|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1060 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 846 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e case, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) in that case was justified in granting benefit of exemption under sec.80P(2)(a)(ii). The above view of the Tribunal has been followed in another set of appeals disposed off by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ‘D’ Bench for the assessment year 2008-09 through their order dated 12.6.2012 in ITA Nos. 2004, 2005 & 2006/Mds/2011. 6. Therefore, it is seen that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee-societies for the earlier assessment years in a consistent manner. In these circumstances, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is justified in accepting the claim of deduction made by the assessees in all these cases. Accordingly, the orders of the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) are upheld. 7. In result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 2nd of May, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (5) TMI 845 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sel appearing for the assessee, in the decision reported in (2012) 341 ITR 403 (Commissioner of Income-Tax V. Radhe Developers), the Gujarat High Court considered the question on ownership as a condition for grant of deduction under Section 80IB(10) in depth and accepted the case of an assessee similarly placed. It held that the provisions no where require that developers who are the owner of the land alone would be entitled for grant of deduction under Section 80IB(10). Going through the decision of the Gujarat High Court, we have no hesitation in holding that we are in respectful agreement with the law declared by the Gujarat High Court.” 20. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 21. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 10th of May, 2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 844 - ITAT DELHI
Determination of arm’s length price of the international transactions representing Software Services provided to the associated enterprise - comaparability -
Addition of fringe benefit tax paid for computing the book profit u/s 115JB - Held that:- No reason to interfere with the order of ld. DRP because as per sec. 115WA Fringe Benefit Tax is an additional income tax and, therefore, it is to be treated at par with Income-tax for computing book profits.
-
2013 (5) TMI 843 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... th the exparte orders passed by the authorities below and the additions maintained by them in the absence of any evidences or material before them. The application of the assessee for admission of additional evidences is, accordingly rejected. Grounds Nos. 1 to 5 of appeal of the assessee are also dismissed. 8. On ground No.6, the assessee challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) n not allowing set off of brought forward losses of ₹ 5,10,41,376/- from the assessed income instead of remitting the issue to the AO. Since no such claim was made before the AO, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) correctly directed the AO to make necessary verification from record for set off as per law. Ground No.6 of appeal of the assessee is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. Ground No. 7 is in respect of charging of interest u/s. 234B of the IT Act, which is mandatory in nature and is accordingly dismissed. 10. No other point is argued or pressed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 842 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Every person has his limitations and certain unavoidable circumstances to deal with, due to which one cannot be expected to be present at all times, accused need only to specify the reasons and satisfy the court of his absence.
-
2013 (5) TMI 841 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
no bail can be granted or considered unless Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application.
Court will have to satisfy that there are reasonable grounds believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that the accused will not commit such offence, if bail is granted.
-
2013 (5) TMI 840 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... n cesses which were alleged to have been short-paid on account of rounding off. This demand came to be confirmed against the appellant and penalties came to be imposed on them. The appeal and stay application are directed against the Commissioner’s order. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we have found prima facie case for the appellant against the impugned demand inasmuch as, prima facie, the appellant was entitled to round off service tax payable under the Finance Act 1994 as per Section 37D of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act. CBEC’s Supplementary Instructions 2005 also permitted rounding off of duty in invoice in terms of Section 37D ibid. Apart from the merits of the case, we have also found prima facie case for the appellant on the ground of limitation on the facts of this case. Accordingly waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery are granted as prayed for. (Pronounced & dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 839 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the application for grant of approval of exemption the only relevant thing to be seen is whether the Society is engaged only in educational activities or not and it is wholly immaterial that its aim and object contains other objects also. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the department could not point out any distinguishing feature or place any material to take a different view of the matter. Respectfully following the said judgment, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad (CGO Complex-I, Ghaziabad/respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent no. 2 to take a fresh decision in the light of pronouncement of law made in the judgment of C.P. Vidya Niketan Inter College Shikshan Society v. Union of India & others (supra). The said decision may be taken within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
-
