|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1048 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1453 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty - demand with interest paid before issuance of SCN - wrongful availment of CENVAT credit - Held that: - in the facts of this particular case that the Appellate Authorities committed no error in giving the benefit of waiver of penalty when the assessee had paid the duty and interest even before issue of show cause notice when the error was pointed out during the audit - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1452 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... er-in-Original confirming the demands. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The learned SDR fairly submits that in identical issue in respect of the very same assessee, this Bench vide Final Order No. 1278/2010 dated 29.9.2010 had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeal) to reconsider the issue. The learned Counsel also submits that the issue that arose in Appeal No. E/808/2005 is identical to this appeal. Since identical issue has been remanded with specific directions to the Commissioner (Appeals), we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the directions given by us in the Final Order No. 1278/2010 dated 29.9.2010. Needless to say that the Commissioner (Appeals) will follow the principles of natural justice before coming to the conclusion. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2011 (4) TMI 1451 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s neither recorded the statement of Ms. Manju Semwal which can given an indication whether she has paid money in cash or not. He has not verified the occasion for which the money was to be paid, whether Ms. Manju Semwal ha purchased any property because the payment of ₹ 10 lacs through account payee cheque is concerned, that has been shown by the assessee as unsecured loan from Ms. Semwal. His stand for the diary is that no cash payment was ever received. Assessing Officer is expecting that assessee shall prove the non receipt of the cash payment. This expectation is highly improbable. Learned CIT(Appeals) has considered all these aspects and then deleted the addition. We do not find any merit in the ground of appeal raised by the revenue. It is rejected. C.O. No. 68/Del/2011 71. Assessee did not press the cross-objection, hence it is rejected. 72. In the result, all the appeals and the cross-objections are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1450 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts order dated 24/11/2009 permitted the petitioners to raise this issue before the appellate authority in the pending appeal. Such observations contained in paragraph No.7 of the order we have already reproduced. These observations however must be understood in the background in which they were made. Firstly, the petition was disposed of ex-parte without a notice to the respondents. Naturally, the Court therefore did not intend to make any conclusive observations which would bind both sides. Further the Court only permitted the petitioners to raise such issue and did not express any opinion of its own in this regard. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that authorities below have examined the factual aspect. When that F form declaration was not genuine, to that extent sub-section (1) of Section 6A and deeming fiction contained therein is applied to hold that the movement of goods was by way of sale. We see no error or infirmity. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1449 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10 lakhs. As per the new guidelines of the CBDT, in those cases where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, appeal is not to be filed. The present appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1448 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... period, but the construction was not fully completed. When the matter traveled to the High court, the Hon’ble High Court took the view that the assessee is entitled for the exemption. Coming to the facts of the case of assessee, in pith and substance, it is a fact that the assessee has not started the construction within the specified period and the development charges have been paid to M/s. Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. for the development of the road and other facilities in the colony where the plot is situated at a pre-determined rate depending on the size of the plot. Mere payment of the development charges to the builder does not mean that the assessee has started construction, which is essential condition for claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the I.T. Act. We, accordingly, set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the order of Assessing Officer. 8. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8.4.11.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1447 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der Section 66 of the Finance Act and paid on any input service received by the manufacturer of a final product. Therefore under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product is entitled to claim the credit. Therefore, the Judgment of the Tribunal is legal and valid and is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, which calls for any interference. Hence, the substantial questions of law framed in these appeals are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 6. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal having since been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment, this appeal is disposed off on the very same terms as in CEA Nos. 96/2009 c/w 97/2009, 98/2009, 99/2009, 124/2009 and 125/2009. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1446 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pass only on payment of entire sale consideration. As a result, until and unless the duly executed and registered sale deed comes to the possession of the purchaser, or until the right to receive the original sale deed is secured by the purchaser by obtaining the registration receipt, the deed of sale merely remains an agreement to be performed and will not be a completed sale. But in States where such a practice is not prevalent, possession of Registration Receipt by the Vendor, may not, in the absence of other clear evidence, lead to an inference that consideration has not been paid or that title has not passed to the purchaser as recited in the duly executed deed of conveyance. Where the purchaser is from an outstation, the vendor being entrusted with the Registration Receipt, to collect the original sale deed and deliver it to the purchaser, is common. Be that as it may. 16. In view of the above, we hold that there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1445 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... lief under s. 80J for the assessment year 1973-74, proceeded upon a wrong interpretation of the section. On these facts and circumstances, it was not open to the ITO, in dealing with the assessment for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76, to refuse to grant the relief under s. 80J to the assessee. We are informed that the relief under that section has already been granted to the assessee for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. For the reason given above, we answer the question as follows "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Officer was not competent to disallow the relief under section 80J for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. " In view of the above legal position enumerated by High Courts, as noted above, we are of the view, in the given facts and circumstances, the reopening in these years is bad in law and accordingly quashed. 14. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed. 15. Order is pronounced in the open court on 29.4.2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1444 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the duty amount has already been paid by the respondentassessee and if the interest and/or reduced penalty of 25 were not paid by the respondent-assessee, the adjudicating authority may send a communication to the respondent-assessee indicating therein that the particular amount of interest and/or 25 of the penalty of the duty amount is not paid by the respondent-assessee and hence if the assessee wants to avail the benefit of the reduced penalty of 25 , such amount of interest and/or penalty of 25 should be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of such communication, failing which they would be liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC equivalent to the amount of duty.” As this Court also has upheld the said stand of the Tribunal, following the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Swati Chemical Industries & Ors., no other stand is required to be taken in the present Appeal having identical facts and circumstances. Resultantly, this Appeal stands dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1443 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f a fair prosecution of the case, appointment of Mr. U.U. Lalit is eminently suitable. We, therefore, order that Mr. U.U. Lalit shall be appointed Special Public Prosecutor by the government to conduct the prosecution in this case, on behalf of CBI and ED. On such appointment, Mr. U.U. Lalit may choose the other advocates who are already on the panel of CBI to assist him. Considering the magnitude of the case, we are of the view that Mr. Lalit may choose two persons from the said panel. We also make it clear that any objection about appointment of Special Public Prosecutor or his assistant advocates or any prayer for staying or impeding the progress of the Trial can be made only before this Court and no other court shall entertain the same. The trial must proceed on a day-to-day basis. All these directions are given by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and in the interest of holding a fair prosecution of the case.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1442 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... stments (Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) that when shares in question were never treated by the assessee as stock-in-trade and the shares were held for earning dividend, gain arising on sale was a capital gain. In the case before us also, the ld. A.R. contended that the shares were purchased by the assessee with an intention to earn dividend and/or bonus shares and not treated as stock-in-trade at any point of time. Since the Department has failed to bring any evidence on record to contradict the above submission of the assessee, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly held that the sum of ₹ 33,85,463/- shown by the assessee is to be assessed as capital gain and not as business profit. Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Department. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the Cross Objection of the assessee both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court On 08.04. 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1441 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the above appeal are identical to the facts of the case of asst. yr. 1999-2000 except that in the year under consideration, the case was reopened within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, therefore, the plea taken in the Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1999-2000 may be considered while deciding the above appeal. 22. Having carefully heard the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue except that the case has been reopened within 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, we, for the reasons as discussed in the Revenue's appeal for asst. yr. 1999-2000 in para Nos. 7 to 21 of this order, uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) in quashing the order passed by the AO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act. The grounds taken by the Revenue are, therefore, rejected. 23. In the result, the Revenue's appeals stand dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1440 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to have furnished all the relevant particulars relating to the claim truly and fully and it was, therefore, held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty u/s.271(1)(c). As such, considering all the facts of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it was a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income by the assessee by claiming a wrong exemption in respect of short term capital gain u/s.10(38) making it liable to penalty u/s.271(1)(c) as rightly held by the authorities below. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the A.O. under section 271(1)(c) and dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13TH day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1439 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... red by assessee is in the capital field. Further a perusal of the expenditure clearly shows that it is in the revenue field. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the expenditure on the repairs and maintenance in the form of electrical fittings, electrification, cabinet, work station, partition, cupboard, stand etc. are liable to be treated as a revenue expenditure. In the circumstances, the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and the AO are reversed on this issue and the AO is directed to grant the assessee the claim of revenue expenditure in regard to the said expenditure. Consequently, the depreciation as allowed by the Assessing Officer on the said expenditure which has been capitalized would stand reversed.” We are, therefore, of the opinion that ld. CIT(A) was absolutely justified in allowing the claim of the assessee. No interference is called for. 6. In the result, appeals of the Revenue for both years stand dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in 21-04-2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1438 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... business during the previous year which are relevant for allowing assessee's claim of depreciation. If the Revenue had any doubt with respect to existence of the machinery itself or its use, it was incumbent upon it either to bring sufficient evidence on record to prove that machines under reference was not available with the assessee and had not been used for assessee's business or to allow the assessee an opportunity to establish the existence of the machinery with it as well as user of the same was in assessee's business, but in the present case, nothing is on record on this account.” We find that the entire issue is factual in nature. When the genuineness of the transaction is not seriously in dispute, only on the ground that few sundry bills were not produced, the Tribunal having ruled in favour of the assessee, in our opinion, no substantial question of law is arising. In the result, the tax appeal is admitted for consideration of question No.1 alone.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1437 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the authorities below and, in any event, the assessee cannot be imposed an impossible burden of proving a negative. Keeping in mind all these factors, as also entirety of the case, we see no legally sustainable merits in the disallowance of cash subvention expenses, amounting to ₹ 92,04,873 , resorted to by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A). 9. For the reasons set out above, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ₹ 92,04,873. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2003-04. Respectfully following the same, we uphold the grievance of the assessee, and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ₹ 2,73,32,019 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 29th day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1436 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nting year. In fact, the amendment brought about, which is coming into force on 1st April 1988, permitting the deduction of taxes and duties paid before the filing of the IT returns clearly supports the view that 'taxes and duties' not statutorily payable during the accounting year do not fall to be disallowed under section 43B." 17. In view of the above observations, we are of the view that since service-tax was not payable by the assessee, the rigour of section 43B could not have been applied to the case of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we find nothing wrong with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is confirmed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 6. In view of the aforementioned decision, we find no justification in the disallowance upheld by the learned CIT (A). The same is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1435 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional order of attachment u/s 5(1) of the Prevention of money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - notice u/s 8 facts of the case - In connection with the petitioner's activities in forging documents and forging records in the name of non existing companies for the purpose of getting loan from the Bank, criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. The offence committed by the petitioner is covered by PMLA and investigation was undertaken by the second respondent Enforcement Directorate. It was thereafter, the provisional attachment order was made. The complaint u/s 5(5) of PMLA for Provisional Attachment was filed by the second respondent Deputy Director of Enforcement before the first respondent Adjudicating Authority. The first respondent on considering the complaint had issued a show cause notice u/s 8 of PMLA to the petitioner for his appearance before the first respondent calling him to show cause to his source of income, out of which or by means of which the provisionally attached movable properties were acquired. The petitioner instead of appearing before the first respondent has filed the present writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order as well as the case filed against him.
HELD THAT:- In the present case, by attachment of property made by the second respondent, the petitioner is not bound to lose anything and he cannot be said to be prejudiced. On the other hand, by virtue of Section 5(3), every order of attachment made u/s 5(1) of the PMLA will lose its efficacy either after 150 days or after an order passed u/s 8(2) of the PMLA. Therefore, it is only the petitioner instead of approaching the first respondent Adjudicating Authority who had initiated proceedings u/s 8(1), had rushed to this court. Even if the attachment is made final, u/s 26, an appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner must submit his explanation to the Adjudicating Authority and convince it that the amount sought to be attached was not obtained due to any money laundering and that it was the legally earned income. Even if he fails before the first respondent, there is time enough for challenging the same before the judicial appellate Tribunal constituted u/s 26 of the PMLA. When the Act itself provides for an inbuilt remedy, it is not open to the petitioner to rush to this Court at the stage of provisional attachment, which is yet to be confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.
Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner must necessarily fail.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1434 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d the total of all the deposits and treat the resulting figure of ₹ 32,83,310 as the Assessee’s undisclosed income. Where there were as many withdrawals as deposits and where the money had been rotated and utilized, the peak theory should have been adopted by the AO for the purpose of determining the income of the Assessee as emerging from such transactions from such activities. The AO is therefore directed to treat the peak balance of the said account as the Assessee’s income. A perusal of the details of deposits and withdrawals as furnished by the AR shows that the peak balance was of a sum of ₹ 1,29,174/- on 07-05-2005. This is the sum which will be the Assessee’s undisclosed income.” 6. In our considered opinion Ld. CIT(A) has given cogent reason for directing the Assessing Officer to tax only peak balance. We therefore decline to interfere. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this day of 29th April, 2011
............
|
