|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1806 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1671 - ITAT DELHI
TDS u/s 194C - account of lorry booking as assessee failed to deduct TDS - Held that:- The contract of transportation was between the assessee's clients and the transporters and the assessee had mainly acted as a facilitator or as an intermediary. No tds deduction
-
2013 (11) TMI 1670 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty imposed u/s. 271B - reasonable cause in not getting accounts audited before prescribed date as per provisions of section 44AB - Held that:- According to assessee, income pertaining to this had been credited in Profit and Loss Account after survey on account of declaration of additional income. This income has been credited much later after specified date of audit and under no circumstances, assessee could have got books of accounts audited by 31.10.2006. Assessee could not anticipate on specified date that turnover of the assessee exceeded ₹ 40 lakhs. The assessee at the relevant point of time was prevented by reasonable cause for not getting its accounts audited as per provisions of section 44AB. He was under the bonafide belief at relevant point of time that his income has not exceeded the prescribed limit as per provisions of section 44AB of I.T Act.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that assessee was prevented or reasonable cause in not getting accounts audited before prescribed date as per provisions of section 44AB. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty imposed u/s. 271B of I.T Act.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1669 - ITAT PUNE
Levy of penalty u/s.271B - Held that:- As due to the leaving of service by the Accountant the accounts of the assessee could not be finalised in time for which there was delay in getting the audit report and finally the assessee has obtained the audit report on 16-01-2009. Further, the returned income at ₹ 8,51,340/- has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1668 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty u/s 271B - not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date - Held that:- There is no absolute default and the assessee has filed Audit report although belatedly, we are of the considered opinion that there was bonafide reasons for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date and therefore this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the I.T. Act. In this view of the matter, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied u/s.271B of the I.T. Act.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1667 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Entitlement to deprecation at higher rate on the vehicles leased out to third parties - Held that:- Assessee engaged in the business of lease financing was entitled to higher rate of depreciation on vehicles used for hire, even when the vehicles were leased out to a third party. See I.C.D.S. Ltd. vs. CIT [2013 (1) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2013 (11) TMI 1666 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ft. will not be covered under the definition of inputs service as that has not been used in providing the output services. The appellants were found eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of service tax paid on maintenance service in respect of 998 sq. ft. of the total area, and this was the proposal in the original show cause notice. 5. The appeal has been preferred by the department on the following substantial question of law - “(i) Whether, the Hon’ble CESTAT has erred in not confirming total demand of Service Tax along with interest and imposition of penalties against the respondents on account of availment of ineligible credit of service tax?” 6. We do not find that the question of law as stated in the memo of appeal arises for consideration of the Court. Further, we find that the amount involved is not such that the Court may entertain the appeal nor any question of law arise for consideration. 7. The Central Excise Appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1665 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Unexplained purchases - Held that:- It is an undisputed fact that Assessee deals in grey cloth and processed cloth and had obtained bank finance for working capital by hypothecation of the aforesaid stock. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that AO has compared the value and quantity of stock of grey submitted to the bank with that of book stock but had not made comparision of processed cloth, the quantitative details of which were also submitted to the bank. He has further noted that the aggregate stock of grey cloth and processed stock for the month of June 2003 as per the books of the assessee was ₹ 91.76 lacs as against the value of stock of ₹ 93.46 lacs submitted to the bank. He has further noted that for the month of Aug to Sept 2003 the stock submitted to the bank was lower than the stock as per books which therefore suggest that stock statement submitted to the bank was incorrect. He has further noted that AO has not brought any independent evidence which can prove that Assessee has purchased grey cloth out of undisclosed sources or Assessee was in fact in possession of higher quantity of stock. Before us, the Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1664 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess on the total excise duty leviable - Held that: - Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess is not leviable on the goods which were cleared to DTA from an EOU unit - appeal allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1663 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... will decide whether any excess or short reversal has been made and appropriate directions/orders will be passed. o p /o p (vii) In case of short reversal, the petitioner herein, will be liable to pay interest 20 per annum as per the undertaking recorded in the order dated 31.01.1997. o p /o p (viii) In case of excess reversal, the Modvat (Cenvat) benefit on the said Modvat Credit will be made available to the petitioner and requisite certificates will be issued. o p /o p (ix) In case of an adverse order, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the adjudication order on merits but not on the rate of interest. o p /o p We clarify that as the rate of interest has already been fixed by the High Court order, the said rate of interest will not be interfered with. o p /o p We further record that upon payment being made in terms of this order and in terms of the adjudication order, the scheme will stand satisfied. o p /o p The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. o p /o p
