|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1300 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1121 - ITAT BANGALORE
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Order passed under section 263 of the Act by the CIT on 21.3.2011 for Assessment Year 2006-07, is without proper assumption of jurisdiction as it does satisfy the twin requisite conditions of the order revised being both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In this view of the matter, we hold that the very initiation of proceedings, made without proper appreciation of the facts on record, is bad in law as it is not in accordance with the conditions specified in section 263 of the Act and therefore cancel the impugned order under section 263
-
2013 (9) TMI 1120 - ITAT PUNE
Cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted u/s 12A - Trust activities "Genuine" or "Commercial" - Imparting knowledge at cost with profit making intention - "Charitable Educational" work - Cancellation of registration with Retrospective effect u/s-12AA - Question of Contravention of Section-13 - HELD THAT :- the assessee is not receiving any educational grants from the State Govt. which means that State Govt. does not find the so-called "charitable work" of the assessee an absolute necessity to discharge its constitutional liability to give grant. Further, by permitting the assessee to charge fees at a pre-determined rates, the Govt has merely made available a means to meet the assessee's expenditure, at the same time has ensured that the students are not unduly suffered by providing a ceiling for collection of fees. Therefore, the assessee's stand that it is charging fees as permitted by the state Govt., does not necessarily means that the assessee is engaged in charitable activity under sec. 2(15). Moreover, it was allegated the assessee has been providing nothing free of cost, and there is a cost-tag to each and every item which is not less than the upper limit prescribed by the State Govt. Thus IT Department states that Institute is run purely on commercial lines but to initiate steps for the cancellation of the registration of a trust or Institution where the activities of the trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out according to the objects for which trust was registered under S. 12A." So basic requirement for invoking S. 12AA(3) is that the activities of the trust are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. The question raised was that trust is imparting knowledge at cost and therefore, not a charitable Trust u/s 2(15) of the Act and the appellant trust has contravened the provisions of Ss. 11(5) and 13(1) (c) of the Act. Thus, there is nothing found out that the Trust is not 'genuine', the trust is carrying on Educational activities that are charitable in nature. The activities are carried out as per its objects and thus, no infringement of any of the provisions contained in Ss.11(5) and 13 of the Act. The provisions of S.12AA(3) for cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted to it u/s 12A of the Act are not retrospective and order of the CIT passed u/s 12AA(3) is nothing but a review.
Payment made by trustees to vendor - HELD THAT:- there is no documentary evidences found to substantiate that payment was made to vendor with the sole purpose of benefiting the managing trustee or his relatives except that the funds of the trust were routed through the trustees to the vendor. Moreover, the utilizations of the trust fund was not for purchase of agricultural land as investment, but a ladder to set up an educational institution in said land
Relatives/friends being trustees claiming benefits of the trust - Utilization of Substantial part of trust's income for personal benefits - Huge expenditure incurred for personal benefits of interested persons - HELD THAT:- Whether the trust is a public trust or not depends upon its objects. If the settler himself decides to be the sole trustee or nominates trustees from his family or those in his personal confidence. This does not vitiate either the validity of such trust or its public character. It is natural that settler would like to ensure that the objects of the trust created by him are best carried out by persons in whom he has the required confidence.
Accumulated income of the Trust - No investment in specified securities - Already granted exemption u/s-11 in earlier years withdrawn - Non-denial of exemption already granted u/s-11 - HELD THAT:- If there was any misapplication of funds, action would lie against person responsible, but the Institution cannot be denied exemption, which depends upon the objects of the Trust.
Advances given to the trustees - Advances lying with the treasurer - HELD THAT:- An advance for purchase of property by itself need not be treated as violation of S. 11(5) but such advance should be treated as bonafide.
Decision in the case DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS COSMOPOLITAN EDUCATION SOCIETY [1999 (8) TMI 13 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] followed.
In the result, there is nothing found out that the Trust is not 'genuine'. In fact, the trust is carrying on Educational activities they are charitable in nature. The activities are carried out as per its objects. There is no infringement of any of the provisions contained in Ss.11(5) and 13 of the Act. The provisions of S.12AA(3) for cancellation/withdrawal of registration granted to it w.e.f. 11-2-1998 u/s 12A of the Act are not retrospective and therefore, the impugned order of the CIT passed u/s 12AA(3) is nothing but a review of its earlier order which is impermissible in law. We hold so.
The decision in the case DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) , AHMEDABAD VERSUS NH. KAPADIA EDUCATION TRUST [2012 (5) TMI 236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2012 (3) TMI 262 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed.
