|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 987 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... purchase and sale of these shares are found and enclosed. All these papers were available before the AO. We have noticed that the sale of shares was found to be genuine when the AO made enquiries from the stock exchange directly. This fact is evident from assessment order (refer p. 17 para 8.17). In our considered opinion, the AO has acted on the basis of suspicion alone. Some of the decisions relied on by the learned Authorised Representative mentioned supra are as under 1. Dalpat Singh Choudhary v. Asstt CIT 2012 25 taxmann.com 153 (Jodh.) 2. Dy. CIT v. Smt. Hansa Choudhary 2012 23 taxmann.com 302 (Jodh.) 3. Asstt. CIT v. Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari 2009 29 SOT 58 (Jodh.) (URO) 4. Baijnath Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT 2010 40 SOT 475 (Agra) (TM) 5. Smt Sunita Oheroi v. ITO 2009 126 TTJ (Agra)(TM) 745 6. Acchyalal Shaw v. ITO 2009 30 SOT 44 (Kol.) (URO). Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 986 - ITAT RANCHI
... ...
... ... ..... nue could not dispute this legal position. Therefore, so far as question of law involved in this appeal that whether the interest could have been levied against the assessed income of the assessee under Sections 234 A and 234 B is concerned, in view of the Full Bench judgment of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court delivered in the case of Smt. Tej Kumari, the revenue can levy the interest only on the total income declared in the returns and not on the income assessed and determined by the A.O. to that extent. The orders passed by the authorities below are accordingly modified and interest shall be chargeable in the light of the Full Bench judgment, referred above.” 6. We accordingly following the above decision, direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest under section 234B on the basis of the total income declared by the assessee in the return filed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 985 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... s of both the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to work out profit of liquor trade by applying net profit rate of 2 % in place of net profit rate of 1.89 % shown by the assessee, which was estimated by the Assessing Officer at 3 %. Once the business profit is determined by estimating net profit rate on the sales, no further deduction can be allowed on account of any expenditure including expenditure on account of remuneration to partners. 10. Interest income earned on bank deposit is assessable as “income from other sources”. Interest income cannot be said to be earned out of business sales, thus, interest income is assessable as “income from other sources” u/s 56 and not as “business income” u/s 28 of Income-tax Act, 1961. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed in part, whereas the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 17th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 984 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rovide the copy of the available records; he cannot create new records in order to address specific queries of the Appellant. What the Appellant wants here is clearly in the nature of seeking opinion and not information. Therefore, it is not within the capacity of the CPIO to offer any such opinion or comment. In fact, a legal counsel may be better placed to address the queries of the Appellant. 6. In the light of the above, we do not think that the CPIO is required to disclose any information in this case although we do not agree with the reasons given by the CPIO for not disclosing the information, namely, the matter is pending before a court of law. 7. The case is disposed off accordingly. 8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
-
2013 (5) TMI 983 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... The ld TPO has also given his reason in para no 5.3.3. of his order. He held that no such adjustment was made in Rule 10 D documentation. As the complete fact of the issue, identifying each products and its valuation and consequential shortfall and whether it is an extra ordinary items as per TP documentation is not coming out, Hence this issue is set aside to the file of the ld TPO/AO to decide afresh . Ground no 2 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Regarding capacity utilization level in the case of the assessee as well as the comparable company, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A) who allowed it only with respect to depreciation. Hence, Ground no 3 is dismissed. 18. Accordingly, application of assessee under rule 27 of ITAT rules, 1963 for inclusion of Renowned Auto products manufacturing Co Limited is allowed and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/05/2018.
-
2013 (5) TMI 982 - ITAT AMRITSAR.
... ...