-
2013 (11) TMI 1662 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - the decision in the case of AUTO STORES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), MUMBAI [2013 (9) TMI 426 - CESTAT MUMBAI] contested upon - Demand of differential duty - notice was issued to re-determine the value of imports in respect of nine Bills of Entry filed and to re-determine the value on the basis of MRP declared by the authorized service centres and to demand differential duty - delay condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1661 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quot; 21. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radico Khaitan Ltd. 2005 274 ITR 354has held that the assessee-company had sufficient fund other than the borrowed money for giving the amount in question as loan to its sister-concern, which finding had not been specifically challenged in the present appeal. The conditions of s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act had been complied with and, therefore, the assessee company was entitled to full allowance of the amount of interest paid by it on borrowed capital. 22. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has correctly come to the conclusion that the interest was rightly allowable on the basis of the facts found and which have been referred to hereinabove. We do not find any question of law much less substantial question of law which could be said to emerge out of this case. We find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 23. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1660 - ITAT MUMBAI
Nature of income - business income or capital gain - Held that:- As in the PMS there was no assured guarantee against the loss or degeneration of capital, as per the SEBI guidelines the portfolio manager was authorised to purchase and sale of shares on behalf of the client against the securities after obtaining the written permission, that the portfolio managers were not authorised to undertake purchase/sale of securities that were settled otherwise then by actual delivery of transfer of securities, that they could make investment at their own discretion, that the investment made by the assessee through PMS was meant for maximisation of wealth and not with a view to purchase/sale of shares, that department had not disputed the fact that portfolio managers had the sale and absolute discretion to make investment for and on behalf of the assessee, that assessee had no role to play with regard to making of investment,that the very nature of PMS was that the investment made by the assessee could not be said to be scheme of trading of shares and stock, that the profit was to be assessed under the head Capital Gains.
Considering the above, we are of the opinion that FAA was not justified in holding that share transactions carried out by the assessee through PMS was taxable under the head Business.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1659 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 93) 1 SCC 364 and by this Court in Biplab Kr. Ghosh Vs. Union of India, WP(C) 73 OF 2013 . We further direct that the petitioner should cooperate with the Assessing Officer and the assessment should be completed latest by 28th February, 2014. In case any amount is found refundable to the petitioner the same shall be refunded alongwith interest as payable under the provisions of the Tripura Value Added Tax on or before 30th April, 2013. We may also make it clear that we expect both the petitioner and the Assessing Officer to obey this order in letter and spirit and work in cooperation with each other and in case we find that either the petitioner or the Assessing Officer is trying to delay the matter we shall be compelled to take serious action against the erring party. o p /o p The petitioner is directed to appear before the Assessing Authority alongwith a copy of this judgment on 10th December, 2013. o p /o p The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. o p /o p
-
2013 (11) TMI 1658 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the punishment order could be passed by the disciplinary authority in view of the fact that the charge sheet itself has been quashed by the Tribunal on the ground that it had not been approved by the disciplinary authority and in respect of the same, the matter had come to this Court and as explained hereinabove, has impliedly been decided in favor of the respondent vide judgment and order dated 5.9.2013?
Held that: - The order dated 31.7.2012 in our humble opinion is nothing but a nullity being in contravention of the final order of the Tribunal which had attained finality. More so, the issue could not have been re-agitated by virtue of the application of the doctrine of res judicata.
It was not permissible for the appellants to consider the renewal of the suspension order or to pass a fresh order without challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 1.6.2012 and such an attitude tantamounts to contempt of court and arbitrariness as it is not permissible for the executive to scrutinize the order of the court.
