|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 858 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... which could not be considered as an expert opinion regarding nature of land. o p /o p 7. In so far as reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Md Ibrahim and Others (supra) is concerned, there the land was situated within the municipal limits, whereas, in this case on hand, the lands were well outside the municipal limits. We are, therefore, of the opinion that assessee was able to show the nature of land to be agricultural at the time of transfer thereof. Nothing was brought on record by the learned D.R. in respect of his argument that there was a high-rise building in the land or no agricultural operations were carried out by the assessee therein. We are, therefore, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition. No interference is called for. o p /o p 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p The order was pronounced in the Court on 24th June, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 857 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rder of the Ld. first appellate authority.” 12. In light of the above, ld. counsel of the assessee had claimed that the matter has been remitted for the limited purpose of verification of books of accounts and the same should not be faulted with. 13. Upon careful consideration, we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has remitted the matter to the files of the Assessing Officer to examine the issue afresh by referring to the books of account to be produced by the assessee. In our considered opinion, the Revenue ‘s interest is fully protected in this regard as the Assessing Officer has been granted permission to examine the books of accounts afresh. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue. Hence, we uphold the same. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/6/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 856 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as an alternative, submitted that less they are evicted by the respondents in absence of order of injunction, they may be granted some time to vacate the said premises. We also feel that the petitioners' could be granted some time to vacate the said premises. Therefore, we direct the petitioners to vacate the premises by 31st October 2011 subject to their filing usual undertaking to this Court. In that event, they would also continue to pay the damages for use and occupation of the premises till that date without default and would not hand over the possession to any other person except the respondents herein.Then the petitioners would not be evicted from the premises till that date. However, we make it clear that it is an option to the petitioners to take advantage of this direction or not. If such an undertaking is not filed within two weeks from today, the special leave petitions as afore-noted shall stand dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 855 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Higher deduction u/s 80IB - Interest and Remuneration paid to Partners - AO was of the opinion that firm had not provided the interest and remuneration to the partners so as to claim higher deduction u/s 80IB on its profits - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) held that "Identical issue has been decided in the case of husband of the appellant, the other partner in firm holding 50% share for the AY 2006-07. The terms of partnership deed are not so worded so as to make payment of interest on capital and remuneration to partners as mandatory. It is also not rebutted by the AO that no interest or remuneration has been received by the appellant in earlier years also. This income has not accrued or arisen to the assessee. Therefore, the addition is deleted"
In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A), as the same are based on proper appreciation of the legal and factual position of the case.
-
2011 (6) TMI 854 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e in the preceding as well as subsequent year has not been controverted by the Revenue. He also made a statement that the income from entire project is offered in the subsequent year and which is assessed as such. From para-4 of the assessment order, it is evident that project was not substantially completed. Out of the total sale proceeds of ₹ 4.40 crores from the project, the amount received during the year under consideration was only ₹ 1.03 crores, which is less than 25 . In view of totality of the above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) wherein he deleted the addition made by the AO by estimating the profit on the advance received by the assessee during the year under consideration. This ground of the revenue’s appeal is rejected. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose, while the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 17th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 853 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Subsidy with respect to Sales Tax payable - Tribunal holding that the subsidy received by the assessee cannot be reduced from written down value for purpose of computing depreciation of wind mills - Tribunal committed no error in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 852 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... was not willful and the assessee is very much interested in prosecuting the appeal. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee had explained the reasons for non-attendance on 19th July, 2010. We are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause, as mentioned in the Misc. application filed. We, therefore, recall the order for fresh adjudication. The appeal is fixed for hearing on 19th September, 2011 for which no notice will be issued. Both the parties were informed in open court. The Registry is directed accordingly. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by assessee, is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 851 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ncome Tax Act. We also find that AO has not made any effort for conducting the inquiry. He made the addition on the basis of information submitted by DIT Investigation. Otherwise the huge money of ₹ 61,29,500/- was received by the assessee as share application money from 12 entities. There is no discussion in the asstt. order about any other aspect. He simply observed that assessee failed to produce representative of these three concerns and therefore, its transaction is not genuine. Thus on the basis of the finding recorded by the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be reversed. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oasis, wherein Hon’ble Court has considered a large number of decisions on this issue, we do not find any error in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 850 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 40,00,000/- was paid to M/s. Brij Lal & Co. AOP Since the ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition on account of share application money, he directed the AO to delete the addition. 11. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. From the above facts it is clear that source of ₹ 40,00,000/- is from share capital received from various parties. The assessee had invested ₹ 40,00,000/- in M/s. Rampal & party through M/s. Brij Lal AOP and M/s. Subey Singh & Co. and ETC, Rajasthan. Since the amount has been routed through banking channels and had been paid out of share application money so collected, the source of deposit of ₹ 40,00,000/- stands proved and hence no protective addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition. 12. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 10th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 849 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... l for documents and information from Trust so as to prove the genuineness of its activities. Nevertheless, we find that assessee’s applications were rejected for a sole reason that it could not establish with documentary evidence its charitable activities. There is no finding by the CIT that objects of the assessee-Trust were noncharitable in nature. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter requires re-visit by the CIT. We, therefore, set aside the orders of ld. CIT refusing registration under Section 12AA and refusing approval under Section 80G of the Act and remit the issues back to his file for disposal de novo. Assessee has to co-operate and furnish the documents called for by ld. CIT and prove genuineness of its activities. Ld. CIT shall pass orders in accordance with law. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the Ninth Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 848 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue as deliberated upon in the fore-going paragraphs and also in conformity with the rulings of the Hon’ble Court referred above, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in his endevaour that the assessee was entitled to deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act for the assessment years under challenge. It is ordered accordingly. o p /o p 7.3. Before parting with, we would like to point out that we have duly perused the case law on which the Ld. D R had placed her faith i.e., in the case of CIT v. Brahma Associates reported in (2011) 239 CTR (Bom) 30 and record our view that the case law relied on by the Revenue cannot come to its rescue as the issue dealt by the Hon’ble Court is clearly distinguishable to the issue on hand. o p /o p 8. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for all the assessment years under challenge are dismissed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of June, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 847 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ile passing the order. After considering the present submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee, we do not find any mistake which is apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal. Hence there is no sufficient and justifiable reason to entertain the present Misc. Application filed by the assessee. If we accept the contention of the assessee, we have to review our own order in the instant case which is not permissible under the provisions of S. 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. It is not necessary that the Tribunal has to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it has taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or has considered the totality of the facts. Therefore, we see no merit in the Misc. Application filed by the assessee which is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is rejected. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee stands rejected. Order was pronounced in the Court on 02-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 846 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... leted. 10. Next ground of the appeal is against confirmation of disallowance of 10 of the telephone expenses amounting to ₹ 44,000/-. The assessee incurred telephone expenses of ₹ 4,42,108/-. The AO disallowed 10 out of such expenditure. It was stated by the learned counsel that considering the nature of the assessee’s export business, the incurring of telephone expenses is must and therefore the total expenditure of ₹ 4,42,108/- cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 11. We have carefully considered arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed before. It is true that in export business there would be expenditure on telephone expenditure. At the same time, personal user of the telephone cannot be ruled out. We therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this point and reject ground no.4 of the assessee’s appeal. 12. In result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 10th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iled reasons for coming to the conclusion that the sale and purchase of the shares seems to be genuine and cannot be considered to be bogus transactions. As the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, in our opinion, no question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 844 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... tion 28(iiid) of the Act and such amount is to be excluded while computing the profits eligible for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act provided other conditions stipulated by section 80HHC are satisfied. 50. In view of our decision in paras hereinabove we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under section 80HHC of the Act in line with our directions in the paras hereinabove. Reasonable opportunity shall be allowed to the assessee while computing the income in the hands of the assessee for the captioned years. 51. Accordingly, the captioned appeals of different assessees are disposed off as indicated above following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Kalaptaru Colours & Chemicals(supra), which has since been approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 52. In the result, the captioned appeals in I.T.A.Nos referred to above are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30t h day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ousing activity was the business income and whether dominant purpose of letting out the warehouse was the commercial activity of the assessee. Since the activity carried on by the assessee is being reconsidered in the income tax proceedings, by consent, the impugned order passed by the ITAT in wealth tax proceedings are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer for reconsideration of the issue afresh and in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Inamdar, learned senior Advocate for the assessee states that the assessee would not claim refund of the tax paid pursuant to the orders impugned in these appeals. 4. All the appeals are disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 842 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... en made effective from 1/10/2009 it is held that the assessee will be eligible for 5 per cent of adjustment while computing arms length price. The assessing officer is directed accordingly. The DRP in the case of Heartland Delhi Transcription & Services Pvt. Ltd. had also confirmed the disallowance in respect of the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 10-A. Since the ld. DRP had not passed speaking order in respect of other objections raised by the assessee, we feel it proper to set aside the matter to the file of ld. DRP with the directions to I. T. Appeal No. 5175 (Del) of 2010 A N D I. T. Appeal No. 5176 (Del) of 2010. examine the objections raised by the assessee and pass a speaking order after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee before deciding the objections raised by it. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 841 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... saction, which is hereby confirmed, the assessee had made bogus credit entry in the books of accounts. The assessee had given sufficient opportunity to produce those investors but failed. Even the attempts of the Revenue Department to trace those applicants have failed. We, therefore, hold that concealment penalty deserves to be levied in respect of the balance amount which is now confirmed vide this order. o p /o p Accordingly, part relief is granted and we hereby direct the A.O. to recompute the quantum of penalty. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p 19. We summarize the result as under - o p /o p (i) Assessee’s appeal, ITA No.2506/Ahd/2006 for A.Y.1992-93 is partly allowed. o p /o p (ii) Assessee’s appeal, ITA No.1673/Ahd/2007 for A.Y.1992-93 is allowed. o p /o p (ii) Assessee’s appeal, ITA No.404/Ahd/2008 for A.Y.1992-93 is Partly allowed. o p /o p Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30th June, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (6) TMI 840 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... at except in this assessment year the accounting policy of the assessee has never been disturbed by the department. If we upheld this change in the method in one year then accounts of all other years has to be disturbed. The receipt received by the assessee has ultimately offered for tax at the end of rendering services. Therefore, following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Soami Satsang and that of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Neopoly Pack (supra), we are of the view that learned revenue authorities should have not disturbed the method of accountancy adopted by the assessee in one assessment year when it is accepted in the earlier assessment year and also in subsequent assessment years. On this alternative contention, we allow the appeal of the assessee and delete the addition confirmed by the Learned CIT(Appeals). 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 839 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s recorded a finding of fact that as a consequence of study carried out by the Renoir Consultancy and on account of implementation of various suggestions given by Renior Consultancy, the profitability of the company had improved and accordingly the expenditure incurred by the assessee was allowable expenditure. In our opinion, as the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact, no question arises. Hence, appeal is dismissed.
............
|
