|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1103 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgement. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act." 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, the MA filed by assessees is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1102 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... he addition to the extent of ₹ 1,00,000/- and balance addition is deleted. The A.O. is directed to make the addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- only in the income declared by the assessee. 9. As regards, the Ground No.3, we find that since we sustained ₹ 1,00,000/- in the income declared by the assessee and directed A.O. to take the computation of total income on the basis of returned in which the assessee has already shown the interest income on the credit side of the profit and loss account, therefore, separate addition is not warranted. Therefore, the same is deleted. The A.O. is directed to compute the total income taking basis of return of income declared by the assessee and made addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- as discussed above. Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 10. Ground No.4 is general nature requires no independence findings. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. (Order pronounced in the open court.)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1101 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... xistence of “sufficient cause” is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretion under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. “sufficient cause” must mean a cause beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section. A cause for delay which the party could have avoided by the exercise of the care and attention cannot be a sufficient cause. In other words, the Court must be able to say, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay was reasonable. A cause arising from the negligence of the party cannot be a “sufficient cause” within the meaning of section 5”. 5. Viewed from the back ground of the judicial pronouncements, in our view, the reasons cited by the assessee for the delay cannot be taken as “sufficient cause”. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in limine, as unadmitted. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 16-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1100 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 and 12 of the judgment in the aforesaid case that in that case the issue was as to whether sending of a notice from Delhi itself would give rise to a cause of action for taking cognizance of a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the parties had been carrying on business at Chandigarh, the Head Office of the Respondent-complainant was at Delhi but it had a branch at Chandigarh and all the transactions were carried out only from Chandigarh. On these facts, this Court held that Delhi from where the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was issued by the Respondent would not have had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This question does not arise in the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore for decision in accordance with law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1099 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is framed in the name of nonexisting entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provision of section 292B. The framing of assessment against a non-existing entity / person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 12. Thus, we find that the assessment in this case is invalid on the basis of exposition by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. supra. Accordingly, the set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and hold that assessment in this case was invalid. 13. Since, we have already held that re-assessment in this case was invalid, other grounds taken by the assessee are now of only academic interest. Hence, they are not being adjudicated. 14. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23 August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1098 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal. However, from the facts and circumstances of the case and from the decision of the case cited by the learned AR as well as the decision held in the case Vijay Proteins Pvt. Ltd., cited supra, it would be appropriate to disallow 25% of ₹ 12,73,423/- and not ₹ 12,73,423/- as held by the learned AO and (Rs.7,14,500/- 25% of ₹ 5,58,923/-) sustained by the learned CIT(A). We have arrived at this conclusion because from the facts of the case it is apparent that the quantitative figures inclusive of the bogus bill for ₹ 12,73,423/- have tallied. Thus, addition to the extent of 25% on the bogus bill claimed as expenditure ie., ₹ 12,73,423/- which works out to ₹ 3,18,355/- is sustained and the balance addition made by the revenue is deleted. Thus, both the grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly disposed of in his favour. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14 -8-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1097 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... enant who is inducted during the subsistence of the mortgage is not entitled to get the protection of the Maharashtra Rent Act. This legal position has been settled by this Court in Om Prakash Garg v. Ganga Sahai and others AIR 1988 -SC 108. In this connection reference may also be made to the Judgment of this Court in Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. And another v. K.C. Bhaskaran Nair AIR 1989 SC 1110. 17. In the above-mentioned circumstances, we are of the view that the courts below have not appreciated the various legal issues and committed an error in non-suiting the appellant. We answer those questions in favour of the appellant and hold that the appellant is entitled to get a decree, as prayed for, since the original first respondent was inducted illegally and to the prejudice of the original mortgagee. Consequently, the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed, however, without any mesne profits. The appeal is allowed, but without any order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1096 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Adv., Ms. Tanushree Sinha, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv. ORDER Permission is granted to the petitioners to file an application to add some more grounds in the special leave petitions. Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1095 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irect Taxes permits and allows sales tax liability, which is converted into a loan to be set off in the year in which the liability is so converted and the Government order is issued. In the present case, the order was passed on March 24, 2003, when the conversion was allowed. We are not concerned and required to examine hypothetical question, whether an assessee is entitled to claim deduction in the year when the order is communicated or comes to his knowledge. The question/issue is left open. In the present case, the liability was so converted in the year in question. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 2. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1094 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ced reliance on the assessment order whereas the learned counsel for the assessee defended the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. 3.1 We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the learned Assessing Officer made disallowance of prior period expenses without appreciating that the liability in respect of these expenses was crystalised during the year. The learned first appellate authority has already discussed the facts and various decisions including from Hon’ble Apex Court/High Court and the Tribunal. On consideration of the facts available on record and the judicial pronouncements mentioned in the order of the learned CIT(A), we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and affirm the same. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of learned counsel of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 20.8.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1093 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uot;security" occurring in S. 15 of the Act before its amendment would cover 'economic security' as well. In view of the definition of "property" in S. 2(h), by using any means of whatsoever in nature, loss is caused to the property, it would attract sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of S. 15 before its amendment by Act 3 of 2013. Property includes cash, bank account and funds. The finance of the country is included in the definition of property. If any loss is caused to the finance of the country by an act on the part of the accused with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, it would attract S. 15 of the Act. Since we have held that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act applies on the allegation made by the prosecution, the contention put forward by the appellant that extension of the period to complete investigation is not possible, has necessarily to fail. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Criminal Appeal.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1092 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Rules on account of administrative expenses. Admittedly, the assessee is not maintaining separate accounts in respect of its investment activity and in view thereof the provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules are squarely applicable and disallowance is to be computed in accordance with the said provisions of Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules for working out disallowance under section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Assessing Officer in this regard. However, the assessee is entitled to the set off of the amount surrendered at ₹ 6,06,977/-. In view thereof, ground Nos.8 to 8.4 raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 69. The ground No.9 raised by the assessee is against charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act, which is consequential. Hence ground of appeal No.9 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 70. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed Order pronounced in the open court on this 26t h day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1091 - SUPREME COURT
Merger of Appeals - Challenging the legality of the proceedings of Judicial Magistrate taken under SARFAESI Act - Conditions for Possession of the secured assets - The first Respondent is a guarantor of the borrower to loan transaction whereby the second Respondent borrowed money from the Appellant .the first Respondent created a mortgage on certain property hereinafter referred to as the "secured asset" owned by him to secure the loan. A notice under Section 13(2)2 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act") demanding the repayment of the loan amount along with interest within a period of sixty days was issued inter alia to the borrower as well as the guarantor (Respondent Nos. 2 and 1 herein). The first Respondent neither made the payment nor raised any objection to the said demand. Failure to which court appointed an Advocate commissioner to take possession of the secured asset and to handover the same to the Appellant herein.
