|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1806 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1752 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rder deserves to be quashed and set aside. However liberty can be reserved in favour of the department to pass an order afresh in accordance with law and on merits after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and if permissible under the law now. 6.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. Impugned order passed by the Assistant Commercial Commissioner Tax (2), Nadiad AnnexureF to the petition dated 31.03.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, it is observed that the same shall not affect the proceedings under the Central Excise Act for which the showcause notice has been issued. A liberty is also reserved in favour of the department to pass reassessment order afresh in accordance with law and on merits and after giving fullest opportunity to the petitioner and if permissible under the law now. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1751 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... us names. These transactions do indicate that the ledger account in page 23 does not pertain to Assessee Shri D.V.Krishna Reddy but pertains to M/s SVK Projects. Therefore, we are unable to understand as to how the addition can be made in the hands of Assessee, who is a partner in both the firms. We were informed that no action has been taken in the hands of M/s SVK projects. Since all the contributions/ transactions are pertaining to M/s SVK, we are of the considered opinion that the amount cannot be added in the hands of Assessee. In view of this, we have no hesitation in deleting the amount in the hands of Assessee. If there is any incriminating material or doubt about sources, revenue is free to enquire in the hands of M/s SVK, if required, but this is only an observation but not a direction. With these observations, addition made in the hands of Assessee stands deleted. 11. In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1750 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... summons complaint case cannot be dropped against an accused at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. even if a prima facie case is not made out. 10. In the aforesaid view, this petition and the application are disposed of without commenting upon the merits of this case and with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court. Needless to say, the pleas raised by petitioner at the hearing on the point of Notice under Section 251of Cr.P.C. shall be dealt with by the trial court by passing a reasoned order so that petitioner may avail of the remedies available in law, if need be. Since the plea pertaining to Section 305 of Cr.P.C. goes to the root of this matter, therefore, till the hearing on the point of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is concluded by the trial court, personal appearance of petitioner before the trial court is dispensed with provided petitioner is duly represented by counsel, who does not seek adjournment.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1749 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., with liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of Notice and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking order. Needless to say, if the trial court proceeds to drop the proceedings qua petitioners, then the Apex Court’s decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not stand in the way of trial court to do so. Till the trial court decides to frame or not to frame Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against petitioner, petitioner's personal appearance before the trial court be not insisted, provided petitioner is duly represented by counsel, who does not seek adjournment on his behalf. Needless to say that if the trial court chooses to frame Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., then petitioner would be at liberty to avail of the remedy as available in the law.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1748 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... there is no reason to make this addition, when the assessee has transacted his real estate deals through his bank accounts. The revenue is aggrieved by the said decision of Ld CIT(A). 54.1 An identical addition of peak credit balance was made in the assessment year 2004-05 also. We have dealt with the same in detail while considering the appeal of that year. All the observations made therein shall also apply for the year under consideration. Consistent with the view taken in assessment year 2004-05, in this year also, we hold that there is force in the submission of the assessee that he has routed through major portion of sale proceeds of real estate business and vehicle business through his bank accounts. 55. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment years 2003-04 is dismissed. All other appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. All other appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1747 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... of action into parts by filing separate suits. We find, as such, that Respondent had omitted certain reliefs which were available to it at the time of filing of the first suit and after having relinquished the same, it cannot file a separate suit in view of the provisions of Sub-rule 2 of Order 2 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure. The object of Order 2 Rule 2 is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and not to vex the parties over and again in a litigative process. The object enunciated in Order 2 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure is laudable and it has a larger public purpose to achieve by not burdening the court with repeated suits. 16. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has committed an error in reversing the order dated 10.05.2005, passed by the District Court, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1746 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... d part of this exception, which requires that even if the loan is given by the company to the shareholder in the ordinary course of business, it has to be seen that lending of money is substantial part of the business of the company. On this aspect, it was held by the Tribunal that if the money lending business of the lender company constituted more than 20% of the total business of the company, the lending of money could be said to be substantial part of the business of the company. In the present case, the assessee is not satisfying with the first requirement of this clause that the loan in question was given by the lender in the ordinary course of business and therefore, there is no requirement of examining the second part of the stipulation as to whether such advancing of loan in ordinary course of business is substantial part of the business of the lender company or not. This ground of the Revenue is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1745 - ITAT CHENNAI
Determination of a project as "Housing project" u/s-80-IB(10) - Approval of Project and Completion date as per Sec-80-IB(10) - Project undertaken a "works contract" - Undertaken "Contract risk" or "Investment risk" - HELD THAT:- the project was considered to be an housing project, which is within the ambit of section 80IB(10) of the Act. Therefore, Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and the ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
The method adopted by the assessee is according to his business convenience and in our opinion, the housing project is on the size of plot of land having more than 1 acre and therefore, on this account, the benefit available under section 80IB(10) cannot be denied and the ld. CIT(Appeals), after discussing in detail has held that the housing project constructed by the assessee is in 1 acre of land and we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals). Accordingly, the issue raised by the Revenue stands dismissed.
