|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1048 Records
-
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
-
2011 (4) TMI 1412 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , scanner, server and port switches were computer peripherals and form part of the P.C. These output devices could not work in isolation and also working on computer system without output devices such as printer would be futile. He, therefore, allowed depreciation 60 as against 25 allowed by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have hard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT Calcutta Bench in the case of ITO Vs Simran Majumdar (supra) and ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Container Corporation of India 30 SOT Vs 285 Delhi. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT in the cases referred to above, the computer and its peripherals are eligible for depreciation 60 . Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by CIT(A) deleting the addition. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Apr., 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1411 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 14,16,513/- Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the income keeping in view the above direction. 13. Ground No. 4 & 5 of the appeal are correlated with ground No. 2 & 3, so do not require any specific comment on our part while the last issue agitated by the assessee vide ground No. 6, relates to the charging of interest u/s 234Bof the Act. 14. Shri H. Rahman, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that no interest u/s 234B of the Act is leviable in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand learned D. R. submitted that levy of interest u/s 234B is consequential. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer will examine the issue and decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly and partly for statistical purposes. (The order was pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2011)
-
2011 (4) TMI 1410 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Grant to Co-operative Societies - Deductible Expenditure u/s 36(1)(xii) - As per agreement, if the utilization of grants is not as per the objectives laid down in the agreement, then such grants would be converted into interest free loan or interest bearing loan - As per AO as such grants were conditional loan and were not expenditure - CIT(A) confirms the disallowance
HELD THAT:- We find considerable force in justification of the assessee whether the alleged non-refundable grants given in the previous year, relevant to the AY under appeal are from grants received or not needs verification at the end of the AO. In this context, as per decision in case of OIL INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2009 (3) TMI 225 - ITAT DELHI-E], relied on by assessee, expenditure incurred by way of disbursement of grants for objects and purposes authorised by the Act is allowable as deduction under section 36(1)(xii).
The plea of assessee that non-refundable grants sanctioned, are claimed as deduction only when funds are already utilized/Fund Utilisation Report (FUR) are received, also needs verification at the end of the AO.
We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of AO with the direction that AO may verify both the aforesaid contentions and re-adjudicate the disallowance afresh, after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish complete details to Assessing Officer, in this regard, for verification - Matter restored back
-
2011 (4) TMI 1409 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ng provision are possible, that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. This is a well-accepted rule of construction recognised by this court in several of its decisions. Hence, all that we have to see is, what is the true effect of the language employed in section 271(1)(a)(i). If we find that language to be ambiguous or capable of more meanings than one, then we have to adopt that interpretation which favours the assessee, more particularly so because the provision relates to imposition of penalty.” 10. In view of the above discussion, case laws relied by both the sides, we are of the considered view that on receipt of share application money and repayment thereof will not violate the provisions of section 269SS and 269T, which attracts levy of penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act. Accordingly, these appeals of the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1408 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act were applicable. However no addition on that issue was made as he got satisfied with the submissions made on behalf of the assessee on that count. In that view of the matter the Assessing Officer should not have proceeded with the reassessment if the grounds mentioned in reassessment notice were non-existent. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I.) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) has held so. Since the disallowance of expenses was not the subject matter of reopening of the assessment, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making such additions, when no addition was made u/s.2(22)(e), being the sole reason for which the assessment was reopened. Respectfully following the afore-noted judicial pronouncement, we set aside the impugned order and order for the deletion of the instant additions. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1407 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... head 'income from business'. Even in the assessment year 2001-02 to 2003-04 also, the same rental income has been accepted under the head 'income from business', but no action u/s. 147 or u/s. 263 has been taken. There is no change in the facts of the case as compared to this year with that of subsequent or preceding assessment years and in all the preceding and subsequent assessment years, as per details filed at page 1 of the paper book, the Revenue has duly accepted the rental income under the head 'income from business'. In our opinion, the rule of consistency has to be followed. In view of this fact, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income from rent under the head 'income from business. Thus, this ground of cross objection is allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed and the cross objection of assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.4.11.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1406 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to which in quantum appeal a relief of ₹ 16,77,152/- was granted, hence, leaving behind the net taxable income only at of ₹ 2,62,667/- against which there was brought forward depreciation of ₹ 7,37,850/-, hence, the revised total income remained at NIL. It has also been brought to our notice that while filing the return u/s.153A of the I.T.Act, the book profit u/s.115JA was disclosed at ₹ 16,28,110/- and the tax was accordingly paid. On account of these undisputed information, the case before us is directly covered by the afore cited decision that in such circumstances the concealment of income would have no role to play once the income is assessed on the book profit u/s.115JA and not under the normal provisions of the Act. Resultantly, we hereby affirm the findings of the Learned CIT(Appeals) and reject the ground of the Revenue. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 21st April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1405 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... urt with the following observations - “4. We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server, etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 . 5. In view of aforesaid, present appeal is dismissed in limine.” 9. The same analogy will be applicable to UPS. In case the UPS is not used, the data fed in the computer may wash away. Thus, UPS become integral part of the computer and, hence, eligible for depreciation at the rate applicable to computers. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation 60 on the value of UPS system. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 21.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1404 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ies, we find that the issue is identically same as adjudicated in ITA No.1260/Mum/2010 in assessee’s own case wherein the issue regarding notional interest has been set aside by is vide para 41 of this order to the file of AO for re-examination after considering the evidence regarding financial health of MCCL. Therefore, in this year also, we remit the issue back to the file of AO with similar direction. o p /o p 59. