|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1048 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1490 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. After arguing the matter at length, Mr.R.K.Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Permission to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1489 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... to the extent of ₹ 2,09,654/-". 8. It can be noticed that the difference between the “income” and “cash earning” was clearly brought out in the above cited case. For the purpose of explaining the source of cash credit, the “Cash earning” shall have more relevance that the “Net income”. The contention of the assessee is in accordance with the decision by the SMC Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal, referred supra, accordingly, we find merit in the said contentions of the assessee and hold that the addition of ₹ 1.92,000/- is not warranted in the instant case, as the additional funds equivalent to the amount of depreciation amount of about ₹ 1,97,000/- was also available with the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT((A) and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition of ₹ 1,92,000/- discussed above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Pronounced on 17-02-2012
-
2011 (2) TMI 1488 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... margin for loans being raised and after the loans are raised, then substantial amount is diverted to the sister concerns for non-business purposes without interest, a plea is sought to be raised that the amount advanced was out of its capital, which in fact stood exhausted in setting up of the unit. Such a plea may be acceptable at a stage when no loans had been raised by the assessee at the time of disbursement of funds. This would depend on the facts of each case. 13. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have followed the principles laid down in Abhishek Industries (supra) for making and confirming the impugned disallowance. For the reasons discussed above, we see no valid reason to take a view different from the one taken by them. This is more so as the view taken by them in the immediately preceding assessment year has also been confirmed by this Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 28 February 2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1487 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ose shares and the Assessing Officer could not prove that the evidence submitted by the assessee was either false or fictitious. It was further pointed out that the assessee had purchased and sold the shares through the registered share brokers of the CSE, the delivery of shares was received or given through the Demat account and the payments were made or received through the account payee cheques and the correctness of those documents was beyond any doubt. From the aforesaid materials we find that the capital loss incurred by the assessee on the sale of shares listed on CSE and others was really genuine loss and thus, the Tribunal below rightly confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Authority and as such, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is thus devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1486 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee ranging from one year to 20 years. Therefore, from the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said certain shares which were purchased and sold during the year or within a year will change the nature of transactions when the whole intention of the assessee is to invest for long term and earning the dividend income. Keeping in view of the number of transactions giving rise to the earning short term capital gain and number of scripts as well as the amount of investment, the transactions of sale and purchase of shares giving rise to short term capital gain cannot be treated as trading in shares and consequently business income when the assessee is maintaining the separate portfolio. The case of the assessee is also covered by the various decisions as relied upon by the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 11 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 Feb,2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1484 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... arned dividend along with the capital gain on the sale of the shares/securities but only on that basis it cannot be said that the assessee held the scripts as “stock in trade” particularly when the department had accepted in the earlier years the purchase of the shares/securities as “investment”. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the profit earned by the assessee on the said investments as business profit. As such, the learned CIT (A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the same under the head “capital gains”. We ,therefore, considering the totality of the facts do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld.CIT(A), and accordingly do not see any merit in the appeal of the Department. 15. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross Objection or the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 28.2.11)
-
2011 (2) TMI 1483 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nus has been discharged by producing the relevant record. Under the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that when the necessary details were furnished by the assessee, onus shifts to the Revenue to explain as to how the explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. The ratio laid down in the case of CIT Vs. Daya Chand Jain Vaidhya 98 ITR 280 (All.) fortifies our view.” The deposits made by the assessee were held to be genuine by the Tribunal after appraisal of bank statements of Indus Ind Bank and Vijaya Bank in which she had the account and also after perusal of copy of entries of withdrawals and deposits in the accounts being operated by her. Learned counsel for the Revenue could not show that the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding the cash deposits to be genuine were liable to be interfered with. In view of this, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1482 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ainst future rents. Such situation does not arise in the present case. 53. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the dictum laid down in various judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the amount received by the assessee from M/s Atul Generators (P) Ltd., as security deposits under the agreement coupled with certain obligations to be complied with cannot be regarded to be the payment by the company by way of advance or loan to a shareholder and therefore cannot be assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 2(22)(e). We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A) deleting the additions made by the AO. 54. So far the cross-objection filed by the assessee is concerned, the same is supportive to the order of the CIT(A). Since the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, the cross-objection filed by the assessee stands allowed. 55. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed while the cross-objection filed by the assessee stands allowed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1481 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... us. During the year under consideration, the assessee made the payment of job charges ₹ 12/- per meter to the sister concern. The AO held the same to be excessive and restricted the job charges at ₹ 9/- per meter which resulted in addition of ₹ 4,07,658/-. On appeal, the CIT(A) recorded the finding that the same sister concern has charged ₹ 18/- per meter as job charges from outside parties. This factual finding recorded by the CIT(A) has not been controverted before us. When the sister concern is charging more job work charges to others, then it cannot said that the payment of job charges made by the assessee either excessive or unreasonable. In view of the above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this point and reject ground no.2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 4th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1480 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... act that whether the units are sold or not. In other words, profit is being estimated on unsold stock also. We find that pre-revised AS-7 issued by the ICAI in the year 1983 specifically included companies undertaking construction activities on their own, builders and developers. As per revised AS-7 in the year 2002, such specific inclusion was missing. Hence, in our considered opinion, AS-7 does not apply to the builders and real estate developers. The method followed by the assessee company cannot be called as an unreasonable method and any change in the method would only be tax neutral. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) as the same has been passed by the CIT (A) after analyzing and examining the issue elaborately. Accordingly we confirm the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds raised for both the years by the revenue in this regard. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 18-2-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1479 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the production process. This kind of working out the production and comparing the same with consumption during last year without bringing any evidence on record to show the sale of so called unrecorded production is only a matter of conjectures and surmises and addition on this account being not sustainable is directed to be deleted.” 13. The Learned Departmental Representative could not point out any specific error in the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We agree with the reasoning given by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that consumption of electricity may vary due to hundreds of factors. We therefore, do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 4th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1478 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... vis M/s AFPL are not fulfilled. It was, further, observed that share holders of various different persons cannot be clubbed to decide the issue of fulfillment of conditions laid down in Sec 2(22)(e) of the Act. He was of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the assessee, support his findings. 8. In view of legal and factual discussions, including the case laws cited and relied upon by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity, in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and hence, the same are upheld. 9. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection No. 58/Chandi/2011 - AY 2007-08 10. In view of the findings recorded above, as also in the light of submission of the ld. ‘AR’ that the Cross objection intended to support the appellate order. The impugned cross objections is dismissed as infructuous. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced on 24 .8.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1477 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... same be ordered to be dismissed. o p /o p 8. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material on record. o p /o p Undisputedly, vide order dated 16.2.09, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed as infructuous, with a liberty to the assessee to move an application for its revival, if the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 154 of the I.T. Act were to be disturbed by the Tribunal. o p /o p The Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 10.11.2010 (supra), has observed that the application of the assessee to be considered in accordance with the said liberty granted to the assessee. In accordance to above, the request of the assessee by way of present application is accepted. The appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.216/Del./08 is revived in situ. The same shall now come up for hearing on merits under notice to both the parties. o p /o p 9. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p 11. Order pronounced in open court on 25.02.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (2) TMI 1476 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for the year ending as on 31st March, 2004. Thus, it is clear that the difference in value attributable to the cost and market price of these shares have already been accounted for by the assessee. Assessee has also been maintained separate books for trading and investment portfolios. The company decided to convert trading portfolio into investments vide resolution of the Board in Annual General Meeting to convert the shares from stock in trade to investments. The assessee has taken the market value on 31.3.2004 as the cost of the acquisition without taking the benefit of the indexation, the difference between the sales price and the cost of acquisition has been offered for taxation as short term capital gain. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/02/2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1475 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... claimants not covered by the Insurance Policy along with the persons so covered. The Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six Awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle. 28. The Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. Having regard to the nature of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1474 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e is with regard to treating the income from display of hoarding and interest on deposits with the cooperative societies as income from ‘other sources’. We have heard both the parties on this issue. We have carefully gone through the nature of business of the assessee. The assessee is mainly engaged in the business of establishing and running industrial estates for small industries. The assessee let out properties for the purpose of godowns, warehouses for storage/processing. Display of hoarding cannot be taken to be part and parcel of the business activities of the assessee. Similarly, making deposits with the cooperative bank cannot be considered as business activities of the assessee. The assessee is not an investment company engaged in money lending or in an investment business. In our opinion, in this case of the assessee, the interest on deposits are to be assessed as income from other sources only. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1473 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed as deduction. We find that the same issue had been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rotork Controls India (p) Ltd. (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that warranty was an integral part of sale price as the warranty stood attached to the sale price of the product. It was also observed that warranty provisions have to be recognized because an assessee had a present obligation as a result of past events resulting in an outflow of resources and a reliable estimate could be made of the amount of obligation. Therefore the assessee had incurred the liability which was an allowable deduction under section 37 of the I.T. Act. Respectfully following the said judgment we set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee. 4. In the result the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is partly allowed whereas that for assessment year 2005-06 is allowed. 5. The decision was pronounced in the open court 09.02.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1472 - CESTAT CHENNAI
-Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President & Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Appearance :
Shri T.H. Rao, SDR For the Appellant/s
Per Jyoti Balasundaram
Heard ld. SDR and perused the records. We find that the lower appellate authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.3891/2000 dt. 20.2.2002 in the case of same assessee, to set aside the adjudication order. The Revenue had challenged the High Court’s decision before the Division Bench by way of filing W.A.No.640/2003 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide the judgment dt. 18.7.2008.
In these circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order which we accordingly, uphold. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (2) TMI 1471 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... pients are required to pay service tax as a deemed service provider, the document used by the service recipient for paying service tax, namely, TR-6 challans should be allowed to be treated as documents covered by Rule 9(1)(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Normally, the invoices of the service provider indicating payment of service tax by the said service provider is taken as relevant document for taking credit by the recipient of services. In the present case, recipient has undertaken dual roles, one as payer of service tax and the other as the person who was availing credit as recipient. The TR-6 challan is a basic document based on which service provider pays the service tax. In the present case, it will be easier for the officer to verify the genuineness of the documents as the person who pays service tax and the recipient are one and the same. 6. There is no merit in the appeal by the department. Appeal is, therefore, rejected. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1470 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee without corroborative evidences. Since in our view these are prepared to substantiate the claim of the assessee. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) to be inferred with. Hence, we confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) on account of gross profit, investment in land, investment in building to the extent of ₹ 3.00 lakhs and unexplained expenditure. Regarding contention of the assessee that he has already shown ₹ 71,000/- on account of sale of one shop to Centurian Bank. We are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 6,10,000/- on account of investment in building whereas the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to ₹ 3,00,000/- only, hence, there is no double addition of ₹ 70,000/-. Therefore, on account of peak credit of the Centurian Bank also, we confirm the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 02. 02. 2011.
............
|
