|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1059 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 1029 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal. The learned DR submitted that although the plea of the assessee that the depreciation as per the income-tax law was not considered by the AO, and has not been adjudicated by the CIT(A), but other plea of the assessee of the commercial angle of taking loan has been duly considered by him. He relied on the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). 4. We have considered rival submissions carefully. We find that in view of the pleadings of the parties and the fact that the plea of the assessee was not adjudicated by the CIT(A), we hold that it shall be in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the CIT(A) to his file with direction to pass de novo appellate order in accordance with law after allowing due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, and to consider and adjudicate the pleas of the parties. We direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1028 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... need for the revenue department to approach this Court. It is quite possible that the expenditure incurred by the revenue department may have been more as it has pursued the matter before the Tax Board as well as before this Court. A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur and also to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, for taking action in the cases like this and desist in filing such petitions having no merit/force in such cases involving such meager amount. 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to call for any interference by this Court, in the light of the clear provisions, laid down under the Act. No error, illegality or impropriety is found in the orders passed by the lower Appellate Authorities and no question of law is involved. 12. Resultantly, the Sales Tax Revision Petition as well as the stay application is dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1027 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 22. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the orders of the authorities below. While deciding ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal we have found that this is noted by the learned CIT(A) also in his order that the ITAT has held in some cases that even 3% profit is reasonable in that case. But in the present case, the assessee himself has reported profit of 7.31% and hence, these decisions are not squarely applicable but still it guards against very high estimation. The learned CIT(A) has held that to take care of small discrepancies, 8% rate is reasonable as against 7.31% declared by the assessee. Considering all these facts, we reduce the same to 7.5%. This ground is partly allowed. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. In the combined result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-05-2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1026 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ions with the said parties. It is observed that there can be cessation of liability only when the creditor gives up his claim or the assessee recognizes the cessation of liability. Further, I find that the assessee has submitted receipts from the sundry creditors as proof of having received the amounts outstanding from him, before the CIT(A) and that there is no cessation of liability as presumed by the AO. Further, the CIT(A) has followed the order of his predecessor in assessee’s own case for AY 200809 wherein similar addition u/s 41(1) has been deleted. The learned DR has not been able to produce any evidence on record to rebut the finding of the CIT(A). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and, accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby upheld dismissing the ground raised by the revenue on this count. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 24th May 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1025 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for search and seizure. Thus in the absence of compliance of the requirement, of section 132 of the Act the authorisation for search and seizure and the consequent search and seizure in respect of the petitioner's properties cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 20. Before concluding we would like to mention that all the other cases relied on by the learned counsel for the parties do not require specific consideration and mention because, they are quite distinguishable on facts and further because the view we are taking is not contrary to the view taken in the cases cited. 21. Having regard to the aforesaid the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The Authorization made by the first respondent against the petitioner, the search and seizure and the consequential proceedings as may be held against the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The authorities are directed to return the seized property of the petitioner forthwith. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1024 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s, we find foundation, civil and electrical work was necessary for installation of wind mill and is clearly a part and parcel of windmill project on which depreciation @80% is allowable. Regarding road it was held that construction for movement of crane could not be allowed as part of windmill but electric yard was held as part of windmill. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow in similar situation the depreciation @80% on electric yard fencing. 4. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation @80% on electric yard fencing. But on the point of depreciation of approach road 10% is justified. We uphold the same. 5. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Similar issue arose in remaining three appeals, so following the same ratio all the remaining three appeals are also partly allowed as discussed above. Pronounced in the Open court on this the 29th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1023 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect fact has been mentioned in para No. 64 of the order, hence it is only suspicion of the applicant that an impression has been created by the observation of the Tribunal made in the said para that assessee has earned income from ONGC during the relevant previous year for providing services relating to hook up and commissioning, insurance and pre-engineering survey. Of course it is not the case of assessee nor it has been taken as such by the observation of the Tribunal. Thus there is no mistake as claimed by the applicant in this para of the order. The submission of the applicant in this regard is thus rejected. 13. We thus find that the mistake apparent from record in the order is only a clerical mistake in typing the date 24th May, 2006 instead of the correct date 17th Nov., 2007 in para No. 20 which has been rectified with this finding that the rectified date is having no consequential effect on the finding of the Tribunal. 14. Consequently application is partly allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1022 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & 80P(4)-Intimation u/s 143(1) - Co-operative Credit Society - The A.O. was of the view that the assessee was neither a Primary agriculture Co-operative Society, nor was it entitled to the deduction according to Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, but was covered under the provisions of Section 80P(4). - HELD THAT:- The A.O’s. finding that in view of the amendment Act in Section 2(24) and 80P, the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s.80P was not in accordance with law. - The assessee is not subject to Section 80P(4) (Cooperative Banks) and is also eligible for a deduction under Section 80P(2).
