|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 547 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 569 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ereby direct the. Assessing Officer to include the amount of ₹ 42,55,267/- as interest from debtor of CNFC division in the calculation of deduction u/s. 80IB of the 1. T Act” On perusal of both the orders and keeping in view of the fact that the facts for this impugned order are similar to that of the assessment years 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2003- 04, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has followed the order of this Tribunal.” 5.1. Keeping in view of the fact that the ld. Assessing Officer has categorically mentioned in 3rd para of the assessment order that the interest income derived from debtors on late payment, we find no infirmity in the orders of ld. CIT(A) in directing AO to include an amount of ₹ 44,43,359/- for computation of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Therefore we confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 6. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 10.02.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 568 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Government has the right to alienate, transfer or distribute natural resources/national assets otherwise than by following a fair and transparent method consistent with the fundamentals of the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution?
Whether the recommendations made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 28.8.2007 for grant of Unified Access Service Licence (for short `UAS Licence') with 2G spectrum in 800, 900 and 1800 MHz at the price fixed in 2001, which were approved by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), were contrary to the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 31.10.2003?
Whether the exercise undertaken by the DoT from September 2007 to March 2008 for grant of UAS Licences to the private respondents in terms of the recommendations made by TRAI is vitiated due to arbitrariness and malafides and is contrary to public interest?
Whether the policy of first-come-first-served followed by the DoT for grant of licences is ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution and whether the said principle was arbitrarily changed by the Minister of Communications and Information Technology (hereinafter referred to as `the Minister of C & IT’), without consulting TRAI, with a view to favour some of the applicants?
Whether the licences granted to ineligible applicants and those who failed to fulfil the terms and conditions of the licence are liable to be quashed?
-
2012 (2) TMI 567 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in any illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We have also found that in view of the facts obtained in this case, the proposed detenu cannot be said to be an abscondee. The circumstances emerging in this case therefore, constrain us to uphold the contention that the order of detention was issued either with a wrong purpose or that it was passed on vague grounds. Certainly, the inordinate delay in execution of Ext.P1, in the circumstances explained above, in the absence of proper explanation and good reasons, is fatal. In such circumstances, the case in hand would fall within the grounds mentioned in Alka Subhash Gardia's case (supra). In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, we are of the view that we need not go into any other grounds raised by the petitioner. We quash Ext.P1 order dated 27.8.2008 as no useful purpose will be served by keeping Ext.P1/Ext.R1(a) detention order alive any further. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was claimed in the proceedings? (2) Whether CESTAT is correct in upholding the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein there is no element of suppression in the facts and circumstances of this case? 2. Mr. R. Ashokan waives service for the respondent.
-
2012 (2) TMI 565 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... export order in connivance with the officers.Therefore suspension of the licence was warranted. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. It does not appeal to common sense how a renewed licence made valid on 19/1/2009 can be said to have been suspended. Once the suspension was substituted by renewal soon after three months of the suspension, we do not understand how Revenue acted so carelessly to continue the suspension of licence on record when renewal was ordered. On such reasoning, the suspension order at page 11 is set aside and appeal is allowed. 5. There is nothing before us from Revenue to show us whether any incriminating material exists against the CHA to allow the suspension order to continue. Unless otherwise required, we have no hesitation to say that Revenue administration may follow the law for fresh cause of action, if any. Also we do not say that investigation, if any, against the CHA is obstructed by this order. (Dictated and pronounced in open court.)
-
2012 (2) TMI 563 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of non-realization of provisions of surcharge - accrual of income - Held that:- The amount of sur-charge not realized by the assessee, does not amount to accrued of receipt taxable as income. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, which we uphold
TDS u/s 194J - payment made on account of SLDL & wheeling charges - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. ITO [2009 (4) TMI 489 - ITAT JAIPUR-A] wherein also, the issue was exactly the same, i.e., correctness or otherwise of addition u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of payment made as Wheeling charges and SLDC charges, for non-deduction of TDS as per Section 194 J of the Act. In its detailed order reproduced as above, the Jaipur Tribunal has considered all the aspects touching the issue and has thereafter held the assessee not liable to deduct tax on the payments made, the provisions of Section 194 J of the Act being not attracted. The Jaipur Tribunal decision has been followed by the Delhi Tribunal in the assessee’s case for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. The Revenue has not been able to make out as to why this decision is not applicable for the year under consideration before us. Therefore, following the Tribunal order in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09, ground No.2 is also rejected, upholding the CIT(A)’s order for this issue also.
