|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 886 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ttempts made by accused, the trial is getting delayed. 7.2 So far as report submitted by DFS, Gandhinagar based on standard and method of carrying out tests of the substance of the subject complaint is concerned, there is no iota of doubt about the legality and validity of the report since DFS, Gandhinagar is also recognized by law and having creditworthiness and reputation in the country and considering oral order dated 31.01.2013 passed by a coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.14483 of 2012, this court in absence of any merit in this application not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail in exercise of powers under Section 439 of the Code. 7.3 Considering the serious nature and gravity of the offence and the manner in which the offence is said to have been committed and punishment prescribed for such serious offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, this application fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
-
2013 (5) TMI 885 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... , then proper proportion should be made while disallowing the expenditure incurred for earning such composite income. The issue has been considered by the I.T.A.T. Ahmedabad Special Bench in the case of Vishnu Anant Mahajan, 147 TTJ 143, whrein it was held that disallowance is to be made by apportioning the exempt income and the taxable income received on such investment. In view of the verdict of I.T.A.T. Special Bench, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to re-work out the disallowance to be made u/s 14A. The assessee is directed to furnish details of taxable income earned out of such investment as well as the exempt income, so as to facilitate the Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance in terms of principle laid down by the Special Bench in the case of Vishnu Anant Mahajan (supra). We direct accordingly. 20. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 16th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 884 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, was satisfied on facts with the explanation thereon. In the absence of any adverse material, the deletion of addition for such reasoning does not call for any interference." 3. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of facts. CIT(Appeals) on the basis of materials on record including that allowed to be brought on record during the appellate proceedings after calling for remand report of the Assessing Officer held that credits were duly explained Tribunal giving its independent reasonings agreed with such a view. In our opinion, no question of law arises. 4. Before closing, we clarify that we should not be seen to have confirmed the Tribunal's opinion that when certain cash credits are found in the bank account but not shown in the accounts since no such accounts were maintained by the assessee, cannot be the subject-matter of addition under section 68 of the Act. 5. In the result, Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 883 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to earlier, besides the fact that the decision in the assessee’s own case, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has accepted the assessee, was a public trust and donations were exempted u/s. 52 of Bombay Trust Act. We also cannot ignore the fact that even the department has been accepting the status and service rendered to humanity and assessment results of the assessee till the preceding year. 13. Keeping in view all the above considerations and keeping in view the consistent approach from the department, we do not intend to deviate from the order of CIT (A) and hold the same to be correct application of law and facts. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Respectfully following the same, we decide the Grounds of Appeal Nos. 1 and 2 against the AO. So, upholding the order of the FAA, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th May, 2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 882 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... llowance of c1aim for deduction of royalty and technical knowhow as per section 40(a)(ia) of the Act., as the assessee failed to deduct TDS on above payments. The ratio of the said case a1so applies squarely to the case before us.” We find that the present case also the genuineness of the claim of expenses by the assessee has not been disputed by the revenue. It means that it cannot be said that the assessee had claimed false or ingenuine expenses. The assessee has furnished all the information/relevant facts concerning the claim of expenses made by it in its return of income. In view of the above, we are of the view that the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 174 (SC), squarely applies to the facts of the case before us and, therefore, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and we confirm the same. 5. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (5) TMI 881 - ITAT MUMBAI
Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT) has held that a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in the law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the present case, admittedly, assessee made a claim but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that assessee did not deduct TDS thereon.We are of the considered that view that the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the case before us and, therefore, levy of penalty is not justified.
