|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1091 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a consistent view in Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.862/Ahd/2009 of this order in para-4 & 5 the ground of Revenue’s appeal is also allowed for statistical purposed as indicated above. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Coming to assessee’s CO No.67/Ahd/2009 (A.Y. 05-06) 9. The assessee has raised the ground of the CO. “1. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the deduction U/s 80-I(10) to the extent of ₹ 1,39,95,590 instead of ₹ 1,37,48,745.” 10. Ld. counsel for the assessee under the instruction of the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press the CO, hence, same is treated as not pressed. 11. In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as not pressed 12. In combined result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessee’s CO is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1090 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153A - Deduction u/s 80IA and 80IB - Held that:- Instead of complying with the requirements of section 153A of the Act, the A.O. proceeded with the pending assessment proceeding for the A.Y.and passed the impugned assessment order during the pendency of the assessment u/s 153A of the Act which is a nullity and as such the assessment order dtd. 27-12-2006 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act is illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and, hence, the same is quashed.
As regards the plea of the ld. D.R. that in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, the A.O. has made the additions/disallowances on the basis of the impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, therefore, on equitable ground, the said additions may remain to be considered as made in the assessment order passed u/s 153A of the Act, we find that it is a settled law that where there is no ambiguity and the intention of the legislature is clearly conveyed, there is no scope for the court to undertake any exercise to read something into the provisions which the legislature in its wisdom concisely omitted. Such an exercise is undertaken by the court may amount to amending or altering statutory provisions. The courts have to decide what the law is and not what it should be.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1089 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Irrigation project - whether qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA - Held that:- the infrastructure is developed and handed over to the Government - it cannot be considered as a mere works contract but considered as a development of infrastructure facility - assessee is a developer and not a works contractor - the contracts involves development, operating, maintenance, financial involvement, and defect correction and liability period - the assessee satisfied two conditions - investment in eligible projects and execution of project by itself - and hence eligible for deduction u/s 80IA - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallow the claim of the assessee on payment of brokerage and commission - commission had only been paid to sister concern and assessee did not produce any evidence from the party to whom the commission is stated to have been paid.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1086 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r section 40(a)(i) in respect of consultancy charges paid to various persons outside India. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly observed that the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) can be made only if taxes are not withheld on income chargeable to tax in India. In the present case there is no acquisition of technical knowledge which could be independently applied by the assessee. Therefore, the payment could not be construed as if for technical services. The entire services were rendered outside India. There is no permanent establishment for the non resident in India. In these circumstances the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has rightly deleted the disallowance of ₹ 18,99,269/-. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 15. The Revenue is partly successful in its appeal. 16. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are partly allowed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday, the 17th of October, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1085 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... mptive income and in this manner the order of DRP was set aside and AO was directed not to include the amount of service tax in the total receipts for determining the income under section 44BB. 8. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines(supra), which has considered the decision relied upon by ld D.R., we decide this issue in favour of assessee. It may also be mentioned that later on Delhi ITAT vide its decision dated 29.6.2012 in the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc (supra) has admitted the position that service tax is a statutory liability which does not involve any element of profit and, therefore, cannot be included in the total receipts for determining presumptive income under section 44BB. Therefore, assessee's appeal is allowed on the issue raised before us. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012 .
-
2012 (10) TMI 1084 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is concerned. o p /o p In the instant case, the application for condonation of delay was rightly rejected as per the then law which on reproduction reads as under o p /o p Section 260-A o p /o p (1). ..…................. o p /o p (2). …............... o p /o p (a) filed within one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the assessee or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. o p /o p Thus, on 11.12.2009 (when the instant appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation), there was no discretion with the court to condone the delay. A discretion has come to the court by virtue of the amendment by inserting the provision of Section 260-A (2A) of the Act. o p /o p In view of above, the appeal in question was dismissed as per the then law and the subsequent amendment is not applicable as the matter has already attained finality. o p /o p Thus, we find no merit in the review petition and the same is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2012 (10) TMI 1083 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ing the deduction u/s. 80IB (10) in respect of the Housing Project “Rohan Heights” were not fulfilled, the assessee withdrew his claim. We further find that so far as disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) is concerned, i.e. towards non-deduction of the TDS, nowhere it is the case of the A.O that any bogus claim is made by the assessee. In our opinion, the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). In the said case, their Lordships have held that merely because the claim is disallowed which is otherwise bonafide, the assessee cannot be subjected to penal consequences u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Moreover, the Ld CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail. We find no reason to take different view but confirm the order of the CIT(A). 7. In result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 19th October 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1082 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Management P. Ltd. 26 SOT 603 wherein it was held that Rule 8D would be applicable retrospectively. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. As held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej Boyce and Mfg. Co. Ltd. 234 CTR 1, Rule 8D is applicable only from assessment year 2008-09 and for the year prior to assessment year 2008-09, the disallowance u/s 14A has to be made on some reasonable basis. Keeping in view the said decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, we set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to the AO to recompute the disallowance to be made u/s 14A on some reasonable basis. Ground No.2 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... " 7. We are in considered agreement with the views so expressed by the Hon'ble Authority for Advance Ruling. We adopt the reasoning of the Hon'ble AAR and, respectfully following the same, approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” In view of the above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere in the finding of the CIT(A) who has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The same is upheld. 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 4. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) who has rightly held that there is no question of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act in all these cases. Same is upheld. 5. As a result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of October 2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1080 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... short period or for a number of days would not be capital gain. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.616/2008 in the case of ACIT Vs. Dineshbhai C. Patel (HUF) is clearly applicable in the case of the assessee. The decision of the coordinate bench which has been approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is binding on us. We cannot take a different view. We noted that the Nagpur Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dineshbhai C. Patel (supra) has followed the decision of Gopal Purohit Vs. JCIT (supra), that decision has also been approved by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and SLP against that decision has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. We accordingly, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals. 17. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 16.10.2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1079 - ITAT DELHI