-
2012 (2) TMI 562 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
N.P.determination - Held that:- The application of net profit rate of 12% in all the cases of civil contractors is thus unwarranted as the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court itself in different set of facts had applied a net profit rate of 10%. In view thereof, we hold that in the present set of facts and circumstances where the assessee was engaged in petty civil construction work, where even cement and steel was supplied by the University of Kurukshetra, there is no merit in applying net profit rate of 12% to determine the income of the assessee for the year under appeal. The assessee had declared net profit rate of 4.5% for the year under appeal. We direct the Assessing Officer to apply the net profit rate of 6% to work out the income of the assessee. Accordingly, upholding the rejection of books of account, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the income in the hands of the assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 561 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... r sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed not filed in respect of any case. (5) Every order, instruction or direction which has been issued by the Board fixing monetary limits for filing an appeal or application for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly.” 6. It is not in dispute that the Board’s instructions or directions issued to other income-tax authorities are binding on those authorities, therefore, the department ought not to have filed the appeal in view of the above mentioned provisions of section 268A since the tax effect in the instant case is less than ₹ 3.00 lakhs i.e., the amount prescribed by the CBDT for not filing the appeal, so this appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal by the department is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 560 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 31.10.06. While dealing with ITA No. 1415(Del)09 (supra), we have cancelled the reopening of the completed assessment of the assessee. That being so, the assessment order itself does not survive and so, the consequential order dated 3.2.09 passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not survive too. As such, both these appeals also do not survive and are infructuous. The ld. DR has also placed on file written submissions with regard to the merits of the case. The appeals being held to be infructuous, as above, these written submissions are not adverted to. 45. Hence, both these cross appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 3461(Del)08 & 3604(Del)10 are dismissed as infructuous. 46. In the result, ITA 1415(Del)09 filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated, ITA No. 1941(Del)09 filed by the Department is dismissed, whereas ITA No. 3461(Del)08 filed by the assessee and ITA 3604(Del)10 filed by the Department are dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.02.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 559 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... n (I) Ltd 38 ITD 320 (Del) . o p /o p 4. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the office of the assessee company has been shifted to Chennai, the compliance could not be made. Thus, he submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue denovo. o p /o p 5. The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. o p /o p 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. o p /o p Keeping in view the principles of natural justice and in view of the submissions of learned counsel, we consider it proper that assessee be given one more opportunity to explain the deposit of ₹ 2 crores with BSNL. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. o p /o p 7. In the resul t, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 02-02-2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (2) TMI 558 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition u/s 69 - Held that:- In view of the scheme of income tax, no income can be taxed twice, as has been done by the revenue. Firstly, taxing the same income of ₹ 64 lacs in the hands of the company, the present appellant assessee as also in the hand of Shri Gurlal Singh Grewal. We fully agree with the contention raised by the assessee in the matter of taxing single item of income tax twice, is not tenable under the scheme of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, having regard to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and above discussion, the impugned addition is deleted and ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Addition on account of unaccounted interest income earned - Held that:- In the case of Oswal Spinning Mills, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court [2010 (7) TMI 765 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ] held that interest paid on acquisition of machinery, can be treated as part of the cost of machinery. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition made by the AO. The ld. CIT(A), on the basis of submission filed before him, held that the appellant had not raised any loan from any bank or any financial institution against installation of machinery during the year under consideration. This contention was also raised before the AO. The AO failed to give specific finding on this aspect and, hence, ld. CI T(A) held that it cannot be presumed that any interest bearing funds, have been invested, in the capital work, in process, shown by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A), found the cases relied upon by the AO as distinguishable, factually and materially. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and, hence, findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld and ground of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) - Held that:- Advances by company were out of its own funds of share capital or out of mixed funds, not sufficient to discharge the onus- Decided in favour of revenue
-
2012 (2) TMI 557 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he facts of the case before us. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Steelcon Industries Pvt.Ltd., cited supra, has misplaced its reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s United Commercial Bank Ltd., and M/s Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd., In view of the same, we are inclined to reject the grounds of appeal nos.5 & 6 raised by the assessee. Thus, the reference is answered in favour of revenue.” o p /o p 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench, we are in the view that the ld CIT(A) was justi f ied in upholding the order of the AO rejecting the claim of the assessee for set of f of Short term capital gain against carried forward business loss /unabsorbed depreciation of earl ier years. We therefore conf irm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Assessee. o p /o p 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 8th February, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (2) TMI 556 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that on the basis of above submissions of the assessee, the order of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2011 sic. 05.01.2011 may kindly be recalled. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. did not controvert the submissions of the ld. A.R. o p /o p 4. Rival submissions were considered. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution following the decision of the ITAT in the case of Multiplan India Ltd. (supra). Keeping in view of the totality of the facts, we are of the view that it will meet the ends of justice, if this order is recalled. We order accordingly and direct the Registry to fix the appeal of the assessee on 26.04.2012. Since the order has been pronounced in the open court and both the parties have been informed about the date of hearing in the Court, it is not necessary to serve the notice of hearing to both the sides. o p /o p 5. In the result, the miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed. o p /o p