HELD THAT:- Both the Appeals raised a common question of law, the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment. On the date of the impugned order the law did not oblige the Magistrate to undertake any such exercise. Apart from that court is satisfied on examination of the content of the affidavit that all the basic requirements necessary for granting the request of the Appellant of delivery of the possession of the secured asset are asserted to have existed on the date of application. Therefore, court do not see any illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1090 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... one set of persons or objects such laws may not necessarily be the same as those governing another set of persons or objects so that the question of unequal treatment does not really arise between persons governed by different conditions and different set of circumstances." 46. Tested on the touchstone of the abovestated principles, the irresistible conclusion is that the classification is in the permissible realm of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the submission that Section 12 invites the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution is sans substratum and, accordingly, we have no hesitation in repelling the same and we so do. 47. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we uphold the constitutional validity of Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 as it does not infringe any of the facets of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ex- consequenti, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1089 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Unaccounted sale - Estimation of income - only profit element is liable to tax - Assessee engaged in business of construction of flats - was collecting unaccounted cash from the purchasers of the flats. - HELD THAT:- entire amount of sale proceeds cannot be regarded as profit of the assessee, the net profit rate had to be adopted for the purpose of addition. Out of entire undisclosed receipt of ₹ 62 lacs, profit of ₹ 26 lacs is taxable for securing the ends of justice.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1088 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ble Supreme Court has held that nature and genuineness of the transaction and intention of the parties is to be considered. 5.2. The case law relied on by the CIT(A) of Smt. Ch. Mangayamma (supra) is not applicable as it decides the constitutional validity of section 40A(3) which is not the issue before us. 5.3. In our considered view, lower authorities have not alleged any tax evasion, deployment of black money and the transactions being duly recorded between the two independent proprietorship concerns of same assessee and in the absence of any allegation to the effect of tax evasion. The assessee has also demonstrated existence of business expediency as Godrej products distribution agreement necessitated such arrangement of transactions. In view of these facts, circumstances, section 40A(3) and case laws, we see no justification for the addition in question, which is deleted. 6. In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 14-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1087 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ce tax was taken on sale office but absolutely there is no observation whether the appellant s submission is correct or not. In the absence of any observation and in the absence of any contrary finding, the only option is to accept this submission as correct. Once the office accommodated the CEO, accounting staf, human resource development staff, sourcing staff, purchasing department staff, etc. of the appellant, it cannot be said that the activity in the sales office do not have any relationship with manufacturing activity and therefore, the appellant is definitely eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid on renting of sales office since the definition of input service clearly covers. Moreover, I find that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel to support his submissions regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit of service tax are also applicable to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, both the appeals are allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1086 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... section as well. o p /o p In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this Court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” o p /o p 4. Once the issue is decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax and the same was deposited on April, 2008 for the AY 2008-09 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 06.08.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (8) TMI 1085 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... imated addition. The facts, the evidence and the stand of both the parties are mutatis mutandis similar to that of the case of M/s. Prince Int Udhyog (as assessee above). Therefore, with similar reasoning we hold that the A.O. has to apply the rate declared by this assessee which is better than in the immediately past year to the declared sales. We don’t approve of the estimation in production which is baseless. The assessee has declared g.p. rate of 15.58% but the ld. CIT(A) has applied the g.p. rate of 20%. The assessee has declared a g.p. rate of 15.58% in this year as against g.p. rate of 15.29% declared in the last year. Thus, there is no occasion to make any further addition. Accordingly, we allow this appeal of the assessee. 5. To sum up ITA No. 226/Jodh/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 of the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 243/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 is partly allowed and ITA No. 242/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1084 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ely ignored the fact that the Assessing Officer has received information from Investigation Wing of the Department that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries. There is no finding of CIT (A) on this issue in the impugned orders. In view of the above, we find it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of CIT (A) for readjudication of the appeals on this issue de novo. The CIT (A) shall grant due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 10. Accordingly both the appeals of the Revenue are disposed of in the manner as indicated above and by setting aside the impugned order and by restoring whole controversy and all the issues to the file of CIT (A). The CIT (A) shall decide all the issues without being prejudiced from observations made in this order and in the impugned order. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are disposed as directed above of and may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 08th /08/ 2013.
........
|