The project executed by the assessee was not of the nature of works contract and the assessee undertook investment risk.
The ownership is not an essential condition to get the benefit under section 80IB(10). In this case, the assessee being a developer as well as builder is entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
The decision in this case of CIT v. Vandana Properties [2012 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] CTR 258 & CIT v. Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise 255 CTR (Mad) 156 [2012 (12) TMI 84 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] were followed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1744 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... plated. It is not in dispute that the assessee later completed the construction and has occupied the residential house. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the order of the CIT(Appeals) allowing benefit of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act to the assessee. We therefore confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 12. The ld. counsel for the assessee has raised some alternative contentions before us with regard to the year in which the capital gain ought to have been brought to tax. According to him the capital gain cannot be brought to tax in AY 09-10 because of the provisions of Sec.54F of the Act and that only in the year of default of compliance with conditions u/s.54F of the Act, capital gain can be brought to tax. We have not gone into those contentions in view of our conclusions as above. 13. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1743 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... succeeds. Finally, it may not be out of place to state that the Revenue has not applied itself in the matter. Besides not bringing the full facts to the fore per its orders, with even the relevant Agreement/s being not on record, it has also not considered the assessee’s alternate contention that the payee having accounted for the entire receipt as its income, paying taxes thereon, no tax could be recovered. The same is by now a well settled proposition, so that, where so, no tax could be recovered, and the Revenue is only entitled to the interest u/s. 201(1A) for the difference in the time period, i.e., even assuming that tax was to be deducted at a higher rate. Further, we also observe that it (Revenue) has applied the TDS on rent @ 20% for all the years, while the rates stands, post 01.10.2009, modified to 10%. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for all the years are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on November 27, 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1742 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sted on the gross profit estimated by the Officer, when the purchase and sale were guided by the price fixed by the Government and comparable date therein was also available. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, if the assessee had any agricultural operation and earned income, certainly, it was always open to the assessee to bring any such material to substantiate the facts. The facts, therefore, ought to have been brought before the Assessing Officer or before the First Appellate Authority to substantiate the case of the assessee, that he had been in receipt of the income earned out of agricultural operation. In the absence of any materials shown or onus discharged in the manner known to law, we do not agree with the assessee's contention based on the decisions cited. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Tax Case (Appeals) and thereby in confirming the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tax Case (Appeals) stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1741 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... y if at all the said person had used the assessee’s credit cards and made payments or not. In these circumstances, we observe that the findings under challenge arrived at by the CIT(A) suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, we deem it appropriate that the matter be re-examined afresh by the Assessing Officer as per law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who would be at liberty to produce cogent evidence, if any, in support of the claim. The Revenue’s appeal stands accepted for statistical purposes. 9. Since there is only once issue raised in appeal by the Revenue and assessee’s cross objections support the order under challenge passed by the CIT(A), the same also stand accepted for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 27th of November, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1740 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he used to collect a token amount and if any student did not get the admission that he is used to refund the said amount. We also find that the assessee could not co-relate the amount of the cash seized with the amount noted on the loose papers. Moreover, the assessee has also explained how he is using code figures in respect of his consultancy fees. Once he admits the contents of documents and also explains same then in such circumstances he can not cry that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly sustained addition in his hand. In our opinion to the extent of ₹ 2,00,50,000/- the addition has to be sustained in the hands of the assessee on Substantive Basis as in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth the said addition has been deleted. Accordingly Grounds Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are dismissed. 18. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A.Ys. 2004-05 and 2005-06 are allowed and the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07 is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 29-11-2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1739 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... losses in respect of depreciation of ₹ 37,91,077/- of current year and unabsorbed deprecation of ₹ 23,35,717/- for A.Y. 2007-08. It was pointed out on behalf of Authorized Representative that Assessing Officer has not mentioned about the depreciation of current and unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 2007-08. CIT(A) found this contention correct that Assessing Officer was not mentioned above these losses which he was required to do so. So, he directed Assessing Officer to indicate specifically the depreciation and unabsorbed depreciation for A.Y.2007-08 while giving effect to this order. This factual reasoned finding of CIT(A) need no inference. We held the same. As a result appeal of revenue for this year is dismissed. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2009-10. Following the same reasoning, the appeals of revenue on both accounts is dismissed. 5. In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the day 21st of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1738 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the part of the detenu to establish before this Court that a request was made to the Advisory Board and that the Advisory Board has declined him permission. In this behalf, we must say that neither in the pleadings nor in the evidence is there any specific averment that any such request was made to the Advisory Board or that the Advisory Board declined such a request made. Such being the factual situation, we are not prepared to act upon this submission made at the bar, which is not substantiated either by facts or pleadings. Even in Ext. P6, the representation made by the detenu before the Advisory Board, all that is stated is "Sri. Shaji T.S. is available for giving evidence to that effect before this Hon'ble Court" and this, in our view, is totally insufficient to accept the case of the detenu. Therefore, for all the above reasons, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised and in our view, the writ petition deserves only dismissal and we do so.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1737 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee is regarding unexplained investment in construction of bungalow of ₹ 1,63,845/-. Both the parties submitted that on this issue, the facts are identical with the issue in the assessee’s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005. For the reasons recorded in the foregoing paras of this order, while disposing of the assessee’s appeal, for the earlier assessment year 2004-2005 in IT(SS)A.No.212/Ahd/2010, we hold that the assessee is entitled to telescopic benefit to the extent of his share in the profit & loss account in the partnership firm, in the peak amount assessed in the case of the firm of ₹ 5,76,670/-, and accordingly, the addition on account of unexplained investment is reduced by ₹ 69,260/- out of unexplained investment of ₹ 1,63,845/- and the balance addition is confirmed. 19. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1736 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r. Dhananjay Baijal, Adv., Ms. Akanksha, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Admit. Issue notice on the application for stay returnable on 20th January, 2014. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1735 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nment securities was made as per prudential norms of the RBI and same was allowable deduction. In view of above, assessee was justified in contending for amortisation of premium paid in excess of face value of securities held to maturity (HTM) category or period remaining till maturity was found reasonable by the CIT(A). Accordingly addition of ₹ 17,91,659/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing amount towards amortisation of Government Securities (HMT) was deleted. This reasoned factual and legal finding of the CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. 9. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 2.1 Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning, Assessing Officer is directed to allow ₹ 13,50,000/- on account of amortization premium paid on Govt. Securities held under HTM category. 3. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the day 27th of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1734 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... dit of the same. As the Service Tax has already been paid by the provider of GTA service and Revenue is demanding the same tax from the recipient. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The appellant also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 421 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 3. The Revenue relies upon the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that as per the provisions of the Finance Act, recipient is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA service and if the same has been by the service provider, he can seek refund of the amount. I find that there is no dispute regarding payment of Service Tax by the provider of GTA service. Once the amount of Service Tax is accepted by the Revenue from the provider of GTA service, it cannot be again demanded from the recipient of the GTA service. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1733 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... rayed that notice issued under section 153C be held as bad in law and hence the assessment made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C be treated as null and void abinition. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 the addition made by learned Assessing Officer by disallowing claim of depreciation @ 80% on civil work when such disallowance is not made on the basis of any material seized during the course of search and hence addition made under section 153C be deleted as the addition made on this account is beyond the scope of sec. 153A.” they have not been pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. 10. Accordingly, the Cross-objection is partly allowed. 11. The aforesaid decision shall apply to all the captioned appeals of the Revenue and Cross-objections of the assessee. 12. Resultantly, whereas the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, the Cross-objections of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
........
|