2013 (5) TMI 838 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ely because the assessee had reflected certain amount of expenditure claimed to be on account of construction of property in its Balance Sheet does not entitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act being the amount spent on construction of the asset on sale of residential property. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances where the claim of the assessee was found to be false, the assessee is liable to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we confirm levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on account of disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54 of the Act. Thus ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed and ground No.3 raised by the assessee is dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1222/Chd/2012 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1223/Chd/2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 837 - ITAT PUNE
Claim for exemptions under Section 54B denied - Held that:- CIT(A) correctly came to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not satisfactorily rebutted the presumption attached to the entries in the 7/12 extract i.e. the Land Revenue records. As per the Assessing Officer the declaration of agricultural income for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 by the assessee were not scrutinized by the Department and therefore, the genuineness of the claim of agricultural income for those years was not proved and therefore he was not satisfied with the explanation. In our considered opinion, assessee had duly discharged the initial onus cast on him to establish his case that the said land was being used for agricultural purposes based on the entries in the 7/12 extract and the declaration of agricultural income in the returns filed for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Thereafter, the burden was on the Assessing Officer to rebut the stand of the assessee, which was backed by the presumption attached to the Land Revenue records as per Section 157 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and also the factum of declaration of agricultural income by the assessee in the respective assessment years. The Assessing Officer has merely disbelieved the explanation furnished by the assessee without any credible material to negate the same. Having regard to the material and evidence on record and the legal position, in our view, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee discharged the burden cast on him to establish that the land was being used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. We hereby affirm the same and accordingly the Revenue has to fail on this aspect. - Decided in favour of assessee
Claim for exemption under Section 54F denied - Held that:- No justification on the part of the Revenue to deny exemption under Section 54F of the Act merely on the ground that the residential building constructed by the assessee consisted of several independent residential units. The calculation of cost of construction of the residential portion of the new building, and it also asserted that such details were placed before the Assessing Officer. The learned Departmental Representative has not negated the aforesaid plea and there is no adverse discussion emerging from the order of the lower authorities on this aspect. Therefore, so long as the assessee’s claim of exemption is limited to the investment in the construction of the residential portion of the building, the same is held to be allowable. Thus, on this aspect, assessee succeeds, and his claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act is upheld.- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (5) TMI 836 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
whether the writ petitioner who was the service provider in the present case was entitled to ask the consumer to reimburse the service tax which it had paid to the revenue.
it is the liability of the consumer to pay service tax.
-
2013 (5) TMI 835 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... el from Hubli to Bangalore and appear before this Tribunal on 8-10-2012 is not acceptable, having regard to the distance between the two cities and to the fact that the appellant-company had the wherewithal to provide alternative means of transport to their consultant. Be that as it may, a Final Order passed on merits cannot be recalled on an application of this kind wherein there is not even a proper relief prayed for. Moreover, the Final Order is appealable. 4. The learned consultant has prayed for restoration of the appeal. An appeal dismissed for the appellant’s default may be restored if sufficient cause is shown by the appellant for his default. There is no question of “restoration” of an appeal which stands dismissed on merits. For recall of the Final Order passed on merits, exceptional reasons must be shown, which are not forthcoming in the instant case. 5. In the result, application stands rejected. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 834 - ITAT CHENNAI
Computing deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- The expenditure on foreign travel and telecommunication should be reduced both from the export turnover and the total turnover of the assessee.
Determining the Arm’s Length Price (ALP) of international transaction of software development service by making upward transfer pricing adjustment - Held that:- Lower authorities were not justified in not excluding profit or loss in respect of domestic transactions for determining the profit declared by the assessee in respect of AE transactions. They were not justified in adopting the profit level achieved by the assessee in respect of all its transactions including domestic transactions as the profit level declared in respect of AE transactions. Further, we find that the assessee had furnished separately its working of the profit declared by it in respect of its AE transactions before the TPO as well as before the DRP. The lower authorities could not point out any specific defect in the said working of the assessee. As per the said working of the assessee, the assessee claimed to have earned a profit level of 34.17% of the cost in respect of AE transactions. Before us also, the ld. CIT/DR could not point out any specific defect in this working of the assessee.
There is no legal requirement that the segmentwise working submitted before the TPO should be audited by the assessee’s CA. Moreover, it is not open to the Revenue to reject the working prepared by the assessee without pointing out any error therein. In absence of any error being pointed out in the working shown by the assessee wherein it has claimed that it has achieved a profit level of 34.17% of the cost in respect of transactions with AE, we have no option but to accept the same.
