|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 585 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 565 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Judgment of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 252 ITR Page 43. In the circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise. 3 As regards question E the Tribunal has accepted the case of the Assessee in Para 41 of its decision that in view of the revised demand made by the Government of India by its order dated 18 June 1990 and 16 November 1990 the demands for each of the Assessment Years in question had been revised upwards. In these circumstances, the question of considering any write back therefrom which was made on the basis of the earlier order of the Government of India did not survive. The Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) not to write back an amount of ₹ 406.49 lacs for Assessment Year 1982-83 to 1987-88 subject to due verification. This finding of the Tribunal would not give rise to any substantial question of law. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 564 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er,1955 published in the Gazette of India, November 19, 1955. Question No.(2) Whether it is necessary for consideration of application for parole that fine imposed is deposited before application for parole is considered. Answer Deposit of fine cannot be a condition precedent for consideration of application for parole. There is no such requirement under the Rules of 1955 framed by the Central Government under which present case of convict under the NDPS Act is to be considered. Hence, it is not appropriate to insist on deposit of fine for consideration of parole application. Both the questions stand answered accordingly. The matter be placed before the Single Bench for orders on parole petition. Let a copy of this order be sent to Principal Secretary to Home Department, Government of India and Government of Rajasthan, Director General of Prisons, Rajasthan, District Collectors & Magistrates, Superintendents of all Central and District Jails of Rajasthan for information.
-
2012 (3) TMI 563 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... g at the correct value for discharging the service tax liability. We find that in this case, the plea of the ld. counsel as to limitation may be applicable for the period of 2004-05, 2005-06 but may not be applicable for the periods 2006-07 and 2007-08 as the assessee is bound to know about the provisions of law which was enacted. Be that it may be, the issue needs to be gone into detail which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal. We are of the considered view that the appellant has not made out the case for complete waiver of the amounts involved. Accordingly, there being no plea of a financial hardship, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 60 lakhs within four weeks from today and report compliance on 1-5-2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (3) TMI 562 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... shortfall as noted by the Assessing Officer on this issue." o p /o p 5. On identical set of facts, the I.T.A.T. has decided the issue in favour of the assessee as per the above order of I.T.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench. We find that the different issues raised by the Revenue that in the definition of rent, rent from plant includes vehicles have been considered by the I.T.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench and has decided the issue after a detailed discussion. Since the facts are identical i.e. in the case of vehicle hire, section 194-I is not applicable. We respectfully follow the above order of I.T.A.T., Ahmedabad Bench and in the light of that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of 24,96,000/- is deleted as the assessee was not liable to deduct tax under section 194-I of the Act. Consequently, no disallowance can be made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. o p /o p 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 07.03.2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (3) TMI 560 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... bunal cited by the Ld. A.R. As per the decision of Special bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the receiver of the loan should be registered as well as beneficial owner of the shares to the required extent of that company who has provided the loan in order to attract the provisions of Section 2(22) (e) of the Act. In the present case, 99.99 shares of the loan giver company i.e. Zen Tobacco had been held by one Shri Rashmin Majithia and hence, the assessee company cannot hold the required shares I.T.A.No. 26 /Ahd/2012 of this company and, therefore, the provisions of Section 2(22) (e) are not applicable to the present assessee in respect of this loan taken by the assessee from Zen Tobacco. By respectfully following this decision of Special bench of the Tribunal, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (3) TMI 559 - ITAT MADRAS
Entitled to exemption under section 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. reported in [2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ], has remitted the matter back to the file of the Tribunal for examining the Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, return of income and status of business indicated in the return of income of the Co-operative society to prove that the respective societies have engaged themselves in carrying on any of the several businesses referred to in sub-section (2) of section 80P of the Act.