As a result, the appeal of assessee was allowed
-
2013 (9) TMI 1119 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained cash credits addition u/s 68 - Held that:- AO has not taken pain to examine the issue on merits on the basis of the details to be filed by the assessee as directed by the Tribunal. Now before us the assessee has claimed that the loans have been repaid therefore, the claim of the assessee based on the record showing the repayment of loan is required to be verified. If the claim of the assessee that loans have already been repaid is found correct then the addition u/s 68 is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Therefore in the interest of justice we set aside this issue for limited purpose of verification of the fact and the record filed by the assessee to show that the loans in question have been repaid by the assessee
-
2013 (9) TMI 1118 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ts, Lucknow, who have confirmed in their preliminary opinion report dated 29.8.2013 that the disputed receipt entry has been subsequently inserted by overwriting over the previously existing writing. The defence taken by the department was neither raised before the Adjudicating Officer nor before the appellate authority and was thus not considered. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the declarations were filed and from which show cause notice is beyond the period of limitation. It appears that the department has caused enquiries subsequently, on the receipt of the declaration and has discovered that the entries in the receipt register were tampered and fraudulently inserted. This Court under Section 35G cannot entertain an appeal on question, which was not raised and has no factual foundation. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the Central Excise Department to file review petition before the Tribunal to be decided on its merits.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1117 - ITAT INDORE
Agricultural land - municipal limits - agricultural land - Held that:- The impugned land is situated beyond the prescribed limit from the municipality, recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record, agricultural operation was done by one of the brothers, we are of the considered opinion that the no capital gains tax is exigible on sale of such land. So far as the objection of the learned CIT DR that the Tehsildar is not a competent authority for measuring the distance, we are not satisfied with such submission especially when the Inspector of the department of Income tax and Tehsildar both have certified that the land is situated beyond 8 kms from the municipal limit.
We are of the considered opinion that Tehsildar is the most competent revenue Officer to certify the proof of agricultural operation, distance of land from a particular place, rate of land, etc.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1116 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Letter dated 7.9.2013 is addressed by the Traffic Manager & Central Public Information Officer, Cochin Port Trust enclosing letter dated 30.8.2013. In other words, the genuineness of letter dated 30.8.2013 is supported by letter dated 7.9.2013. When these documents were brought to the knowledge of the learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department, he admitted the existence of letter dated 30.8.2013 as well. This would also support the opinion given by us in the above paragraphs. o p /o p 22. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing collection of fee for import of the sand for plant quarantine inspection at five times of normal rate. We allow the Writ appeal directing release of the consignment to the appellant/petitioner, subject to, however, payment of duties and compliance of other import formalities; but without insistence for clearance or certification under PQ Order or payment of any charges under the said Order. o p /o p
-
2013 (9) TMI 1115 - ITAT DELHI
Assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- No search has been conducted against the assessee and there is no validity in the action of the Assessing Officer in issuance of the notice u/s 153A of the Act under which the jurisdictional area of operation in the six assessment years immediately preceding to assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted. In such a case, where no search was conducted against a person, the period of operation to which the provisions of Section 153A are applicable cannot be determined by invoking provisions of section 153A of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1114 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction of the assessee u/s. 80IB - Held that:- We are of the considered opinion that Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that for claiming deduction u/s. 80IB no separate books of account were required to be maintained for different undertakings. Since basis of allocation of expenses was accepted by the revenue over the past so many years therefore it cannot be rejected in this year. The other contention of the AO regarding huge losses incurred in non-eligible unit was also found not on sound basis by the Ld. CIT(A) as cattle feed plant was physically separate unit and allocation of common expenses out of dairy business with it did not arise. The AO had disallowed the expenses on estimated basis only without finding any specific defect in the allocation of expenses done by the assessee which was done by the assessee on the same line as was done in earlier years which were accepted by the revenue over the years so applying the rule of consistency Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to delete the disallowance rejecting the claim of deduction of the assessee u/s. 80IB of the Act.
