|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 906 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... argin in case of similar sales to non AE’s. Thus, applying the internal TNMM method no adjustment is required to be made. Even with respect to the comparables selected by the assessee, it is found that mean margin on operating cost was 7.78 which is within the 5 range of the operating margin of 6.75 in case of the AE sales. Therefore, even applying the TNMM method based on the comparables selected by the TPO, no adjustment is required to be made. The adjustment has been made by the TPO/AO because of the wrong computation made with respect to total operating cost whereas the adjustment has to be calculated only with respect to the operating cost in relation to the AE sales. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we see no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) deleting the addition made by AO. The order of CIT (A) is accordingly upheld. 5. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on today i.e. 8th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 905 - ITAT DELHI
Computation of Arm's Length Price - Method adopted for the computation - payment of management fees - Held that:- Assessee does not have any technical employee possessing experience to carry out product design and development therefore entered into an agreement with AE for management services wherein the AE agreed to provide product development related services to the appellant - assessee applied the TNMM as the most appropriate method - significant services which are critical to the business of the appellant were provided by the AE and the TPO was unjustified in determining the arm's length price of such services at Nil applying the CUP method - assessee collected the additional evidence from its AE to support the ALP - consideration of these additional evidences is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter - thus AO shall consider these grounds afresh, in light of the additional evidences - Remanded back for statistical purposes
Disallowance of administrative charges u/s. 40A(2) - services such as IT services, Accounting Services, financial and taxation services etc - Held that:-evidences are being placed on record by way of additional evidences to demonstrate the fact that entire administrative and marketing support services, required for the business of the appellant, were, in fact, being performed by Talbros - thus additional evidences, is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue - hence the additional evidences are admitted and the case is remitted back to AO to consider the issue afresh - Remanded back for statistical purposes
-
2013 (5) TMI 904 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uthority as well as by the Tribunal on estimate basis. Needless to mention that estimation is a question of fact as per the ratio laid down in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Stoneman Marble Industries and Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 758. Similar views were expressed by this Hon'ble High Court in the following cases 1. TTR - 139 of 2002 M/S Abdul Aziz Ashfaq Ahmed vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14.07.2011; 2. TTR 137 of 2002, M/S Steel Fabricators Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 14.07.2011 ; and 3. TTR 232 of 2004, M/S Singh Gramodyog Int Bhatta, Hardoi vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax decided on 07.05.2012. Thus, in view of well settled legal position, it is clear that no question of law is emerging from the impugned order passed by Tribunal. Hence, no interference is required in the impugned order which are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. In the result, the revision filed by the department is dismissed. No cost.
-
2013 (5) TMI 903 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ime for A.Y. 2006-07. The additions were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was confirmed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4675/M/09 dt. 30.6.2010. However, the return for the A.Y. 2007- 08 was already filed on 4.10.2007 and since no liability for TDS has been fixed so far, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it is not liable to tax on transaction charges. It is seen that from A.Y. 2008-09, the assessee has started deducting tax on transaction charges paid to Stock Exchange. Since the assessee was under bonafide belief on the date of the filing of the return for the year under consideration that there is no liability of TDS on transaction charges. We do not find any reason to confirm the disallowance made by the AO accepting the bonafide on the peculiar facts of the case. Findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are confirmed. o p /o p 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 8.5.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (5) TMI 902 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... r false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 14. As held by the CIT(A) once the addition in question has been deleted, the penalty levied on such non-existent addition cannot withstand. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. In the result, appeal of the revenue being ITA No. 4/Hyd/2013 is dismissed. 16. To sum up, appeals being ITA Nos. 3,5,6 & 7/Hyd/2013 are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal being ITA No. 4/Hyd/2013 is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 10/05/2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 901 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lakhs. It is therefore, submitted that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee -qua individual- applies to the cases of the assessee herein, and hence similar direction may given to the CIT(A), while restoring the appeals. 5. The Learned Departmental Representative did not object to the remand of the appeals to the CIT(A), provided the cash seized has been adjusted towards the taxes due for the relevant assessment years. 6. In view of the contentions of both the parties, I set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) and restore the appeals to his file, to condone the delay in the payment of taxes on admitted incomes of the assessee for the years under appeal, if the cash seized during the course of search has been adjusted against the taxes due, and dispose off the appeals on merits, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, these two appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (5) TMI 900 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... had furnished the statement of purchase and sale in respect of traded goods. The A.O. has examined the same and has accepted the same. The assessee also explained this fact before the ld. CIT(A). The total amount involved in this transaction is only ₹ 59.13 lakhs whereas the total turnover of the assessee is ₹ 44,983.42 lakhs. We have found that the A.O. has examined this issue in detail in his order and has reached one decision by adopting one of the two possible views. Therefore, this cannot amount to an error in the order. Therefore, in view of our foregoing discussion in the light of legal position, we do not find any of the grounds taken by the ld. CIT for revision to lead to establish twin conditions as laid down in section 263 of the Act as has been discussed above. Accordingly, we do set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the A.O. 24. In the result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 6th May 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 899 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Supreme Court of India mentioned above Therefore, following the decision above, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is deleted and the ground of appeal of the appellant is allowed." 5.1 Thus, this case does not fall under the category of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and therefore, merely the claim of the assessee, which in our view is bonafide claim has been rejected would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the income. 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) whereby the penalty levied u/s 271(1)( c) has been deleted. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)is upheld. 7 In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 22nd May 2013 .
