|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1432 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the department that such cross-objections were filed beyond the period of limitation. 7. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the impugned order to the extent it refuses to consider the cross-objection in relation to the point as to whether the duty element had been passed on to the customers cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 8. The appeal therefore, partly succeeds. The decision of the lower appellate authority in relation to applicability of principles of unjust enrichment cannot be found fault with. However, the decision relating to refusal to consider the cross-objection on the point as to whether the duty element had been passed over to the customers or not cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to deal with the said issue namely, as to whether the duty element had been passed over to the customers by the appellants or not. 9. The appeals accordingly stand disposed of.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1431 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1430 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... ct. We also notice that the learned CIT (A) has followed the decision of two cases cited above. Since the Tribunal has already taken a particular view on the impugned issue and since the decision of Learned CIT(A) is in accordance with the said view, we do not find any reason to interfere with his decision on this issue. With regard to the other issue relating to disallowance of excess claim, both the parties have agreed that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for examination of the fresh evidences filed before the learned CIT (A). Accordingly we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) on the issue of disallowance of expenses and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the fresh evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 7th April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1429 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the said Finance Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the service tax payable on said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity provided by the service provider to the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of the said taxable services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity during the aforesaid period. It can be seen from the above notification that the issue involved in this case is now very clear as to, that the services of transmission and distribution of electricity is not a service which was sought to be taxed under the Finance Act, 1994. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with consequential relief and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2011 (4) TMI 1428 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... area of the plot representing the residential units which have the areaexceeding 1000 sq. ft. In the case in hand, the learned AR of the assessee has pointed out from the record that the total area of plot is 18742.2 sq.mtrs. and if proportionate area of 12 flats combined into six residential units is reduced from the total area of plot, the balance would be much more than the requirement of one acre. We note that the total number of flats in two buildings are 192 out of which 12 flats are merged for making six residential units. Therefore, keeping in view of the total area of the plot, we find that the remaining area is more than one acre as required u/s 80IB(10). We do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) qua this issue. Hence this ground of revenue and cross-objection of the assessee stand rejected. 27. In the result, appeal by the revenue as well as the cross-objection by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.4.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1427 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ucks with coal have been released. The petitioner's case in so far as it relates to damages is concerned has neither been proved nor established. In the light of that, we are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for that prayer. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised to file a suit in the appropriate Court or to resort to any other proceedings for the reliefs claimed for here. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. The personal bond which was given by the petitioner stands released.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1426 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... hat the (state) legislation would legally entitle the Municipality’, or would be entrusted by the (state) government, with the management and control, underscores their respective relevance, and for which the provisions of the COI (Part IXA Municipalities’) as well as the Kerala Municipalities Act may have to be referred to. There has been no expression of opinion by the ld. CIT, to require its consideration by us, and neither did the parties either argue or were heard thereon. The issue thus must be considered at large; neither he nor should we, per the instant order, be construed as having expressed any opinion in the matter; but only highlighted the related aspects as brought to our notice or deemed relevant. 4. In view of the foregoing, we find merit in the impugned order holding the assessment/s as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on both the counts. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1425 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the foregoing discussion, quashing the order of assessment, the impugned notice has become infructuous and has to be quashed. CWJC No.3003 of 1999 also succeeds. 10. We now take up CWJC No.7515 of 1997. This writ petition is at par with CWJC No.3003 of 1999, and challenges the validity of issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. As stated here inabove, the petitioner of CWJC No.7515 of 1997 was also a partnership firm at the relevant point of time, is also a party to the aforesaid agreement of 25.10.88, for relinquishment of tenancy rights. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned notice is hereby set aside. CWJC No.75715 of 1997 is accordingly allowed. 11. In the result, CWJC No. 12950 of 2001, CWJC No.3003 of 1999, and CWJC No. 7515 of 1997, are hereby allowed. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioners (the assessees), and against the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1424 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rty for the purposes of business. Hence the facts are distinguishable. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of depreciation on building. 