|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1300 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion/marketing of goods manufactured by the service recipient under a Multilevel Marketing Service Scheme called the Right Concept Marketing (RCM). On identical facts by the judgement in Shri Surendra Singh Rathore Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I dated 27.6.2013 in Service Tax Appeal N0. 1004 & 1005 of 2011 including a connected appeal filed by Smt. Chanda Bohra, orders of the adjudicating authority impugned therein were confirmed for the reasons recorded therein and the appeals dismissed. 2. For the reasons alike as recorded by us in the judgment dated 27.6.2013 referred to supra, we confirm the orders of the adjudicating authority as confirmed by the appellate authority and reject the appeal. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1142 - SUPREME COURT
100% EOU - Exemption u/r 2 of Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 - export of Pan masala, Gutkha and tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet and also in other packages containing plastic - in case of exemption from Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 (as amended) being granted for the export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and tobacco products in plastic packaging, the petitioner company undertakes not to sell Pan Masala, Gutkha and tobacco products in plastic packaging inside India in violation of the Plastic Rules - the said exemption shall not apply to the waste and rejects - the company shall not bring back the exported Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco products in plastic packaging to India for distribution or sale - all the conditions to be complied - petition dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1141 - ITAT JODHPUR
Penalty under s. 271(l)(c) - Held that:- Penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act was not leviable on account of wrong claim made by the assessee in his original return of income, which was corrected in the return of income filed under s. 153A of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1140 - ITAT MUMBAI
Capital gains (loss) on extinguishment of rights in a defunct company - Exemption u/s 54F - Held that:- There is no finding by the CIT(A) whether the amount of loss claimed by the assessee on account of extinguishment of rights in respect of the shares of a defunct company is factually correct.
Similarly with respect to the exemption u/s 54F on account of the capital gain on sale of shares of Ambience Publicis Advertising Pvt. Ltd. invested in the new asset, the CIT(A) has again allowed the claim of the assessee without examination of the correctness of the claim. There is no quarrel as far as the legal aspect of the claims are concerned but before allowing the claim the factual correctness of claim has to be ascertained. It is clear from the details recorded by the CIT(A) that even only a part of capital gain has been invested in the new asset which has been fully allow without considering the proportion of the net consideration/sale proceed to the investment in the new asset. Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is not justified in allowing the claim without giving an opportunity to the AO to examine the correctness of the claims. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the Assessing Officer to consider and decide both fresh claims of the assessee as per law. Needless to say the assessee be give an appropriate opportunity of hearing.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1139 - ITAT PANAJI
Entitled to deduction U/s. 10B - Held that:- It is not disputed that the Assessee in the present case before us is also engaged in processing the tailings and converting them into iron ore so that it may be exported. Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. Since the exemption u/s 10B was denied to the Assessee merely holding that the Assessee is not engaged in manufacturing, we, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the exemption to the Assessee u/s 10B by holding that the Assessee is engaged in manufacturing. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1138 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - violation of provisions of section 80IB(10) - Held that:- The charge levied by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the assessee has violated the conditions of constructing the unit (flats) of more than 1,000 sq.ft. is not correct, because insofar as the assessee is concerned, it has constructed all the units less than 1,000 sq.ft. and later on the purchasers have joined the two flats, this cannot be the ground for denying the benefit of the claim under section 80IB(10) to the assessee. At least this cannot be adversely viewed in the penalty proceedings and the assessee’s explanation has not been found to be false or any material has been brought on record, that right from the development stage to the sale of flats, the assessee has constructed flats for more than 1,000 sq.ft. or has sold any unit for more than 1,000 sq.ft. Thus, on this charge, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. Thus, the penalty cannot be levied or confirmed on this score. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and delete the penalty levied - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1137 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income from sale of shares - income from short term capital gain OR Income from Business - Held that:- AO accepted the short term capital gain offered by the assessee on sale of shares for the assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07. We further note that even for the assessment year 2008-09 the AO accepted the claim of the assessee regarding short term capital gain. Thus, it is clear that prior as well as subsequent assessment year to year under consideration, the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee regarding short term capital gain arising from sale of shares. It has not been brought out on record as how the facts are different for the assessment year under consideration so that the rule of consistency should not be followed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1134 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as also equalized freight. Though the adjudicating authority has accepted the legal issue relating to deduction of the same, but has not granted relief to the assessee as they could not produce requisite documentary evidence to that effect. Ld. Advocate submits that they are in a position to do so now. We also find that in respect of the same party involving same dispute for the earlier period, the matter stands remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.57467-57468/13-Ex dated 26.8.2013. 3. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to put forth documentary evidence in respect of their claim. Inasmuch as the assessee’s appeal stands remanded, we also remand the Revenue s appeal to the Commissioner to decide alongwith assessee’s appeal. 4. The stay petition as also appeals get disposed in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1133 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80-IA disallowed - Held that:- The assessee company is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. However, it would be just and fair that the matter is restored to find out the claim of the assessee that the losses have already been adjusted against the profits of ineligible units of the assessee in earlier years with a direction to the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue afresh after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Computation of Income from House property - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the AYs. 2005-06 to 2008-09 the property was let at a monthly rent of ₹ 1,54,843/- (annual rent: ₹ 18,58,116/-) continuously from the year 1997 to 2004. What better proof of the same representing its AV could possibly be? There is nothing on record to show or infer that the property, which, as late as April, 2004, yielded a rent to the tune of ₹ 18 lakhs p.a., became incapable of fetching as much and, rather, plummeted to about 1% thereof. That is, an erosion in rental capacity by nearly 99%, and almost overnight. The AO in the instant case has kept the AV (at ₹ 13,00,681/-), i.e., net of standard deduction at 30%, constant fro all the years, i.e., up to A.Y. 2008-09, and which we consider as reasonable, satisfying the only condition placed by law on an otherwise totally factual matter. We decide accordingly, upholding the Revenue’s action
-
2013 (9) TMI 1132 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Addition as contract profit and interest from FDR being income from other sources - ITAT confirmed deletion of addition - Held that:- The deletion of addition as contract profit and as interest from FDR was on the grounds that the A.O. has already allowed deduction on account of interest and salary paid to the partners. The depreciation and interest paid to third party was allowed as further deduction even if profit rate of 8% has been applied. The CIT(A) has given same treatment while computing the business income of assessee. On interest on FDRs, the CIT(A) noted that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The FDRs were purchased for security purpose for obtaining the contracts which is connected with the business activities of the assessee. No substantial question of law.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n is taken up today however, there is no representation by the petitioner nor by the Consultant. Hence, the stay application is dismissed for non-prosecution. Consequently, the petitioner shall remit the adjudicated liability to the credit of Revenue within 4 weeks from today and reports compliance by 15-10-2013. In default of either deposit or reporting compliance within the time stipulated herein, the appeal shall stand dismissed for failure of pre-deposit. Ms. Ranjana Jha, Ld. Jt. CDR undertakes to communicate this order to the petitioner/appellant departmentally. The Registrar is therefore directed to furnish a copy of this order to the Departmental Representative, urgently.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1130 - ITAT JABALPUR
Addition u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Held that:- In the instant case before us, since the deductee M/s SsangYong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd., is being assessed at loss, no tax is payable by the deductee. Accordingly, no occasion will arise for charging interest from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid. Direction of charging of interest u/s.201(1A) in the instant case will not serve any purpose insofar as the recipient of income was held to be not liable to pay any tax on its income as per assessment framed u/s.143(3). Therefore, any payment of TDS by the assessee in respect of payment made to deductee M/s SsangYong Engineering and Construction Company Ltd will entitle the deductee to get back such TDS with interest at the time of framing assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act. Thus, it is not a fit case for holding the assessee deductor in default u/s.201(1) nor for interest u/s.201(1A) of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1129 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- In the present case, we find that no incriminating evidence found against the assessee in proving that unaccounted incomes were generated by suppression of profit and, therefore, the AO is not justified in resorting to estimation and arithmetical assumptions. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the additions made by holding that the additions made based on the percentage of net over gross adopted by the AO are held to be without any basis that can be justified on factual or legal grounds and the order of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue in this regard in all the years under consideration.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1128 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Stay operation of the notice of demand issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda - - Held that:- The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within one month from today. During this period of one month, the revenue shall not take any coercive measures to effect recovery but in case the petitioner has already given any undertaking with respect to payment, the petitioner would be obliged by the same.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1127 - ITAT CHENNAI
Expenditure incurred by the assessee in the present case for product development expenses is a capital expenditure.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1126 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reversal of MODVAT credit - Special Scheme - Court directed that the Modvat Credit so reversed would be considered as provisional and upon final deduction, the correct amount shall be computed. It was further directed that in case the aforesaid provisional reversal is found to be short, then the assessee/tax payer would be liable to make it good along with interest @20% per annum.