-
2013 (5) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in accordance with law instead of entertaining a pre-mature writ petition. The State Government by its recommendation having forwarded the tabulated chart showing inter se merit of each applicant, it was not for the High Court to sit in appeal to decide who amongst all is more meritorious and is entitled for preferential right. 36. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and remit the matter to the Central Government to consider the question of approval under Section 5(1) taking into consideration the recommendations made by the State Government. While deciding the question it will keep in mind the objections raised by the parties as noticed in the preceding paragraphs. It is expected that the decision will be taken on an early date and shall be communicated to the State Government. The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction, but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1020 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ng of the word ‘enhanced’, it is clear that if income increased, as a result of computation of arm’s length price, then such increase is not to be considered for deduction under section 10A. In the instant case, the assessee himself has computed the arm’s length prices and has disclosed the income on the basis of arm’s length prices. It is not a case, where there is an enhancement of income due to determination of arm’s length price. Hence, it is held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10A in respect of income declared in the return of income on the basis of computation of arm’s length price.” 37. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any merits in the grounds of the revenue and consequently the same are dismissed. 38. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1019 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ation of tax challan.” 32. We have heard the ld. Representatives of the parties and records perused. Since the amount has been deposited and the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to verify the date of payment and Challan, in the light of the fact, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). Order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.. 33. The fifth ground is in respect of ₹ 71,75,671/- on account of prior period expenses. This ground is similar to ground no.2 in A.Y. 2007-08 which has been decided in paragraph no.9 of this order. Following the said discussion, we send back the issue to the file of CIT(A) with identical directions. 33.1 In the result, ITA No.272/A/2012 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 34. In the result, ITA No.228/A/2011 for A.Y. 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA No.229/A/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 is dismissed & ITA No.272/A/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 1018 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d., Vs. ITO (supra), we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s. 14A. However, the CIT(A) has confirmed the dis-allowance of interest u/s. 14A calculated by the Assessing Officer in accordance with Rule 8D. As has been held in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,(supra), Rule 8D is applicable w.e.f. AY. 2008-09, whereas the case in hand relates to the AY. 2007-08. Prior to AY. 2008- 09 dis-allowance u/s. 14A has to be made on some reasonable basis or method in the facts and circumstances of the each case. After taking the holistic view and the quantum of investment in shares, we deem it appropriate to reduce the dis-allowance from ₹ 69,17,637/- to ₹ 55.00 Lakhs. In view of our above observations, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced on Tuesday the 25th June, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1017 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ur considered view, these facts reasonably discharge the burden of the assessee for establishing the genuineness and business expediency of the expenses. Merely because the assessee could not produce subagents physically cannot be held against her. In view thereof, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), deleting the disallowance. His order on this is issue is upheld. Ground is dismissed. 17. Apropos ground no. 2 also the alleged difference in service tax figures has been duly explained by the assessee which has been described in extensive details by the CIT(A). Service tax is statutory payment and claimed to be paid within the year and difference, if any, has been reconciled by assessee and factually verified by the CIT(A). We see no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) on this aspect, accordingly, the same is upheld. 18. In the result, revenue’s appeal a well as assessee’s cross-objection are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 17 /05/ 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1016 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... making pre-deposit. We have invested some time in exploring the possibility of granting permission to the petitioners to sell the property for such purpose. However, the petitioners were unable to bring any buyer for such property. Counsel for the petitioners stated that in view of the attachment of the Department, the petitioners could not identify any buyer. Be that as it may, as of now, neither the petitioners are able to satisfy the pre-deposit requirement on their own nor are they able to bring any genuine buyer. Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of with following directions (1)Time for satisfying the pre-deposit requirement is extended upto 15th August 2013. If within such time, the amount is deposited, the Tribunal shall entertain the Tax Appeal on merits. (2)If within such time permitted, the petitioners find any buyer to sell the property in question, it would be open for them to approach the Court again. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1015 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has been rightly convicted for the capital offence and if not whether the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of the I.P.C - HELD THAT:- The incident was witnessed by the wife of the deceased and one other who was also present in the field nearby at the time of the occurrence. Two days after the occurrence when the condition of the deceased became precarious, wife filed a complaint at the Police Station on the basis whereby u/s 326, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C was registered by the police. Investigation of the case was taken up by Police Sub Inspector who recorded the panchnama of the scene of the crime and arrested the accused persons. The deceased eventually succumbed to his injuries whereupon Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was added to the case.