36. The next issue for consideration in Revenue’s appeal relates to deletion of addition of ₹ 51,48,629/- on account of valuation of closing stock. The facts of the case for the Assessment Year 2004- 05 are identical to the facts of the case for the year 2002-03. In Assessment Year 2002-03, we have deleted the similar addition made on account of valuation of closing stock. Respectfully following the precedent, it is held that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of valuation of closing stock. 37. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2002-03 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2004- 05 is dismissed. 38. Pronounced in the open court on 29th Apr., 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1423 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... gainst the order of CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A). Thus, this ground of cross objection stands dismissed. 12. Ground No.4 relates to the 10 disallowance out of telephone and vehicle expenses. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- out of telephone expenses of ₹ 78,763/- and vehicle expenses of ₹ 2,26,570/- keeping in view the element personal user. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10 keeping in view the disallowance of such expenses in the assessment year 2002-03 and taking into account the element of personal user. Before us also, there is no evidence on record to refute the possibility of personal user of telephone and car. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this count and this ground of cross objection stands dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1422 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hat the issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2007-08 and earlier years as mentioned in paragraph no. 8 of the order, reproduced above. Being a precedent of binding nature, following the same, the matter is restored to the file of the AO to work out net profit which is liable to be disallowed under aforesaid provision after considering the working furnished by the assessee and affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2.3 Thus, these grounds are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 3. Ground nos. 4 and 5 regarding levy of interest u/s 234B and withdrawal of interest u/s 244A(3) were not argued by the ld. counsel. Therefore, these grounds are taken as consequential in nature. The working of interest under these provisions shall be revised while giving effect to this order. 4. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open court on 29 April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1421 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... amangala unit of ₹ 12,69,654/- from the calculation of the profits of the business under clause (baa) of explanation after 80 HHC (4C). If yes, what is the quantum of that loss. We deem it fit to remand the issues to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO will afford opportunity of being heard to the Assessee before deciding the issue. 14. As far as purchases from Salbha Garments is concerned, admittedly the Tribunal has already deleted the disallowance in AY 02-03. Since the assessment in this year was based on the decision of AO in AY 02-03 which has already been deleted by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the said addition cannot be sustained. We therefore direct that the same be deleted. Ground No.3 of the Assessee is accordingly allowed. 14. The other grounds of appeal are purely consequential and the AO is directed to give consequential relief. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1420 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tan Shah was also similar, the A.O. was justified to treat the said loan as bogus on the basis of evidence found during the course of search. Accordingly, the addition made at ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of bogus loan as unexplained is hereby confirmed. This ground of appeal for A.Y. 03-04 is dismissed.” 7. In our opinion, the conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities are devoid of merit. There is no basis to hold that Shri Chetan Shah is a tainted party. Addition cannot be justified on the ground that the assessee had offered certain other accounts as bogus loans. The issue should have been investigated by the AO before addition. In view of the above discussion, we allow this ground for the assessment year 2003-04. 8. In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are dismissed, appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 is allowed in part and the appeal for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1419 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ended grounds has mentioned that no addition was made for escapement of addition for which the assessment was reopened. Since before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had not taken this legal ground which has been admitted by us, we feel it proper to set aside the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to examine the legal issue whether assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act was justified in view of the fact that no addition has been made in respect of amount income escaping assessment for which the assessment was reopened. The Ld. CIT(A) will examine the case of the assessee and pass a speaking order in respect of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. Since we have set aside the issue relating to assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147, the addition made on merit also set aside to the file of CIT(A) to be decided afresh. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th April 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1418 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... T 306 ITR 42(Del.) has held that the power of the Tribunal to entertain the additional ground is not in any way restricted in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. Further we find that the claim had been made by the assessee before the AO in the form of a note appended to the return of income. In such circumstances we are of the view that the CIT(A) ought to have examined the claim of the assessee on its merits. Now that, we have examined the merits of the case of the assessee the revenue cannot have any grievance in this regard. The tax liability has to be determined in accordance with law and the technicalities raised by the CIT(A) will not apply in any case to the powers of the Tribunal. For the reasons stated above we direct the AO to accept the plea of the assessee. