|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 927 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1214 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ion 80HHC. An assessee may well be entitled to a deduction in respect of the expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business in the computation of the profits and gains of business or profession. However, for the purposes of computing the deduction under section 80HHC, the provisions which have been enacted by Parliament would have to be complied with. A deduction in excess of what is mandated by Parliament cannot be allowed on the theory that it is an incentive provision intended to encourage export. The extent of the deduction and the conditions subject to which the deduction should be granted, are matters for Parliament to legislate upon. Parliament having legislated, it would not be open to the court to deviate from the provisions which have been enacted in section 80HHC”. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on the 12th, day of Aug 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1213 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d packing material in respect of excise duty component as has been done by the A.O. in the present case. But if the assessee is followings the 2nd method of accounting i.e. net basis, then no actual addition is required to be made because if we make addition of excise duty component in the value of closing stock of raw material and packing material, corresponding deduction has to be allowed by including such excise duty component in the value of purchases debited in the P & L account. Accordingly, we modify the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) and the A.O. is directed to decide this issue in the light of above discussion and he should pass necessary order as per law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, grounds No.2 & 3 of the assessee’ appeal, are allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms indicated above. 18. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th Aug., 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1212 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ort, as is submitted by the assessee in support of the purchase price, can be simply brushed aside. We are unable to see any merits in the action of the Assessing Officer. The transfer pricing regulations and the provisions under section 40A(2), which have been referred to in the grounds of appeal, have no application to the facts of this case either. In our considered view, learned CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the impugned disallowance of interest, and his order does not call for any interference. 9. Ground Nos.1 to 3 is thus dismissed”. Since the facts and the controversy in the present appeal are identical, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal cited above, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the disallowance of the interest and dismiss the appeal filed by the department. 7. To sum up, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the department’s appeal is dismissed. No costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1211 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the section did not cover profit from a source beyond the first degree, thus making it clear that any incidental business income or income attributable to business has to be excluded. The rent and interest income is only incidental business income and is not profit from the eligible business of the undertaking and, therefore, deduction under section 80IB cannot be allowed in respect of these items. However, income from sales tax set off, excise duty re-fund, sundry balance written off has arisen from the business operations of the undertaking and, therefore, in our view such income has to be considered for deduction under section 80IB. We, therefore, hold that the deduction under section 80 IB will not be allowed in respect of interest and rental income but the same is allowable in respect of other items of income under consideration. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of the order above order. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1210 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... aken by the Revenue are rejected. ITA No. 4719/Mum/2010 (AY-1999-2000) 6. At the time of hearing, both the parties have agreed that the facts of this case and the facts of the case for the assessment year 1998-99 are identical, therefore, the plea taken by them for the said assessment year may be considered while deciding the present appeal. 7. Having carefully heard the submissions of the rival parties and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue, we following of our findings recorded in paragraph 5 of this order uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the interest under section 244A on the entire refund amount so determined after allowing MAT credit to the appellant company subject to verification. Accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are rejected. 8. In the result, the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th Aug.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1209 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition while computing the book profit u/s.115JB on account of provision for doubtful debts - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee had made the provisions for doubtful debt. In fact the assessee itself had before the Tribunal contended that such provisions for the doubtful debt cannot be added for the computation of book profit for Section 115JA since there is no clause which speaks of adding back such provisions for diminution of value of assets. It is not in dispute that such provisions for doubtful debts would be which amount to diminution of value of assets. That being the position, in our opinion the case of the assessee is squarely covered under the clause (g) to explanation to Section 115JA.