Held that: - The Chief Commissioner/Commissioner will appoint a Cost Accountant to determine the correct amount of Modvat Credit to be reversed as per the Special Scheme dated 04.01.1997 - The adjudicating authority/Commissioner will then consider the report and thereafter determine and decide the correct amount of Modvat Credit required to be reversed after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners - as the rate of interest has already been fixed by the High Court order, the said rate of interest will not be interfered with - Petition disposed off.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1125 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - claim for deduction of interest tax - Held that:- It cannot be held that the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest tax collected by the borrowers from the chargeable interest cannot be held to be not bonafide at least at the time of filing of return of income. Even though such a claim has been disallowed under the re–assessment proceedings and also confirmed by the appellate authority, however, the same cannot be held that in the penalty proceedings such a finding will apply automatically. In the penalty proceedings, the assessee can very well furnish explanation as to what was the bonafide ground and reasons for claiming such a deduction and if such an explanation has not been found to be false, the penalty cannot be levied. In this case, it cannot be held that the assessee has furnished any kind of inaccurate particulars because all the details were duly furnished along with the return of income and simply because such a claim was not allowed in the subsequent proceedings, it cannot be held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1124 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2186 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2932 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2933 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2935 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 2936 of 2013; Civil Appeal No. 725 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No. 726 of 2013 The facts of this group of appeals are little different from the facts of Civil Appeal NO. 727 of 2013, Civil Appeal NO. 2937- 2943 of 2013, Civil Appeal NO. 5221 of 2013 and Civil Appeal NO. 5328 of 2013. Having regard to all relevant aspects of the matter and the peculiar facts of the case, after hearing learned senior counsel for the assessee and learned counsel for the Revenue, we are satisfied that interest of justice shall be subserved if assessee is asked to deposit 50 of the demand under the impugned order(s) within eight weeks from today. We order accordingly. On deposit of the 50 demand, the recovery of the demand under the impugned order(s) shall remain stayed. Prayer for interim relief is disposed of as above.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1123 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are as under “(a) The exemption shall be claimed by the exporter for the specified service received and used by him for export of the said goods; (b) The exemption claimed by the exporter shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified service used for export of the said goods; (c) The exporter claiming the exemption has actually paid the service tax on the specified service to its provider; (d) No CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the specified service used for export of said goods has been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;” 4. I find that the appellants are not exporter and therefore the condition in the said Notification No. 17/2009-ST are not fulfilled as the exemption of the service tax paid on services used in export is only available to the exporters as prescribed in condition 2(a) and (b)of the Notification. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order in the appeal and I up hold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1122 - ITAT BANGLORE
Allowance of loss - Held that:- The provisions of section 94(8) of the Act are applicable only to "units" which means units of Mutual Funds only. There is no ambiguity in the matter as the Explanation in section 94(8) of the Act clearly defines "securities" as including "stocks and shares" and defines "units" to have the same meaning as assigned in Explanation to section 115AB of the Act; wherein "units" are defined as units of Mutual Funds only. In this view of the matter, the provisions of section 94(8) of the Act have no applicability to securities, which includes shares.
CIT(Appeals) also observed that in a similar provision introduced to curb dividend stripping i.e. section 94(7) of the Act, both units and securities are included. Section 94(7) of the Act for "bonus stripping" was introduced by Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.1.2003 whereas section 94(8) of the Act for "bonus stripping" was introduced in Finance Act, 2004 w.e.f. 1.4.2005. Hence it can be inferred that the intention of legislative was to exclude the shares of companies from the ambit of the provisions of section 94(8) of the Act. In view of the above discussionwe concur with the finding of the learned CIT(Appeals) that there is no legislative authority to deny the loss intentionally created by the assessee; for what the law has not envisaged and has specifically excluded cannot be read into the same by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, uphold the order of the learned CIT(Appeals).
............
|