... ... ..... Thus, ground No.4 of the assessee is partly allowed. 10. As regards ground No.5, the AO made disallowance of 1/5th expenses out of Telephone, Car depreciation & Car expenses amounting to ₹ 22,359/- being on account of personal and non-business element and in the absence of any evidence for incurring expenditure for the purposes of business, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is nothing on record that the whole expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of business before any of the authorities below or even before us. Accordingly, the A.O. has very reasonably disallowed 1/5th of the expenses in dispute. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard. Thus, ground No.5 of the assessee is dismissed. 12 In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.54(Asr)/2013 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 981 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ld that the word incurred used in 145A(b) must be construed to mean the liability actually incurred by the assessee. The CIT(A) observed that though the date of manufacture is the relevant date for dutiability, the relevant date for the duty liability, is the date on which the goods are cleared. In other words, in respect of excisable goods manufacture and lying in stock, the excise duty liability will get crystallized on the date of clearance of goods and not on the date of manufacture. We find that, in the case under consideration, the liability for excise duty did not crystallize, the provisions of section 145A are not applicable to assessee’s case. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the addition made towards variation in the valuation of closing stock. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 3rd May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 979 - SUPREME COURT
Charges on Bribe against Revenue officer under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sanction granted by the competent authority was defective and illegal - HELD THAT:- The learned trial Judge has referred to the sanction order Ext.13 and the forwarding letter Ext. 14 and, thereafter, proceeded to observe that the order of sanction is completely bereft of elementary details; that though the date is not mentioned in the FIR, the authority has mentioned the date in the sanction order; that the order of sanction is delightfully vague; that the amount of bribe that finds place in the sanction order was told to him and he had no personal knowledge about it; that the minimum discussion is absent in the order of sanction; that grant of sanction being not an idle formality it was incumbent on the competent authority to ascribe proper reasons on perusal of the materials; that there is no material to show the existence of objective material to formulate the subjective satisfaction; that the authority has granted sanction in an absolute mechanical manner; and that the order of sanction does not reflect sincerity of approach. The High Court, while dealing with the said reason, has really not discussed anything except stating that a possible view has been taken by the learned trial Judge and in appeal it cannot substitute the findings merely because any other contrary opinion can be rendered in the facts of the case.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the High Court and the conclusion of the learned trial Judge pertaining to the validity of sanction are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court. Court have not dealt with any other finding recorded by the learned trial Judge, it has to be construed that there has been no expression of opinion on the merits of the case on those counts. The High Court shall be well advised to consider all the aspects barring what has been dealt with in this appeal while dealing with the application for grant of leave.
-
2013 (5) TMI 978 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y under section 80P(2)(a)(i) has been rejected by the assessing authority despite there being an order passed by jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is binding on the assessing authorities and on account of the same not having been considered by the assessing officer an appeal has been filed and same has not been disposed of by the second respondent, and as such he seeks for a direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the appeal within a time frame. 4. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned panel counsel appearing for respondents would fairly submit that if sufficient time is granted to 2nd respondent appeal would be disposed of on merits. By placing his submission on record a direction is issued to the second respondent to dispose of the appeal (Annexure-E) filed by the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified cop y of this order. All contentions of the parties are left o pen and no view is expressed on the merits of the case.
-
2013 (5) TMI 977 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... will remain permanently stayed. In default of any instalment being paid, the petition will be advertised once in ‘The Statesman’ and once in ‘Bartaman.’ The advertisements should indicate that the matter will appear before Court on the first available working day after the expiry of a period of four weeks from the date of the publications being made. Publication in the official gazette shall stand dispensed with. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (5) TMI 976 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... unts and having been found guilty, the authority imposed a vxnalty of on the Respondent Company. On the other hand. the leamed counsel for the Respondents submitted that they preferred an appeal against the order dated 14.112012 of the Assistant Commissioner. Central Excise before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. I have examined the photocopy of the Form EAI dated which is enclosed at Page 38 of the typed set of documents filed by the Respondents. In view of the Appeal prefered by the Company against the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise I am of the view that the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise has not attained finality in view of the pending appeal Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn in this regard. Overall. the Applicant has failed to make out any ease even for the Other reliefs. Accordingly. the issue is answered. Hence, CA No.l/2013 in CP is dismissed. NO orders as to costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 975 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... essee is entitled to get unabsorbed depreciation of the earlier years 1984-85 and 1985-86 set off in 1987-88 even if no valid return for the asstt. yr. 1986-87 had been filed by the assessee.” 13. A reading of the provisions of section 32(2) alongwith the exposition of the Hon’ble High Court as above, it is evident that there is no provision under the Act which makes it mandatory for the assessee to file the return for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is to be notified by the Assessing Officer in the case of unabsorbed business loss. Thus, we hold that the assessee is entitled to get set off of the unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, even if no valid return for the intervening period has been filed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 14. In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10/5/2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 974 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Unfortunately, the trial court at the time of issuance of process and also Sessions Court while considering the revision preferred by the petitioners against the order of issuance of process, failed to appreciate the fatal defect in the complaint. Both the Courts did not notice that any written complaint filed must state the necessary particulars of the offence alleged against the accused. In the absence, no other document can be looked into for that purpose in a criminal case. Any document that is relied upon or even annexed to such a complaint, would only be evidence to support the allegations made in the complaint. In the circumstances, it must be held that the complaint as filed by the respondent is vague in as much as it does not disclose particulars of the offence alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. For the reasons above, the revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
-
2013 (5) TMI 973 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 2nd May, 2013 duly signed by the parties and their respective advocates. Minutes of the Order is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. Arbitration petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 972 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... dv., Mr. S.K. Srivastav, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vijay Nair, Adv., Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Adv., Mr. Shekhar Kumar, Adv. O R D E R We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court since it is only an ad interim order. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly. However, we are of the opinion that it will be in the interests of all the parties if the notice of motion is finally decided within a period of two months from today.