Whether the appellant has been rightly convicted for the offence of murder or if the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder. - HELD THAT:- According to the facts of the case, the nature of the simple injury inflicted by the accused, the part of the body on which it was inflicted, the weapon used to inflict the same and the circumstances in which the injury was inflicted do not suggest that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased. All that can be said is that the appellant had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause the death of the deceased. The case would, therefore, more appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Court allow this appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1014 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0,000/-. The submission is that the survey report was inadmissible as during the survey the stock found was not quantified. The tribunal has returned a clear finding that in survey the stock was not got measured or quantified. In the absence of actual weighing of the stock and its quantification during the survey it is not possible to disbelieve the stock registers. Therefore, the survey report can not be accepted for the reason that when actual quantification was not done it was not possible to say as to whether the stock shown in the books was less or more. Accordingly, no assessment on the basis of the survey report could have been made holding that there was suppression of turnover. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded, the tribunal committed manifest error of law in upholding the assessment made by the assessing authority/first appellate authority. The impugned orders dated 30.3.2006, 4.8.2006 and 22.5.2007 are set aside. The revision is allowed accordingly.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1013 - ITAT, AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... and ITAT, Agra Bench (supra), it is clear that the refusal to grant of registration to the assessee is highly unjustified. The aims and objects of the assessee, being educational in nature, are charitable and that the ld. CIT despite recommending the registration by the lower authorities, has merely acted on the draft order put up by the subordinate Officer, i.e., ITO (Tech.) and refused to grant registration to the assessee. In our view, the assessee is, therefore, entitled for registration u/s. 12AA of the IT Act. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order dated 21/27.07.2011 and direct the ld. CIT-II, Agra to grant registration to the assessee u/s. 12AA of the IT Act from the date of filing of application before him as per law. The registration shall be granted within one month from the receipt of this order. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f already paid) within three months. The Appellant No. 2-daughter who was aged about 2 years at the time of accident of the deceased has already attained majority; money may be required for her education and marriage. In the circumstances, we direct Respondent No. 3 to deposit 25% of the due amount in the account of Appellant No. 1-the wife. Out of the rest 75% of the due amount, 35% of the amount be invested in a Nationalized Bank by fixed deposit for a period of one year in the name of the daughter- Appellant No. 2. Out of the rest 40% of the due amount, 20% each be invested in a Nationalized Bank by fixed deposit for a period of one year in the name of the Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, the wife and the mother respectively. 34. The award passed by the Tribunal dated 21st June, 2003 and the judgment dated 29th July, 2011 of the Rajasthan High Court stand modified to the extent above. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. No separate order as to costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1011 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cerned, the issue is already decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat Guardian Ltd. 177 Taxman 434(Del). In so far as the proposed question No. 3 is concerned, the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of this court in CIT v. M/s Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd. 346 ITR 329 (Del). The proposed question No. 4 is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC). That leaves us with proposed question No. 1. That question does arise for determination of this court and is accordingly framed as a substantial question of law. The appeal is admitted in so far as question No. 1 above is concerned. The printing of paper books is dispensed with. The parties may file additional documents within three months provided they were part of the record before the Tribunal. List in due course.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1010 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... y other expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purpose of making or earning "income from other sources" of Chapter IV-F of the Act. The deposits collected from the members by the Assessee was for giving credit to its members and not for making investments in fixed deposits and earning interest from them. The interest income from such deposits was from such deposits only and was incidental to and was the result of the same. The interest income was totally independent of the deposits collected by the Assessee from its members. Therefore the alternate claim of the Assessee cannot also be accepted. 22. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the order u/s.263 of the Act was just and proper and calls for no interference. Consequently, the appeal by the Assessee is dismissed. 23. In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of May, 2013.
........
|