We are unable to see any demarcation between the provisions which would reduce the value of the assets against a situation where the value of the assets may come down to 'Nil'. In either case there would be diminution in the value of assets. Even when the value of the assets is brought down to 'Nil' from the previously existing value, it can still be stated that there has been a diminution in the value of the assets. In any case no such facts arise in this appeal.In the result, the question is answered in favour of revenue
-
2011 (8) TMI 1208 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e term ‘own’ for the purpose of section 32 and when a similar term is available in the provisions of section 54 the meaning would have to be given to the term “own” in section 54F. If this is applied, then it would be the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Rasiklal N. Satra which would have to be applied and as the assessee herein is only a part owner of the two residential properties, one being the 1/4th owner with his other and the another being ½ owner with his sister, the assessee cannot be held to be owning a residential house as required for the purpose of the benefit u/s 54F. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s. 54F is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sentation of the application. (ix) The order passed on the application filed under Section 14 shall (i) authorize the taking of physical possession of the secured asset with reasonable force which includes the breaking open of locks, wherever necessary; (ii) direct the police station concerned to provide help/assistance in taking possession. (x) The representative of the DM/CMM who takes possession of the secured asset shall draw panchnama and take inventory of the secured assets before handing over physical possession to the Authorized Officer of the banks/financial institutions; (xi) The possession of the secured asset shall be taken by the designated representative of the DM/CMM as expeditiously as possible after the passing of the order under the application by the DM/CMM. The petition is disposed of. The Registrar General of this court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all the DMs/CMMs within the jurisdiction of this court, immediately. Ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1206 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sions of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act wherein undue benefit is endured on the persons specified under Section 13(1) of the Act and also such activities of the Trust are not incidental objects of the Trust and hence has not complied with the requirements of Section 11(4) of the Act. 2. As regards question (b) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that this question does not arise out of the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Hence, question (b) cannot be entertained. 3. As regards question (a) is concerned, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has followed its decision in the assessee’s own case for assessment years 198586, 199192 and 200102. There is nothing on record to show that the Revenue has filed appeals in those assessment years. Nothing is brought to our notice as to how the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in those assessment years is contrary to law. 4. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1205 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... passed by the High Court. We accordingly quash the order of the High Court and remit back the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the issues between the parties including the issue delineated herein- before. 11. We request the High Court to consider the matter as early as possible. The parties shall appear before the High Court on 05.09.2011 for obtaining further dates in the proceedings. 12. We, however, make it clear that by sending back the matter to the High Court and making the observations as made in the order, we have not expressed any opinion or views on any of the issues which are kept open to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. 13. It is also needless to state that the proceeding which were quashed by the High Court would remain stayed till the matter is finally decided by the High Court and would abide by the decision. 14. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal is disposed of, but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1204 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ave hereby given the power in favour of you to look after and manage completely on my behalf as I am unable to manage for inevitable reasons." (underlining ours) 10. Had defendant no.3 Jayamma got possession of the property in pursuance of the agreement to sale dated 27th November, 1982, there was no occasion for Honnanna to recite in clear terms that he was in possession of the property. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the finding recorded by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court that defendants did not get possession of the property after execution of the sale deed is on correct appreciation of facts, which do not call for interference in this appeal. In view of this finding, in our opinion, the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not attracted and defendants cannot take advantage of that. 11. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to the costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1203 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... case of Star Cruise (India) Travel Services Private Limited. Following the same, he accepted the assessee’s contention. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Tribunal in the case of Star Cruise (India) Travel Services Private Limited heard the departmental appeal in ITA No.3941/Mum/2010. Vide order dated 22.07.2011 the appeal of the Revenue on similar question has been dismissed. In assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-2006, the Tribunal considered the similar issue and vide its order dated 23.12.2010 in ITA No.6112/Mum/2008 dismissed the Revenue’s appeal. Copies of both the orders have been placed on record. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the appeal under consideration are mutatis mutandis similar to those already considered and decided by the Tribunal. Respectfully following the precedents we uphold the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1202 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he apex Court as (1983) 14 ITR (St) 67. 6. Learned standing counsel for the Department could not place any decision contrary to the above. Only submission which he could make is that in view of the amendment in law, the view of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand. Obviously, the said amendment was not available during the relevant assessment year and the said amendment was not retrospective in nature. 7. In view of the above, there is no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The question of law is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” Considering the pleadings of both sides and the ratio laid down in above decisions of Hon'ble Courts, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and hold that he was justified in deleting the addition for both the years under appeal. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1201 - ITAT MUMBAI
Excess amount realized on the investment in shares made through Kotak Mahindra Portfolio Management System - Nature of income - Held that:- Income declared by the assessee be assessed under the head 'Capital gain’ and not as 'Business income.’