-
2013 (5) TMI 971 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... es, in our view, the assessing officer has properly applied his mind and the view taken by him is one of the possible views. 8. The Learned A.R has also pointed out that the view expressed by Learned CIT that the expenses relating to rental receipts can be ascertained is not correct in view of the fact that there were no books of account. The Learned CIT has not brought on record as to how the expenses can be determined in the absence of books of account. It was also pointed out that the Learned CIT has not thought it to revise the assessment order of the assessment year 2005-06, which was passed in an identical manner. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the assessing officer has taken one of the possible views while completing the assessment of the years under consideration. Accordingly, we set aside the revision orders passed by Learned CIT for both the years under consideration. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 970 - SUPREME COURT
Central Administrative tribunal (tribunal) - Appellant (IPS Officer) was on deputation - Punishment of Compulsory Retirement - Misconduct of an Administrative nature or of a serious nature - Respondent No. 1 against the order of the Tribunal raising a very large number of grievances. The Appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been harassed and penalised for no fault of his own and has been awarded a punishment which is uncalled for. Thus, he had moved the Tribunal, High Court of Delhi and this Court several times.
Appellant submitted that there has been misreading of evidence by the High Court of Delhi that charge Nos. 4 and 6 have been proved fully. The charges were trivial in nature and could not warrant the punishment of compulsory retirement. The Appellant faced departmental proceedings for six years and had been deprived of being considered for further promotion. He is due to retire in December, 2013. The Appellant remained under suspension for 11 months and was dismissed from service for about 19 months. He had been granted 'Z' class protection initially which was subsequently scaled down to 'Y' category. The Appellant was given the said security/protection even during the period of suspension and dismissal. Even during that period he had been provided with a bullet proof car and PSOs as he had been facing threats from naxalites. Therefore, the punishment so imposed is to be set aside.
Charge no. 4 Favoritism and manipulation in the selection of Headmaster, BSF Primary School Kadmatala even though the candidate did not possess essential qualification and was not eligible.
Charge no.6 Misuse of official vehicle, arms and ammunition and BSF personnel during the marriage of his son in Feb. 2006 at his native place in Balia, UP.
Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded by the Disciplinary Authority is proportionate to the delinquency proved - HELD THAT:- In both the cases the misconduct seems to be of an administrative nature rather than a misconduct of a serious nature. It was not the case of the department that the Appellant had taken the escort vehicle with him. There was only one vehicle which was an official vehicle for his use and charge No. 6 stood partly proved. In view thereof, the punishment of compulsory retirement shocks the conscience of the court and by no stretch of imagination can it be held to be proportionate or commensurate to the delinquency committed by and proved against the Appellant. The only punishment which could be held to be commensurate to the delinquency was as proposed by the Government of India to withhold two increments for one year without cumulative effect. It would have been appropriate to remand the case to the disciplinary authority to impose the appropriate punishment. However, considering the chequered history of the case and in view of the fact that the Appellant had remained under suspension for 11 months, suffered the order of dismissal for 19 months and would retire after reaching the age of superannuation in December 2013, the facts of the case warrant that this Court should substitute the punishment of compulsory retirement to the punishment proposed by the Union of India i.e. withholding of two increments for one year without having cumulative effect.
-
2013 (5) TMI 969 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e enquiry and taken a possible/permissible view then the said order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. The Commissioner has not formed an opinion or given any finding in the impugned order that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is absolutely incorrect or unsustainable in law. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer has conducted an enquiry; though it may be an inadequate enquiry, then the Commissioner must, after recording the reasons to hold that the order is erroneous and cannot direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider for conducting a fresh enquiry. 4.13 In view of the above discussion as well as in the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the impugned revision order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and the same is set aside. 5 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 10th May 2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 968 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nior counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to entertain the appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 967 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... No. 11791 (M/B) of 2010 and the instant writ petition has wrongly been delinked from the said bunch of writ petitions. Under these circumstances, C.M. Application No. 7027 of 2013 is allowed and judgment and order dated 18-5-2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11791 (M/B) of 2012 in respect of the instant writ petition is recalled. 5. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, we allow the writ petition in terms of the judgment and order dated 18-5-2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11791 (M/B) of 2010 (Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others). 6. Office is directed that while issuing the certified copy of this order, certified copy of the order dated 18-5-2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11791 (M/B) of 2010 (Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and others) shall also be issued to the respective parties as per High Court Rules.
........
|