-
2013 (5) TMI 880 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e could not controvert this finding recorded by the CIT(A). These are Revenue’s appeals, and it is for the Revenue to controvert the finding recorded by the CIT(A) to show that the finding recorded by the CIT(A) were not justified in facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the credits in the bank accounts being covered with the withdrawals made from the bank account of the assessee, and his brothers and cheques have been wrongly considered by the AO while working out the peak credits, although the deposits are made out of transfer from other bank accounts of the assessee, there seems to be no justification for making any addition in the hands of the assessee, and accordingly the order for the CIT(A) for all these three assessment years are confirmed and all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (5) TMI 879 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ed while issuing the policy in the name of the partners. But the object of purchase of policy is the same. We are, therefore, of the view that the premium paid on the insurance policies on the partners is allowable as expenditure under section 37(1) of the Act, but in order to give these policies the colour of Keyman, the assessee is required to give an undertaking to the Life Insurance Corporation of India that at the time of receipt of sum assured, the same would form part of the total income of the assessee and no benefit of exemption under section 10(10D) of the Act would be available to the assessee. With these conditions, the claim of the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, we direct the Revenue to allow the claim of the assessee subject to undertaking to be furnished by the assessee with Life Insurance Corporation of India. 19. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 878 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 7. Identical facts are involved in the case of this assessee also. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and all the details in respect of gift received by this assessee was filed. No addition was made by the AO while completing the assessment under Section 143(3).Thereafter while completing the assessment under Section153A, the impugned additions were made as treating the gift as non-genuine. Learned CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO. 18. As stated above, facts are similar as I have discussed the issue in detail while disposing the appeal in the case of Bhagaram P. Mali, filed for assessment years 2001-02 & 2002-03, respectively (i.e.ITA Nos.786 & 787/Mum/2013), wherein I have deleted the additions. Therefore, on the same reasoning, in this case also, the addition made under Section 69A of ₹ 1,00,002/- is hereby deleted. 19. In the result, appeals of the two assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8thday of May.2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 877 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... examine and bring any material on record which may help in rebutting the onus of assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any material on record in its support CIT(A) while deleting the addition has also relied on the decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court, in the case of Rohini Builders 256 ITR 360 and the decision of Hon. Supreme Court, in the case of Orissa Corporation Limited 153 ITR 78. Before us, nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the findings of CIT(A). Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon. Delhi High Court in the case of N.R. Portfolio (supra). We however find that the ratio of the aforesaid Delhi High Court decision are distinguishable on facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss this ground of Revenue. 12. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 10-05-2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 876 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Divedi who represents the petitioner. In this connection, an affidavit of Mr Ravinder Singh has been filed. The affidavit was sworn on 11.04.2013 in USA. The same has been notarised by the Notary Public of California (Stanislaus County), USA. According to the said affidavit, it has been made clear that the goods in question had been imported and finalized by Mr Rakesh Divedi using the name of Mr Ravinder Singh?s sole proprietorship concern-Kore Koncepts (the petitioner hereinafter). Mr Ravinder Singh made it clear that the goods belong to Mr Rakesh Divedi and that it was Mr Rakesh Divedi who had pursued the matter and who had also deposited the entire customs duty and furnished the bank guarantee from his bank for getting goods released on a provisional basis. In these circumstances, it is clear that the bank guarantee has to be released in favour of Mr Rakesh Divedi. The same be done by 28.05.2013. The writ petition is disposed of. Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
-
2013 (5) TMI 875 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of diminution in the value of securities - securities classified as ‘Held till maturity’ category - Held that:- So far as the securities held under the HTM category the I.T.A.T., Pune has taken a view in the case of Latur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2015 (3) TMI 920 - ITAT PUNE] that all the securities held by the assessee are part of the stock-in-trade irrespective of their classification. So far as the treatment of the assessee in classifying the securities, in our opinion the securities classified under HTM category is also part of the stock-in-trade. There is RBI circular as per which the assessee can amortize the depreciation or loss on the conversion of securities from FST category to HTM category. We, therefore, do not agree with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) that the securities held under HTM are capital in nature. We accordingly allow the Ground no. 1 taken by the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in light of the above discussion.