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p 60. To sum up, ITA No.1256 & 1257/Mum/2010 by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA No.1258/Mum/2010 by the assessee is dismissed, ITA No.1259/Mum/2010 by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA Nos. 1260 & 1261/Mum/2010 by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, while ITA No.1183/Mum/2010 by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced on the 27th day of April, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (4) TMI 1403 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tled to part deduction under section 80IB or not. If he is, then to what extent?. We accordingly for the purpose of consideration of factual aspect about six bungalows having area less than 1500 sft., recall our order but to this limited extent only. It will be the subject matter of discussion during the course of regular hearing as to whether and to what extent deduction u/s 80IB can be allowed in respect of six bungalows if having area less than 1500 sft. As a result, the Misc. application is allowed subject to the above observations. o p /o p 6. In MA No.71/Ahd/2010 similar issue is involved. After considering the miscellaneous application and arguments of the parties we recall the order to the extent mentioned in Asst. Year 2004-05. o p /o p 7. The Registry is directed to fix the appeals for hearing in due course. o p /o p 8. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications are allowed as indicated above. o p /o p Order was pronounced in open Court on 21/4/11. o p /o p
-
2011 (4) TMI 1402 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
Works contractor - refund claim - section 40(6) of the VAT Act read with rule 81(2) of the VAT Rules - Held that: - there was no bilateral agreements in between the parties and/or containing some specified terms and conditions on after sale service as is contended by the respondents. From the documents as aforesaid there is nothing to show that save and except supply of the ultra sound imaging system the petitioner-company was agreed to install the system in any building and/or with undertaking to do repairing works of the machinery in future though there was a warranty for one year on the goods supplied - we find no reason as to why the petitioner-company will not get refund of the amount of ₹ 27,500 deducted by the Bally Municipality as tax at source and deposited in the Government exchequer and particularly when there is no case on record that the dealer is found liable to pay any tax after the deemed assessment u/s 47 of the Act and, therefore, there cannot be also any question as to the undue enrichment on the part of the petitioner in refunding the amount claimed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1401 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are not liable to pay tax under the VAT Act. The questions raised in these petitions re identical to the one raised in WPs 2459-82/2011 decided by this Court on 07th April, 2011. In view of the same and in terms stated therein, these petitions are also disposed of. In view of the disposal of the Petitions, Misc W 3992/2011 filed in WP 11508/2011, does Not survive for considerations.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1400 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is to be considered as addition to the closing stock, the same is allowable as deduction under section 43B. The CIT(A) allowed only partial CENVAT credit whereas the assessee has discharged the full amount both by CENVAT as well as by way of PLA account. We are not sure why the CIT(A) gave partial credit as the order is not a speaking order. Since the A.O. and the CIT(A) had ignored the submissions placed on record about the discharge of tax liability and the allowance thereon under the provisions of section 43B, we are of the view that there is no need to restore the matter to the file of the A.O. as suggested by the learned D.R. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, we have examined the issue and found that assessee satisfies the conditions. Accordingly the A.O. is directed to allow the balance amount of ₹ 8,09.935/- sustained by the CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th April 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1399 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... h this contention of the assessee on consideration of the auditor’s report and the provisions contained in clause (vii) of Explanation to Section 115JB(2) of the Act while passing the assessment order. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not at all considered the impact of the said provisions while making the assessment. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the order of the Assessing Officer is not at all erroneous which is one of the ingredients required for invoking jurisdiction by the learned CIT u/s.263 of the Act, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (supra).Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is not sustainable for legal scrutiny and thereby we set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 4th April, 2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1398 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Demand of duty – cenvat credit on exempted input – assessee took credit on naphtha, it is exempted from the payment of excise duty - On being pointed out, they proportionately reversed the credit in respect of naphtha – Held that:- Pro rata reversal credit had been effected for the inputs used in naphtha relating to the clearance for the manufacture of fertilizers - reversal of credit amounts to non-taking of credit - no liability to pay duty - appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1397 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit of the Service tax - transportation services provided by the assessee to their staff for pick up and drop from the residence to the factory and vice-versa – Held that:- Service should have been utilized by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacturer of final products or used in relation to activities relating to business - If any of the test is satisfied then the service falls under input service and the manufacturer is eligible to avail Cenvat credit and the Service tax paid on such credit - Transportation/Rent-a-Cab service is provided by the assessee to their employees in order to reach their factory premises in time which has a direct bearing on manufacturing activity - in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 1396 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egarding classification of the services. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The said provision makes it clear that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from any order not being an order “relating to among other things”, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment. This case falls squarely within the phrase “determination of any question relating to rate of duty tax and it is the Apex Court alone which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question under Section 35-L of the Act. In that view of the matter, this appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is rejected reserving liberty to the revenue to approach the Apex Court against the impugned order. 3. The High Court Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the order and other particulars to enable the assessee to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1395 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ger period of limitation could not have been invoked to initiate proceedings against the assessee. In other words, in determining the validity of the demand made in the show cause notice as a longer period of limitation was invoked, the same could be set aside on the ground of collusion not being made out. This clearly falls within the phrase ‘not being an order relating, among other things to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of Excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment’. Whether it is Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 130 of the Customs Act of 1962, the said question has to be determined by the Apex Court and the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. 6. In that view of the matter, we reject these appeals as being not maintainable reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court either under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1394 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... y the refund should be restricted only to 8 on the ground that the assessee had paid duty at a higher rate than the rate at which the duty was otherwise leviable. 2. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
............
|