-
2012 (2) TMI 555 - ITAT CHENNAI
Nature of payment - payments were made to six non-resident entities - purely on account of services or nature of royalty - Held that:- As transactions in respect of which the impugned payments were made was purely on account of services and there is no transfer of right to use the goods. In the result, it is held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the payment as royalty and invoking the provisions of sec. 195. See CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf [Smt] [1977 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court ]
-
2012 (2) TMI 554 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a in respect of products manufactured by it under various brands of a foreign company were allowable in entirety even though it might have benefited the non-resident company who owned the said brands. Keeping in view both these decisions of the Tribunal and taking into consideration the facts of the case as discussed above, we hold that the disallowance of 10 made by the AO out of advertisement and sales promotion expenses on the ground that the same resulted in the benefit to the parent company was not sustainable and the learned CIT (A) was fully justified in deleting the same." o p /o p In view of the aforesaid legal position and the findings recorded, we do not think that any substantial question of law arises on the said aspect. However, it is clarified that we have not examined the legal position after the assessee had closed down the manufacturing unit and the order/directions on transfer pricing. o p /o p The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs. o p /o p
-
2012 (2) TMI 553 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... nt view of the matter. Secondly, the Revenue’s objection is technical in nature inasmuch it concedes that the income is otherwise not chargeable to tax under the regular provisions of the Act. The provisions of Chapter XII-B of the Act do not, in our view, operate to extend the scope of total income’ per section 5 on which the charge to tax u/s. 4 is attracted, but is only toward providing an alternative basis for computing the same. Reference by the ld. CIT(A) to the Circular No. 550 by the Board in this regard is in our view apposite; the receipt being admittedly a capital receipt. We therefore following the decision by the tribunal in the case of Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), delete the inclusion of profit of ₹ 23.69 lakhs on account of sale of agricultural land, admittedly not a capital asset u/s. 2(14), in the computation of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act. We decide accordingly. 4. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 552 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... r. Now, the assessee cannot take up that issue before us in the proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. It is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. But to review or recall the order is not permissible u/s. 254(2) if necessitating rehearing and re-adjudication of entire subject matter of appeal and the dispute after being put for rehearing no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is provided under Rule 24 and Rule 25 of ITAT Rules, 1963; that too only in cases where appellant/respondent shows reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and decided ex-parte. In our opinion, in the present case, there is no mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on 17th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 551 - ITAT MUMBAI
Treat the data base as plant and allow depreciation on it - excessive or unreasonable claim - Held that:- There is no material whatsoever to establish or even indicate that the price of ₹ 12 crores paid for the Acquired Business Database is excessive or unreasonable and only the basis of Assessing Officer's coming to the conclusion about his subjective judgment.
When in Assessment year: 2002-03 valuation of Acquired Business Database has been examined by TPO while concluding that the database price adjustment for the said year and no adverse inferences have been recorded in respect of the same, there could be no good reason for the AO to deviate from the stand of the TPO and substitute his own opinion as to what should be the correct price at which Acquired Business Database should have been purchased. We are of the considered view that the CIT(A) was indeed in error in restricting the value of Acquired Business Database at ₹ 3 crores as against ₹ 12 crores paid by the assessee. To this extent, we vacate the order of the CIT(A).
As per section 32(1)(ii), depreciation is allowable in respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature." In view of these discussions as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT(A) ought to have allowed the depreciation on the entire payment of ₹ 12 crores towards Acquired Business Database. We, therefore, reject the appeal filed by the Assessing Officer against partial relief granted by the CIT(A) and uphold the grievance of the assessee in this regard.
-
2012 (2) TMI 550 - ITAT BANGALORE
TDS u/s 195 - Held that:- The assesseee was not liable to deduct tax from the amount representing reimbursement of the salary paid by IDS to Dr. Sundararajan while remitting the same to IDS u/s 195 of the IT Act.
-
2012 (2) TMI 549 - ITAT BANGLORE
Order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Secondment of Employee - Held that:- Host company shall take all reasonable actions necessary to ensure that the Employee is in compliance with all applicable local laws, regulations or other requirements applicable to immigration and the services. The Employee will report to, and be under the direction and control of, Host Company and comply with Host Company’s policies and procedures applicable to the services, including without limitation, reasonable directives of Host Company concerning job safety and confidentiality in the handling of data and information.
Home Company represents that, to the best of its knowledge; (i) the Employee has,or will have, the professional training and skills necessary to fulfill the functions he/she is to perform for the Host Company during the secondment based upon the requirements provided by Host Company, and (ii) Home Company has obtained, or promptly shall obtain, from the Employee his/her consent to the secondment.
Employee-Related Costs - Held that:- During the period of this agreement, for administrative convenience, the Home Company shall make payment of salary, bonus and all other benefits to the Employee as per the terms with the Employee on behalf of the Host Company.
Host Company shall promptly reimburse Home Company for any and all costs in borne on its behalf in accordance with sec.3.
Costs of Host Company. Unless agreed upon otherwise in writing between the parties. Host Company shall bear and directly pay all the related local costs and expenses. Such costs may include, but shall not limited to, housing, rent, utilities, furniture, company car or other transportation and any other foreign service allowances. As can be seen from the above clauses, the facts of the case before us are exactly the same. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to take any other view. In view of the same, assessee’s appeal is allowed.
............
|