It is a settled legal proposition that jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is basically one of conscience. The jurisdiction is plenary and residuary. Therefore, even if the matter has been admitted, there is no requirement of law that court must decide it on each and every issue. The court can revoke the leave as such jurisdiction is required to be exercised only in suitable cases and very sparingly. The law is to be tempered with equity and the court can pass any equitable order considering the facts of a case. In such a situation, conduct of a party is the most relevant factor and in a given case, the court may even refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution for the reason that it is not necessary to exercise such jurisdiction just because it is lawful to do so.
The appellants have acted in contravention of the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 1.6.2012 and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellants for passing the order dated 31.7.2012 or any subsequent order. The orders passed by the appellants had been in contravention of not only of the order of the court but also to the office memorandum and statutory rules.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1657 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... -03, being ITA No.914/Hyd/2002-03, is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (b) Revenue’s appeal, ITA No.900/Hyd/2011, for assessment year 2003-04, is dismissed. (c) Out of cross appeals for assessment year 2004-05, while assessee’s appeal being ITA No.915Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, the Revenue’s appeal being ITA No.901/Hyd/2011 is dismissed. (d) Assessee’s Appeal for the assessment year 2005-06, being ITA No.916/Hyd/2011, is allowed for statistical purposes. (e) Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, being ITA No.1052/Hyd/2011 is dismissed. (f) Assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, being ITA NBo.1053/Hyd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (g) Out of the cross appeals for the assessment year 2008- 09, while assessee’s appeal, being ITA No.313/Hyd/2012 is partly allowed, appeal of the Revenue, being ITA No.468/Hyd/2012, is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 22.11.2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1656 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance made under section 14A - Held that:- Since the investments in shares of group concerns are within the course of trading activities and out of commercial expediency and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A.Builders (2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT ) is applicable to the assessee, the provisions of section 14A are not applicable.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1655 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - deductions for premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policies - CIT exercising power under Section 263 held that deduction could not be allowed on premium paid to secure the lives of parties. The ITAT has set aside this order - Held that:- Similar issue is allowability of premium paid on lives of partners under Keyman Insurance Policy arose before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Exports [2010 (3) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COUR] and the said expenditure has been allowed. In view of the above said judicial precedents on the issue, the order of the Assessing Officer in allowing the claim of the assessee was a plausible view and the said view is not open for review by the CIT by way of invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act
-
2013 (11) TMI 1654 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Transaction of share - Nature of income - LTCG or business income - Held that:- When in the earlier assessment order i.e for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 the same were treated as investment in shares and the Assessing Officer accepted the same as investment in shares, no error has been committed by the ITAT as well as the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer in treating it as business income for the purpose of short term capital gain and long term capital gain.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1652 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t on 20/05/2011 i.e. major portion of the demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing petitions unconditionally in those cases where the demand is for extended period of limitation and the issue involved is availment of cenvat credit on angles, Channels, Beams etc. used in the factory as capital goods and applicability of principles of law laid down by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Globals Vs. C.C. Ex., Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) and directs pre-deposit for the normal period. In these circumstances, the applicant is directed to make a pre-deposit of 25 (Twenty Five Per Cent) of the Cenvat Credit amount within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 29th of January, 2014. On compliance, the balance amount of dues adjudged would stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal. S.P. disposed off. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1651 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Disbursement of tax deducted at source (for short `TDS') to the decree-holders - Held that:- Perusal of relevant provisions of Land Acquisition Act and Income Tax Act and law laid down in aforesaid judgments, it is clear that no tax is to be deducted at source from compensation awarded in lieu of acquisition of agricultural land. In respect of 'interest' it has to be seen whether interest is a part of compensation. If answer is in affirmative then tax cannot be deducted at source. If,however, it is for delay in making payment it does not form part of compensation and tax may be deducted at source.
Admittedly, in the instant case the land was agricultural land and enhanced compensation and interest was awarded under Section 28. Thus, in view of specific finding of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam's case (2009 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT) that amount awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is accretion in value of land and interest therein forms part of compensation; income tax cannot be deducted at source since land acquired is agricultural land.
............
|