In the above facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, it shall be fair and in the interest of justice to restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after examining the Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association and other relevant documents
-
2012 (3) TMI 558 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... urance policy taken from Indian Insurance Company. 9 The ld AR has pointed out that the term ‘insurer’ has been used u/s 80C(xii). Therefore, the definition of Insurer, in our opinion, is not relevant in sec 10(10D) where no such condition has been specified; but the language of sec. 10(10D) is clear that any sum received under Life Insurance Policy. When there is no such condition of policy to be taken from Indian insurance company, then we cannot read anything in the provisions of sec. 10(10D), which has not been specifically provided by the legislature. 10 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 10(10D) on the sum received under the Life Insurance Policy taken by the husband of the assessee from American Life Insurance Company. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside on this issue. 11 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 12th, day of Mar 2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 557 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... omputed the disallowance at ₹ 20,93,850/-. Ld. CIT(A) following the decision for A.Y. 2007-08, restricted the disallowance to 1 of total exempt income and thus, reduced the disallowance from ₹ 20,93,852/- to ₹ 2,66,943/-. 17. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT & Othrs. has, inter-alia, observed that AO is required to determine the amount of expenditure on the basis of a reasonable and acceptable method of apportionment. This decision was not available to the Assessing Officer when he passed the asstt. order. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of AO for quantifying the expenditure in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment. 18. In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.03.2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 556 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... between the interest bearing loans and interest free advances. It is not brought on record how much surplus was available to the assessee or as to whether the advances in question were given out of that surplus. In other words, all the clear facts are not brought on record. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing that the AO had specifically picked out the persons who had been advanced interest free loans, however nothing was brought on record to substantiate that those advances were out of interest bearing loans. We therefore, considering the totality of facts, deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and the matter is remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 555 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... appreciate the prima facie evidence and material available on record. Considering this aspect, we notice that the claim of the assessee of 80,64,458/- is also allowable as this claim is similar to the claim of 33,56,073/- which has been allowed by the Assessing Officer under section 37(1) of the Act. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the assessee’s claim of 80,64,458/- is allowable under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly we allow the same. However, keeping in view the interest of the Revenue, we may mention that if the Assessing Officer finds any evidence or material that the assessee has claimed this amount twice as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act or as bad debts or there is a recovery of this amount in subsequent years, such amount is taxable under section 41(1) of the Act in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.
-
2012 (3) TMI 554 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) - Held that:- The assessee has a very close-relation with the donor as that of father and daughter and the natural love and affection could not be doubted by the Revenue in the case of the assessee. In this case, the assessee has filed an explanation which could not be said to be not bonafide. The material facts of the case were disclosed by the assessee at the time of assessment itself. Merely because the assessee could not prove the credit-worthiness of the donor by filing any documentary evidence, it could not be said that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The facts of the case may justify the addition made in the hands of the assessee, but are not sufficient to justify the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are unable to sustain the reasoning of the CIT(A) that the levy of penalty was mandatory and no discretion, is left with the competent authority. In these facts of the case, we hold that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which is accordingly cancelled and the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 553 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... taken by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal, has not been adjudicated. The assessee, therefore, requested that the order of the Tribunal be recalled to adjudicate Ground no.3. The learned DR did not object to this prayer of the assessee. Therefore, the order dated 08-01-2010 in the above appeal is recalled to this extent for the purpose of deciding ground no.3 only. 3 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 02-03-2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 552 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Pleader also. 3. I am satisfied that before the appellate authority could consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, it is unjust to initiate coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on Ext.P4, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the disputed amount in Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.
-
2012 (3) TMI 551 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e condition which is to be satisfied to claim depreciation on the windmill. Once the said condition is satisfied, the question of actual generation of electricity, perhaps in the next previous year, does not defeat the claim of the assesse, as the assessee is entitled for depreciation on commissioning itself. Therefore, in the light of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we have to hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly held that the assessee is entitled for depreciation. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 8. At the time of hearing, the learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the respondent assessee submitted that he is not pressing the cross objection filed by the assessee. 9. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed on merit and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 02nd of March, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (3) TMI 550 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance being 15% of the total winning payments made to punters - Held that:- The Department has not brought anything to show that the facts of the case are any different from that for the AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 covered by the ITAT order. The activity of the Assessee is such that they have to deal daily with numerous individuals in a short span of time when the bettings are on. They accept bets and settle the winning amounts to the winning punters. It will be difficult to maintain complete details about all the persons. The entire payment was through computerized system. The payment was made to the person holding the winning ticket. The Department has not brought to our notice of any instance of payment when there was no winning ticket. In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench in the Assessee's own case we delete the ad hoc disallowance of 10% of the total payment for winning bets of less than 2500/- each. The Appeal of the Assessee on this issue is allowed.
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Held that:- Sec 40A(3) itself provides that the exceptions will have to be prescribed having regard to the nature and extent of banking facilities available, considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors. Taking all these factors, considering the nature of activity of the Assessee and the necessity for them to pay cash to the winners immediately, we are of the opinion that the condition under Rule 6DD for exemption viz., transactions should have taken place on Bank Holidays should be read down in the case of the Assessee. In this case if the transaction took place beyond the normal Banking Hours on working days and transaction which took place on Sundays and Holidays, it would not attract the provisions of sec 40A(3) and no disallowance can be made in respect of payment made to winning punters beyond the normal banking hours or on Bank Holidays u/s 40A(3). As there will be different banking hours for different banks and branches, the banking hours of the Main Branch of SBI in Hyderabad shall be taken for this purpose. This issue is remitted back to the files of the AO and AO is directed to re-compute the disallowance u/s 40A(3) as per the above disallowance and the Assessee shall furnish the particulars about the timings of the payment of the winnings to punters.
