32. It is enough for us to uphold the impugned order. It is clear from the trade and order logs that the appellant had executed 53 orders on September 14, 2000 resulting in about 800 trades and only three trades have been found fault with. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the period of suspension is reduced to ten days. We order accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of as above with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 941 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Levy of interest under section 234B - HELD THAT:- As the questions raised in this case in NGC network LLC [2009 (1) TMI 174 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that interest under section 234B of the Act cannot be charged as the assessee is not liable to pay advance tax and the liability is on the payer to deduct tax at source. We allow the ground raised by the assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 940 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... er hand, the ld. AR strongly relying on the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and filing of the written submissions, copy of contract with Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation and copy of contract awarded to Ceco Electronic Pvt. Ltd. contended that the action of the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 5. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, keeping in view of the fact that the assessee is an individual and in so far as the provisions of section 194C(1) is concerned the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.06.2007 states that section 194C(1) is applicable to the individual assesses only from 01.06.2007. Since the assessment year involved in this appeal is 2006-07 we find no infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT(A) which is in conformity with the provisions of IT Act. Therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 6. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.06.2011
........
|