-
2013 (5) TMI 898 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... wever it may be noted that the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, after deciding the quantum proceedings, afresh. Accordingly, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed as above. o p /o p 18. The remaining three appeals, namely ITA Nos. 1145 to 1147/PN/2011 pertaining to the assessment years 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2002-03 respectively have been filed by the assessee against the common order of the CIT(A) dated 31.12.2010. The issue raised in the above appeals is similar to that raised in respective cross-objections dealt with by us in the earlier paragraphs. The issue raised in the aforesaid appeals is rendered academic and the same have also been filed belatedly. Accordingly, the aforesaid appeals are dismissed as infructuous. o p /o p 19. The above decision was pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of the hearing on 08th May 2013 in the presence of both the parties. o p /o p
-
2013 (5) TMI 897 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... anchayat. Now ld. Counsel has brought to our attention an order of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of ITO vs Chandar-HUF(supra) where a different view seems to have been taken. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that assessees are eligible to invoke Rule 25 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules though generally, this rule cannot be a basis for recall when an appeal has been decided on merits. Assessees have been able to show that their absence at the time of hearing caused some prejudice to them. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there exist good reasons for recall of the order of this Tribunal. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal and appeals are reinstated. Registry is directed to post the appeals for hearing in due course. o p /o p 5. In the result, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessees stand allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 3rd of May, 2013, at Chennai. o p /o p
-
2013 (5) TMI 896 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of bail - Held that:- Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.
Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.
-
2013 (5) TMI 895 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - Payments in cash higher than the specified limits 20,000/- - Held that:- Sec 40A(3) is brought for curbing the circulation of black money and if payments made are bonafide, then there is no requirement to make the disallowance - the plea of the assessees needs reconsideration - Issue is set aside - allowed for statistical purposes.
Addition made u/s.68 - genuineness of transaction, identity and capacity of the creditor - Held that:- Assessee was showing the debtors having credit balances - accordingly requested to file the confirmations and PANs of the concerned debtors - the burden is on the assessee to prove the creditworthiness - assessee failed to discharge the burden- Decided against the assessee
Assessee has advanced no interest has been charged - Held that:- The contention of the assessees that there were trade advances on which no interest was charged, has not been properly appreciated by the authorities below - the capital account of the assessee has credit balances - then to that extent it can be said that the assessee has advanced the money interest-free, otherwise also out of assessees’ own capital - Matter Remanded to AO
-
2013 (5) TMI 894 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ontained in section 30 to 43D, wherein the said provision u/s 40(a)(ia) is inclusive therein. And it is even otherwise relevant to mention that the provisions of section 40 open with word “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section 30 to 38” wherein the amounts not deductible are referred to u/s 40(a)(ia). The said provision commence with non-obstante clause and refer the provision u/s 30 to 38 with where into under the general claim of the expenses, the said allowance not to be granted, specifically where a special provision for disallowance has been extracted under the statute. 19. Therefore, in view of our findings hereinabove, grounds raised by the assessee in its C.O. and have no merit and therefore, the same are dismissed and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.326(Asr)/2010 is allowed and C.O. No.19(Asr)/2010 of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 893 - ITAT KOLKATA
Contribution to Non- Statutory Funds - Disallowance u/s Section 40A(9) - It was contended that contributions made by the assessee to Bata Workers Sickness Benefit Society must not be an allowable expenditure as the Society is neither a body referred to u/s 36(1)(iv) or (v), nor does it satisfy conditions of sub-section 10 of section 40A. - HELD THAT: - All the payments made by the assessee regarding Employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC before the due date of filing of the return are allowed as a deduction.