Whether TDS to be deducted u/s 194C @1% or u/s 194J @10% - Nature of contract - services availed are on contract basis or technical services - contract for collection of data, locating and marketing of certain buildings, office etc. - Held that:- all technical work was performed by assessee himself and the parties from whom work was out-sourced has performed, non-skilled work either by supplying non-skilled labours at the site for helping assessee to monitor the work or by specialized machines - 194J suggest that professional service would constitute, all services which are rendered by a person in the course of carrying on legal, medical, engineering or architectural profession etc - The jobs availed by the assessee from the persons did not fall within the ambit of this explanation, rather they are ancillary jobs connected with main performed by the assessee, under clause F & I of Explanation-1 to section 194C - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1078 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue and in favour of the assessee”. 15. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the consistent view of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), which is binding on us and the consistent view of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal including the decision in GKR Charities (supra) wherein the Tribunal after considering the decision cited by the ld. D.R. in Lissie Medical Institutions, Kochi has held that it is settled principle of law that where there are two different decisions of High Courts, one favourable to the assessee should be followed, upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by the A.O. The ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 16. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 5-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1077 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rebate u/s 88E not allowable to the assessee while computation u/s 115JB - MAT - Held that:- Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s Horizon Capital Limited [2011 (10) TMI 489 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that while computing the total income under Section 115JB of the Act, the assessee is entitled to claim deduction of the amount equal to the STT paid by him in respect of the taxable securities transactions entered into in the course of business during the previous year. Since this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision supra , we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Cit(A).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1076 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nal hearing in the course of proceedings before the Commissioner. Even the statements of the proprietor/Director of the appellant firm/company do not mention the above MOU. Therefore, at this stage, it is difficult to accept the appellant s plea regarding existence of the above mentioned MOU. 7.In view of the above factual position, we are of the view that this is not a case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. Each of the two appellants M/s. Guru Nanank Dev and M/s. Gobind Expeller Co. Pvt. Ltd. is, therefore directed to deposit an amount of 50 of the duty demand confirmed against them within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. On deposit of this amount within the stipulated period, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty demand, interest thereon and penalty shall stand waived for hearing of these appeals and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeals. Compliance to be reported on 5.1.2013. pronounced on 23.10.2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1075 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in the remaining months nor could any addition be made towards suppressed production in those months. Since the addition has been made by the A.O. without bringing any concrete material on record to show that assessee has received job work charges more than what has been recorded in his books of account, the addition cannot be sustained. We further find that the A.O. has not even made any enquiries from the persons who have made payments to the assessee to ascertain as to whether or not there has been any suppressed production on the part of the assessee. We further find that on similar facts the Benches of this Tribunal in various cases have held that addition is not sustainable. Since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decisions of the Tribunal on the issue, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby confirmed. 8. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 26.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1074 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nalty of ₹ 50,000/- on Shri Rameshbhai Fulshankar Trivedi, authorised signatory of the appellant Company. 2. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, we find that learned Counsel is correct in contending that the issue involved in this case seems to be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Solar Chemferts Pvt. Limited -- 2012 (276) ELT 273 (Tri. Mumbai). Learned counsel also rely upon the decisions in the case of Baba Viswakarma Engg. Company Pvt. Limited 2012 (278) ELT 68 (Tri. Del.), Saurashtra Cement Limited 2012 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.) and Lloyds Steels Industries Limited 2005 (183) ELT 351 (Bom.). 3. On perusal of the said stay order and other decisions, we find that appellant has made out a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved. Accordingly, the applications for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (10) TMI 1073 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Maintainability of appeal - Held that: - The applicant is a PSU and the appeal was filed on 24th August, 2010. They did not produce any clearance from COD nor they have produced any evidence that their application for clearance from COD is pending as on 8/2/11, on which date the Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced decision on ECIL - appeal not maintainable - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following questions only:-
"(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in disallowing ₹ 1,33,99,935/- paid to M/s. Gharda Chemicals Ltd. under section 40A(2)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961?
(b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest of ₹ 38,81,250/- had really accrued on the inter corporate deposit with Nipun Investment Pvt. Ltd?"
-
2012 (10) TMI 1071 - ITAT DELHI
Additions on account of unexplained purchases u/s 69C - sale/ purchase made in cash as genuine - disallowance of expenditure - Held that:- there cannot be addition u/s 69C for expenses recorded in the books - sec 69C refers to the source of the expenditure and not to the expenditure itself - decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Radhika Creation [2010 (4) TMI 100 - DELHI HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favor of assessee
Held that:- all sales made by the assessee stood recorded in the books, which included the sales and purchase vouchers and stock registers maintained on a day-to-day basis - Decided in favor of assessee
Genuineness of cash expenditure - Held that:- The expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business - disallowance was made completely on ad hoc basis - Decided in favor of assessee
............
|