-
2011 (8) TMI 1200 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r to contact the Counsel. The petitioner's assertion that she could not do so because she was suffering from viral fever has not been substantiated by any document. Therefore, we do not find any valid ground much less justification for exercise of power by this Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. o p /o p It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras. o p /o p With the above observations, the application for condonation of delay is rejected and the special leave petition is dismissed as barred by time. o p /o p SLP dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1199 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reted and sustained the order of CIT(Appeals) by noting that payment made to the State Government towards Water Front Royalty charges was inevitable for functioning of the assessee trust and that such a payment made towards objection of the trust as enshrined in Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981 is towards fulfillment of objection. o p /o p This was rightly found to have been levied by virtue of statutory provisions for allowing the assessee to explore and exploit asset of the State for commercial purpose. And, so direct or indirect benefit also was found to have accrued to the Government due to such payment of royalty charges and thus, application under Section 13(3) was justifiably denied by the authorities. o p /o p 7. There are no other aspects pointed out by the Revenue for this Court to take any other stand than already taken, this Tax Appeal therefore, deserves no further consideration. There is no question of law to be decided and hence the same is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1198 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... of assessment order not filed in duplicate u/s 143(3) o p /o p 4. Verification is incomplete o p /o p 3. The appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 1.3.2011. The assessee till date has not removed the above mentioned defects. o p /o p 4. The appeal of the assessee fixed for hearing on 1.3.2011 was adjourned to 2.5.2011 at the request of the assessee and was further adjourned to 16.6.011 and 24.8.2011 at the request of the assessee. On the appointed date of hearing i.e. 24.8.2011, neither the counsel for the assessee appeared nor any application was moved for adjournment of the date of hearing. The assessee till date has not rectified the defects pointed out by the Registry in the Defect Notice. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal and as such the same is dismissed in limine. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. o p /o p Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 26th day of August, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1197 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... he A.O. on account of unexplained income ₹ 10,70,27,500/- on protective basis and ₹ 21,40,550/- on account of commission is deleted. o p /o p 4.1. I have carefully considered the submission of the ld. A.R. The A.O. has not disputed the fact that the books of accounts were produced before him from the extract of the cash book filed, it is apparent that sufficient funds were available with the assessee company for deposits made in the bank accounts, therefore ground no.5 taken by the appellant is allowed and addition of ₹ 2,00,000/- is deleted.” o p /o p 5.3. Since ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal and the ld. DR also could not bring any contrary decision/facts to that of the one decided by this Tribunal we find no infirmity in the orders of ld.CIT(A). Therefore we dismiss all the appeals of the Revenue. o p /o p 6. In the result the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.. o p /o p Order pronounced in the court on 26.08.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (8) TMI 1196 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... sister concern of the assessee only for leasing it out to the assessee and the lease rentals exceeded the cost of acquisition of the machinery. The assessee has not produced any evidence to show that it was not in a position to make the down payment necessary for acquiring the machinery. In view of the same, we agree with the finding of the authorities below that the lease rentals cannot be allowed during the relevant assessment year as revenue expenditure. However, if these agreements are considered as a hire purchase agreements, then when the assessee makes the payment of all the instalments, then it shall be deemed to become the owner of the machinery and it shall be entitled to depreciation thereon. The fact that the sister concern has offered the lease rental as income cannot be the only factor to allow the lease rentals in the hands of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 5th of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1195 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the character of compensation for acquisition of agricultural land and, thus, was not exempt under the Act. Once that was so, the tax at source had been rightly deducted by the payer. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that in view of receipt of interest element on enhanced compensation, the same being taxable in the year of receipt, the petitioners were required to file return as tax was payable on the said amount. In such a situation, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax return and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source in accordance with law.
............
|