Decision in the case of CIT VERSUS VINAY CEMENT LTD. [2007 (3) TMI 346 - SC ORDER], relied upon.
Royalty Payment- A Revenue or Capital Expenditure? - In a Royalty agreement it was mentioned that in the event of termination or expiry of the agreement the licensed products were not to be manufactured nor was its trademarks to be used and all to be returned to the licensor. - HELD THAT: - Assesse has derived no enduring benefit nor has assessee obtained any capital asset on the basis of the payment of the royalty as per the agreement. Thus, it cannot be treated as a capital expenditure.
-
2013 (5) TMI 892 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e computed by applying Rule 8D. o p /o p 11. We find that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO has invoked provisions of Sec. 14A r.w. Rule 8D for computing the disallowance to be made for earning of exempt income. The Ld. CIT(A) held that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration. o p /o p 12. We do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue because nowt it is settled that Rule 8D is prospective and is applicable with effect from 1.4.2008 as per the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 328 ITR 81. o p /o p That being the fact of the matter, we do not find any reason to tamper with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 16.5.2013 o p /o p
-
2013 (5) TMI 891 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... t to have excluded from the total income of the appellant the amount of notional surplus of ₹ 8,65,69,314/- due to premature payment of deferred sales tax loan at net present value for the A.Y. 2005-06” 10.1 After hearing both the sides we find the additional ground by the assessee is identical to the additional ground raised by the assessee in ITA No.1375/PN/2010. We have admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee and the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Following the same ratio, we admit the additional ground raised by the assessee and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication of the same in the light of our direction in ITA No.1375/PN/2010. 11. In the result, ITA No.1352/PN/2010 and ITA No.1014/PN/2010 are dismissed and ITA No.1375/PN/2010 and ITA No.1013/PN/2010 are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on this the 6th day of May 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 890 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... xport. (c) Since both during the period prior to and w.e.f. 10-2-2006, the supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export”, the application of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules for recovery of amounts on goods supplied to SEZ units in terms of Rule 6 of CCR, 2002/CCR, 2004 does not arise. (d) The amendment to Rule 6(1) of the CCR, 2004 by the amending Notification No. 50/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 31-12-2008 shall be applicable w.e.f. 10-9-2004 when the CCR, 2004 came into existence and, therefore, exception provided under Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be applicable to supply of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers/promoters.” 6. We find that the ratio of the decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of this the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 7. As the appeals are being allowed on merits, therefore, we are not going into the question of limitation. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 889 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. o p /o p Therefore, it is clear that the adjustment on account of tax, duty, cess or fee is required to be made at all stages such as opening stock, purchase, sales and closing stock wherever found necessary. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. (supra) have held that adjustment is also required to be made to the opening stock and same view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of Mahalaxmi Glass Pvt. Ltd. (supra). CIT(A) has followed these judgments and had directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to the provisions of section 145A in its entirety and not restrict the same to the value of closing stock alone. We, therefore, do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is, therefore, upheld. o p /o p 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 22.5. 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (5) TMI 888 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has not been accepted and appeal u/s.260A has been filed before the Bombay High Court by the Income Tax Department ? 2. So far questions (i) & ( ii) are concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the respondent-assessee's case by following the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Brahma Associates 2011 333 ITR 289/197 Taxman 459/9 taxmann.com 289. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain questions (i) & (ii). 3. So far as question (iii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that identical question raised by the revenue in the respondent-assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal (Lod) No.177 of 2013 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 was not entertained by this Court in an order passed today i.e. 15th March, 2013. In view of the reasons mentioned in the order passed in Income Tax Appeal (Lod) No.177 of 2013, we see no reason to entertain question (iii). 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 887 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ger approved by the Hon’ble Madras High Court through their order dated 1.6.2006, the assessee- company did not exist after 1.4.2006. Therefore, no such company is existing as on 3.3.2011 for the Revenue to issue a notice, even if the subject-matter relates to an earlier assessment year 2004- 05, in which period the assessee company was existing. It is not possible to ask any question to a dead person even in respect of the matter which occurred, when that person was alive. This reasoning is equally applicable to the present case, as well. In such circumstances, the notice should have issued to the amalgamated company, M/s. Precot Industries Ltd. o p /o p 12. Under these circumstances, we have no reason to deviate from the order of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals), who has followed the court order on the subject. o p /o p 13. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 21st of May, 2013 at Chennai. o p /o p
............
|