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) - Held that:- The only requirement was that income should be received from investment in co-operative societies and co-operative banks. Since in the present case, it was undisputed fact that income claimed u/s. 80P(2)(d) was received from the investment made in co-operative societies and co-operative banks, therefore assessee was eligible for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. We further find that even otherwise since assessee was having mixed funds and the interest free funds were more than investment in co-operative banks and co-operative societies no disallowance was called for from eligible deduction u/s 80P(2(d) of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1113 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Shri Babulal Saramal Jain and Shri Ramdas Bhikaji Satpute? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was correct in upholding the absolute confiscation of 15 Gold Biscuits without giving any option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation? (d) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law is the Tribunal was correct in upholding the absolute confiscation of Indian currency of ₹ 8,50,000/- seized from Shri Babulal Saramal Jain? 2. Appeal is admitted on questions (a) to (d) above as substantial questions of law. 3. To be heard along with Customs Appeal No. 107 of 2012.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1112 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition on account of mark to market loss - revaluation of the pending forward contracts for foreign exchange - Disallowance deleted . See OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [2010 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2013 (9) TMI 1111 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e item in terms of various decision of court as under (i) CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Geltech Ltd.-2012 (281) ELT 170 (Kar.) (ii) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs.CCE, Rajkot-2004 (173) ELT 515 (Tri.-Mum.) iii) Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. vs.CCE, Nagpur-2005 (190) ELT 431 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. Even the Board’s circular is also to the same effect. The provisions of Rule 3 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, invoked by the Revenue, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as this is not input which is being removed by the assessee as such. It is the sludge which gets settled at the bottom of storage tank which is considered as waste by them and removed as waste. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of CCE vs. Geltech Ltd. referred supra is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue’s appeals are accordingly rejected. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1110 - ITAT MUMBAI
Interest expenditure claimed rejected - Held that:- The findings given in para 3.3 above in respect of rejection/reliability of the books of accounts and the proposed adjudication of the Ld.CIT(A) in view of the said direction may have direct impact on the issue of the impugned liability, we set aside this issue also to the files of the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh along with the adjudication of the respective ground pertaining to the rejection/reliability of the books of accounts
Levy of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C is mandatory.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1109 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment u/s. 147 - general statement of Shri Rakeshkumar Gupta that was made by him in the course of survey u/s. 133A at his premises - Held that:- Not only Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta has stated that he has retracted from the statement recorded during the survey but also filed an affidavit dated 20/2/2009 and letter dated 27/4/2009 to deny the statement made during the survey under section 133A. He has further confirmed that the sales made by the assessee were effected and the consideration was received by cross order cheques. Thus it is clear that there is no material on record to say that the purchases made by the assessee from the said concern were bogus except the general statement recorded by the Department in the case of Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta, which was later on retracted. In absence of any material brought on record against the submissions made by Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta in his letter dated 20/12/2009 filed before the AO of the assessee the addition, if any, made in the case of the assessee will be based on presumption only and it cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. As against that assessee has submitted various evidences to show that the actual delivery of the goods was received by the assessee from the said party which has not been discarded by the AO. The addition sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is also on presumption basis. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that additions made by the AO deserves to be deleted in its entirety.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1108 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - denial on the ground that the goods have been supplied to an SEZ developer without payment of duty - Held that: - the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., [2013 (5) TMI 460 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] considered an identical issue and held that the amendment to Rule 6 (6) to include SEZ developer with effect from 31/12/2008 has retrospective effect from 2004 onwards and therefore, no reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to the SEZ developer is warranted under law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1107 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additions of unsecured loan, share capital and share application money - Held that:- It is not the case of the revenue that these persons are entry providers and there was any other material or doubt that these were bogus entries routed through fictitious or name lenders. Assessing officer did not conduct any investigation by sending Inspector to the addresses and nothing has been brought on record to show steps or attempt by the assessing officer to go deeper and find out/check veracity of the assertion. The share application money addition is not in isolation but has to be examined with other additions on similar grounds. Absence of verification, different additions made and reasoning given for deleting the additions are plausible.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1106 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Registration u/s. 12AA - Held that:- Object for which the Agricultural Market Committee was formed is for the purpose of carrying on the objectives as enumerated in section 2(15) of the Act and the proviso to the section is not applicable to the assessees' cases. Assessees have to be granted with registration u/s. 12AA of the Act.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1105 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Held that:- As in view of the debatable issue raised, the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts of the present case where the claim of the assessee that the receipts were capital in nature was rejected and the receipts were held to be revenue in nature and hence taxable.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1104 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ew its own order which is not the mandate of the Statute. In absence of statutory provisions for review, the application is dismissed. Appellant is directed to deposit the amount directed within four weeks of receipt of this order and report compliance on 29/10/2013. Otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed without further notice. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1103 - ITAT PANAJI
Reopening of assessment - deduction u/s 80IB(4) - Held that:- We find that the AO has confirmed that the activities undertaken by the Assessee qualifies to be regarded as manufacture and allowed the claim of the Assessee for A.Y. 2004-05. The principles of consistency would apply and hence it is not open for the Department to question the validity of the allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(4) for the impugned assessment year by holding that the activities undertaken by the Assessee cannot be regarded as manufacture more particularly when there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Assessee. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gopal Purohit [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ].
-
2013 (9) TMI 1102 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - Order of Appellate Tribunal - Doctrine of Merger - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Versus M/s LINDT EXPORTS [2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that CESTAT dismissed appeal vide order dated 26.3.07 and order was upheld by court. Therefore order of the Tribunal had attained finality and had been merged in the order of this Court - Held that: - Delay condoned - no reason to interfere with the impugned order - petition dismissed.
............
|