U/s 14A petty expenditure which has been proved to have been incurred in relation to earning of tax free income can be disallowed and section cannot be extended to disallow even the expenditure is permitted to have been incurred for the purposes of earning tax free income. In the circumstances, the disallowance cannot be made u/s 14A of the Act. This ground is therefore, allowed in favour of assessee
Adhoc disallowances of Telephone expenses, Vehicle expenses, Advertisement expenses and General expenses - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee is a bank and it is not individual whereby there can be any personal element involve in incurring the expenditure. In our opinion the reason for disallowance given by both the authorities below is not correct. We therefore delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and allow the respective grounds taken by the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 874 - ITAT MUMBAI
Assessment u/s 153A/153C - Addition u/s 68 AND 14A -- Held that:- additions made by the Assessing Officer with regard to unexplained gift of ₹ 10,00,000, made under section 68 and disallowance of ₹ 1,01,300 under section 14A, are beyond the scope of section 153A / 153C. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and on the preliminary ground itself, both the additions are deleted. Thus, the issues arising out of the ground are treated as allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 873 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ing the appeal. In these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee, who shall adduce evidence with respect to the application of condonation for delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. 9. As the issues in ITA Nos. 170 & 171/Hyd/13 for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are mutatis-mutandis to that of AY 2005-06 being ITA No. 169/Hyd/13 (supra) following the decision therein we remit these two appeals also to the file of the CIT(A) to give one more opportunity to the assessee, who shall adduce evidence with respect to the application of condonation for delay in filing these appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. 10. In the result, the appeals under consideration are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 872 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Levy of interest under S.115P - Held that:- There can not be any declaration of dividend unless the same is approved by Board and by General body of the company. There is no merit in the action of AO in levying interest on notional basis. Revenue’s grounds on this issue are accordingly rejected.
Disallowance made under S.40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Since the assessee is not entitled to export directly and export by the MMTC was on principal-principal basis, there can be no commission payment to MMTC, as such the question of sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer in estimating the commission and disallowing the same under S.40(a)(ia) does not arise. Infact there is no claim of commission by assessee. So question of deduction of tax does not arise and consequently disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is upheld and Revenue’s ground on this issue is rejected.
-
2013 (5) TMI 871 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s sought to be made out in the present year. Thus, by implication it follows that for assessment years 2003-04 & 2004-05 the Department accepted the position that the claim of deduction could not be rejected in the absence of the completion certificate based on the amendment made to Section 80IB(10) of the Act with effect from 01.04.2005. Be that as it may, we conclude by holding that following the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd. (supra), in the present case, the aforesaid objection of the Assessing Officer is untenable. 17. In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act to the assessee, as claimed. 18. Resultantly, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 870 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . The necessary evidence making these credits in the creditor’s accounts is available in paper book pages 47 onwards. Therefore, we observe that assessee had artificially increased its capital probably to procure more loans from various banks. The assessee might have done this exercise just to obtain more loans and to come out of financial difficulties. There was no actual un-accounted money available with the assessee. Moreover, the statement recorded u/s 133A cannot be made the basis of making any addition in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision relied upon by the ld AR. As regards salary of employees, the Ld CIT(A) clearly made a finding that employees were with the assessee for the last 4-5 years and even tax and provident fund was deducted. Therefore, in view of the above, we do not see any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 869 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... T(A) was liable to be upheld. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee has given all the details which has resulted into loss in respect of the purchase and sale of the textiles. A perusal of the details of the date of purchase and sale also shows that there was substantial difference between the date of purchase and date of sale. Admittedly the price of textiles especially for wholesales is not fixed. There is no dispute regarding the genuineness of the transaction. If the result of the genuine transaction is a loss such loss cannot be disallowed just because there is a loss. In the circumstances we are of the view that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on the right footing and does not call for any interference. 10. In the result ground no.3 raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 11. In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 868 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... de by the AO sustained.” 7.2 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that the AO has disallowed 1/10th of the expenditure on the ground that the Assessee had made cash payment to the labourers. The AO has disallowed following the preceding year i.e. 2008-09. Therefore, when the Assessee has not disputed this amount in preceding year, therefore, following the same analogy in this year, we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this ground. In the result, appeal of the Assessee on this ground is dismissed. 8. Ground no. 7 We have already allowed ground nos. 2, 4.1 and 4.2 and therefore this ground becomes infructuous and accordingly, we dismiss this ground as such. 9. Ground no. 8 Interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and accordingly, AO is directed to re-compute the interest after giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 867 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .) Ltd.’s case (supra). Judicial discipline requires us to follow the view of the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement Ltd.’s case (supra) as also the view of the Division Bench of this Court in Dharmendra Sharma’s case (supra). 13. In these circumstances, we respectfully disagree with the approach adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pamwi Tissues Ltd.’s case (supra). 14. In these circumstances indicated above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed”. 11. Considering the facts of the case in the light of the above judicial pronouncement, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Decision of the CIT(A) is confirmed. Appeal of the revenue is accordingly dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after the conclusion of the hearing on 22nd May 2013.
............
|