Disallowance in respect of winning payments, each less than ₹ 2500/- deleted.
TDS u/s 194H - amount disallowed under sec 40(a)(ia) as they constituted commission and no tax was deducted at source - Held that:- We find that the TDS Officer by its order dated 6.4.2009 has treated the assessee as assessee in default for not deducting Tax at source and raised the demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). It is also been pointed by the AO that at present the assessee itself is making TDS on such payments which proves that the stand of the revenue is correct. The assessee has to establish that it is not acting as Agent of the other Clubs and the amount paid by the assessee to other Race Clubs is only sharing of the profit and not in the nature of collection. The assessee has not brought in detail to prove even in cases of races held in other Clubs, as far as betting in Hyderabad is concerned it is between the punters and the assessee. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the AO in order to give another opportunity to the assessee to present its case and establish that there is no principal agent relation ship between the two Clubs. The AO shall after examining the details adjudicate in accordance with law.
Demand u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - addition under sec 40(a)(ia) - amount paid by the assessee to other Race Clubs - Held that:- Assessee itself is making TDS on such payments which proves that the stand of the revenue is correct. The assessee has to establish that it is not acting as Agent of the other Clubs and the amount paid by the assessee to other Race Clubs is only sharing of the profit and not in the nature of collection. The assessee has not brought in detail to prove even in cases of races held in other Clubs, as far as betting in Hyderabad is concerned, it is between the punters and the assessee. In these circumstances, we deem it fit to restore the issue to the file of the AO in order to give another opportunity to the assessee to present its case and establish that there is no principal agent relationship between the two Clubs. The AO shall after examining the details adjudicate in accordance with law
-
2012 (3) TMI 549 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see in the first year of manufacture and that order has attained finality. 3. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity and hence entitled to avail deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.” 4 The same position which applies in relation to Section 80IB would govern the present case which pertains to Section 80IA. The Revenue has sought to reopen the assessment on the basis of the proceedings for Assessment Year 200405 which have attained finality upon a decision of the Division Bench dated 30 November 2011 in the case of the Assessee. Consequently, the basis of the reopening of the assessment cannot now survive. 5 For these reasons, Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 148 dated 28 March 2007. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 548 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see in the first year of manufacture and that order has attained finality. 3. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity and hence entitled to avail deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.” 4 The same position which applies in relation to Section 80IB would govern the present case which pertains to Section 80IA. The Revenue has sought to reopen the assessment on the basis of the proceedings for Assessment Year 200405 which have attained finality upon a decision of the Division Bench dated 30 November 2011 in the case of the Assessee. Consequently, the basis of the reopening of the assessment cannot now survive. 5 For these reasons, Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the notice under Section 148 dated 28 March 2007. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 547 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 158BD for the block period comprising of assessment years - incriminating materials were seized showing various payments to the owners of the land were utilised
-
2012 (3) TMI 546 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance of the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB - Held that:- No evidence was furnished by the assessee before the A.O. in respect of putting up of new unit in assessment year 2001-02, we find that as per the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) for the assessment year 2004-05 and assessment year 2006-07, deduction was allowed by the A.O. to the assessee u/s 80- IB. The A.O. himself has stated in the assessment order that for the unit established by the assessee in assessment year 1994-95, assessee was getting deduction u/s 80-IA up to assessment year 2004-05. If this be so, then for new unit only, deduction was allowed by the A.O. u/s 80-IB in assessment year 2006-07. This goes to show that this fact was very much available in the record of the department that the assessee has established a new unit in assessment year 2001-02 and in respect of this unit, deduction was allowed by the A.O. to the assessee u/s 80-IB in assessment year 2006-07 also. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of the Ld. D.R. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 545 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y on the acceptance of the liability by the company and if the company thereafter refused to pay it. The Assessee was liable in respect of the expenditure incurred only after acceptance of that liability. That event took place after the date 31 March 1970. The fact that the promoters had incurred the expenditure prior to 31 March 1970 would not detract from the position that the same represented expenditure incurred by the assessee only after the acceptance of the liability which took place after the specified date. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the first question which has been referred by the Tribunal would have to be answered in the negative. 11 On the second question which has been referred by the Tribunal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee states that the same stands covered against the Assessee by the Judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arvind Mills Ltd. (1992) 193 ITR 255. 12 The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
............
|