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 8th day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1417 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... paid charges. This fact is emanated from the order of the Assessing Officer and the assessee could not bring out any concrete evidence/material to suggest that there is no contract between the assessee and the maistries. In such circumstances, it is natural to come to the conclusion that the payments was made for supply of labour for carrying out the work of the assessee. Where any work is carried out by supplying the manpower, the provisions of section 194C is attracted. In the present case, it is not the case of the assessee that the payment is not related to the supply of labours. Nothing has been brought on record to the effect that manpower was not provided by the maistries himself. In view of this matter, in our opinion, the CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer. This ground of the assessee in both the appeals is dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21. 4. 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1416 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Writ Petition by advertising agencies challenging the vires of the Municipal Corporation (Assessment and Collection of Tax on Advertisement) Rules, 2009 (the Rules) mainly on the ground that the rule is ultra vires to the constitution. Rule has been also impugned being framed in contravention of statutory provisions contained in the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959 (the Act.) - The State Government in pursuance to power conferred by Section 227 read with Section 192, 219, sub section (1) of Section 540 and Section 550 and Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act (General Clauses Act) and in super session of all the previous rules and order with regard to advertisements had notified the impugned Rules on 27.2.2008 as required by sub Section (2) of section 540. The Rule has been enforced from the date of publication in the Gazette and has been extended to every Municipal Corporation of Uttar Pradesh. A plain reading of the rule shows that the purpose of the rule is to impose 'advertisement tax' and provide the mode of recovery and initiate penal action in the event of contravention of rules by the advertising agencies as well as other related persons.
HELD THAT:- The impugned Rules could not have been framed by the Government in the manner it has been done. At the most, the proposed Rule or the Model Rules could have been sent to the Corporation and it was for the Corporation to consider the proposal of State Government in pursuance to power conferred by Section 202 and thereupon the Corporation could have directed for imposition of tax w.e.f. the date to be specified in resolution and consequential notification issued u/s 203. In the event of failure on the part of Corporation, government has got option to take recourse in pursuance to power conferred u/s 205 and 206. The other issues are also decided and answered.
That State Government has got legislative competence to frame rules but subject to fulfilment of necessary conditions and procedure prescribed under Chapter IX.
That Government could not have framed impugned rules for all the Municipal Corporations without taking recourse of not only Section 206 but other statutory provisions contained in Chapter IX of the Act.
That Impugned rule 209 is invalid and ultra vires to the Act being framed without following the provisions of Sections 199 to 203 of the Act and other statutory provisions.
Provision contained in the Rule 2009 requiring the owner of building to face penal consequences is invalid and violative of Section 195 of the Act.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1415 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... te of search cannot be disputed as it has been disclosed the entire agricultural income for the purpose of the Act. Hence, the definition of 158B(b), the income already disclosed in the return file before the date of search will not come under the concept of undisclosed income. In view of this, we reject the arguments made by the ld. CIT(Appeals) to support the findings of the Assessing Officer and al low the appeal of the assessee on merits. 7. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee on merits, we desist from adjudicating the procedural objection raised by the assessee and the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.158BD as the decision of the Third Member in this case is also against the assessee and the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Panchajanyam Management Agencies & Service (2011) 239 CTR (Ker) 424. Hence, this requires no adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is al lowed on merits itself.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1414 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of explanation. The three ingredients are as under - (1) The assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate; (2) The fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide; and (3) All the facts relating to the same and material facts to the computation of total income then disclosed by him. Accordingly, I hold that penalty is neither leviable under the main provision nor under explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). 5. In the result, I cancel the penalty and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.” 6.1 The aforesaid decision of the ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Ahmedabad is squarely applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. We, therefore, following the same, cancel the penalty under section 271(1)(c) on income to the extent of ₹ 1,80,259/- confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in the impugned order. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. The Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1413 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... two scripts were retained by the assessee for reasonably long period. Keeping into view the frequency of transaction and the fact that the assessee has acquired and kept the shares as investment, there is no justification for treating the profit on sale of such shares as business income in place of short term capital gains offered by the assessee. 14. Ground raised with regard to disallowance of 80I deduction was not pressed by the ld. Authorized Representative. The same is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 15. In the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee is aggrieved for disallowance of various expenditure. 16. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. In view of our discussion in the assessment year 2004-05, we direct the AO to retain the addition to the extent of 25 of disallowance so made. We direct accordingly. 17. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court
............
|