the rate of profit achieved in other comparable cases are to be compared with profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions after excluding domestic transactions. Therefore, on comparing the same, we find that the profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions is more than the profit level in respect of comparable cases found by the TPO. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, the lower authorities were not justified in making addition to the income of the assessee. the rate of profit achieved in other comparable cases are to be compared with profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions after excluding domestic transactions. Therefore, on comparing the same, we find that the profit level declared by the assessee in respect of its AE transactions is more than the profit level in respect of comparable cases found by the TPO. In the above circumstances, in our considered view, the lower authorities were not justified in making addition to the income of the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 833 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal under Section 12(2) of the Act 1979. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the review application dated 15.10.2002 filed by the petitioner. We do not find that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 10.7.2009 either in appeal under Section 12(2) of the Act 1979 or if the contention of the petitioner that the District Magistrate has no jurisdiction to withdraw the exemption, at least in this court in the present writ petition. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file a proper writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate. The prayer is accepted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order of the District Magistrate, if he is so advised.
-
2013 (5) TMI 832 - ITAT AGRA
Canceling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) - Held that:- CIT was not justified in cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the IT Act. Section 12AA(3) of the Act empowers the ld. CIT to cancel such registration if he was satisfied that the activities of the trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or Institution, as the case may be. It is not in dispute that the objects of the assessee trust are to carry out the educational activities which are charitable in nature and that the assessee trust solely exists for educational purpose. Thus, the ld. CIT was satisfied that the activities of the assessee trust are genuine and that the same educational activities have been carried out as per the objects of the assessee trust. The ld. CIT admitted the same facts in para 9 of the impugned order reproduced above also. Furthermore, it is also not in dispute that in this case registration was granted u/s. 12A on 01.09.1997 w.e.f. 16.12.1995. Before 01.06.2010, section 12AA(3) nowhere empowers the ld. CIT to cancel or withdraw the registration u/s. 12A of the IT Act. In the absence of such power, registration granted u/s. 12A cannot be withdrawn or cancelled before 01.06.2010. In the present case, the ld. CIT in para 13 of the impugned order has cancelled the registration without giving the date from which date the cancellation of registration would be effective. Therefore, in the absence of any date from when the registration would be cancelled, the order of the ld. CIT cannot be sustained in law.
-
2013 (5) TMI 831 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Issuance of SCN - the petitioners had waived the right of reply and issuance of show cause notice, however, petitioners stated that they were compelled to do so by the authority - Held that:- It is the mandate of law that before imposing any penalty and confiscation of goods, show cause notice with adequate opportunity of hearing must be given. Provisions of law cannot be said to have been waived by the petitioners - petitions are disposed of providing that the petitioners would be entitled to furnish reply to the impugned orders treating the same to be show cause notice.
-
2013 (5) TMI 830 - SUPREME COURT
Whether where some of the witnesses have not been examined, though the same may be material witnesses is, whether the prosecution is bound to examine all the listed/cited witnesses?
-
2013 (5) TMI 829 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to July 2008 and the Service Tax was paid through CENVAT Credit as per ST-3 filed on 21-1-2009. Clause (vi) to provisions of service on behalf of the client was inserted with effect from 10-9-2004 under the Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. From the above, it is clear that the appellant has performed the service on behalf of ‘III’. Further, we find that, the claim of the appellant is limited to the aspect that the activity undertaken by them is not taxable. Their claim is not that service provided by them is classifiable under one or other heading. In these circumstances, we find that the provisions of service by the appellant in this case is on behalf of the client i.e. ‘III’, and that the appellant have paid the Service Tax correctly and there is no ground for grant of refund. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the same is dismissed. (Order pronounced in Court on 17-5-2013)
-
2013 (5) TMI 828 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ement of the assessee as per facts on record. The computation for the purpose of Long Term Capital Gain would therefore was in accordance with the provision of law which exercise has been undertaken by the assessee was actually the reason was not to be considered against the other business expenditure of the assessee necessarily to be made from the business asset. In other words, the computation of capital gains arose on the basis of applying a negative cost in consequence wherein no infirmity was found by the AO was therefore considered appropriately in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who accepted the sale of land was not the business activity for the impugned assessment year of the assessee and was to be considered for taxation on the basis of computation of capital gains done. We, therefore, uphold the same and have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 16.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 827 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit – Financial hardship – Tribunal directed appellant to make pre-deposit of 25% of cumulative demand of customs duty as condition for hearing appeal before it – Held that:- appellant urged that he may be given opportunity to place material with regard to financial hardship before Tribunal and that Tribunal be directed to consider case from point of view of financial hardship also – Appellant permitted to move appropriate application before Tribunal indicating its financial hardship – Tribunal to consider same and pass appropriate order – Appeal disposed of.
............
|
