|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 1233 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 963 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of the assessment proceedings - Error in allowing the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) - Held that:- In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, in the assessment framed u/s 143(3), the issue of 10(23C)(iiiab) had been gone into and the AO, only initiated the reassessment proceedings, because he had taken a divergent view on the allowability of exemption. Since the issue was discussed in regular assessment proceedings and the AO did not stumble upon any evidence/material, which was not placed before him, the initiation cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 962 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... held that assessee is in the business of purchase/sale of shares, and while framing assessment u/s. 143(3) the loss of ₹ 1,51,21,196/-incurred on the sale/purchase of units has been treated as business loss. In view of the aforesaid facts, it can be stated that assessee is in the business of purchase and sale of shares. Once the purchase and sale of shares is held to be a business activity, the interest paid thereon has to be treated as business expenses in view of the Hon'ble High Court decision in the case of Laxmi Agent (P.) Ltd. (supra). Thus following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble High Court, we are of the view that in the present facts of the case the interest expenses incurred by the assessee has to be treated as business expenses and no disallowance can be made u/s.14A. We accordingly direct the deletion of the disallowance made by A.O. Thus this ground of assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 961 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the case of K.P. Varghese v. ITO 131 ITR 597 SC and the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of N. Seenappa v. CIT 163 ITR 253 (Karn) fully support the plea of the assessee in this regard. 33. Another reason given by the revenue authorities for upholding the aforesaid addition is that there is a practice of on-money prevailing in real estate transactions. In our view, without evidence on record, just on the basis of practice prevailing in the trade, adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee. 34. We are, therefore, of the view that the sales figure as reflected in the trading account should be reduced by a sum of Q 83,60,865. 35. The AO is directed to recast the trading, profit & loss account as drawn by him with the modifications as stated in this order and work out the income of the assessee. 36. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 960 - ITAT COCHIN
Addition of freight payments u/s. 40(a)(ia) - amounts which have already been paid during the course of relevant previous year without deducting tax at source - Held that:- The assessee has filed a statement before us in both the cases, wherein the details of freight debited, freight paid and freight payable are given. In our view these facts require verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of both the assesses and restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the statement furnished by the assessee before the Bench and decide the issue by following the decision of the Special Bench of ITAT, Vishakapatnam in the case of Merilyn Shipping & Transports [2012 (4) TMI 290 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM].
In the result, the appeals of the assesses are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 959 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Unexplained gifts - Held that:- We are of the view that genuineness of the gifts has been accepted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Appellate Tribunal. The identity and creditworthiness of the donors have also been accepted by both the authorities. These are questions of facts and there is a concurrent finding of fact by both the authorities below and no illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by both the authorities below has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Revenue. The said finding of fact of both the authorities below cannot be interferred with by this Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 958 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Additional income as deemed income u/s 69 & 69A - income from business and surrendered against the cash and excess stock found at the time of survey - rejection of the trading account
-
2012 (9) TMI 957 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d u/s 80IA in respective Captive Power Plant has been deleted. Be that it may be we are of the view that in respect of both the additions, penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is not leviable keeping in view the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petrol Products Pvt. Ltd.” 6.1 The deletion of addition by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee was decisive. The Tribunal correctly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Reliance Petrol Products Ltd. (322 ITR 158) that making incorrect claim by itself does not amount to concealment of income. When the quantum appeal itself was allowed and the deletions made were set aside, the whole basis which led to the imposition of penalty ceased to exist. In the circumstances, no ground could survive to sustain the penalty. 6.2 The present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law in the light of above position of facts. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 956 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - income declared in the returns of income filed in response to notice under s. 153A - Held that:- No addition is made by the AO over and above the income declared in the returns of income filed in response to notice under s. 153A as the expression "tax sought to be evaded" appearing in cl. (c) to s. 271(1) is to be understood as a difference between the income declared by the assessee in the return of income and the income finally assessed. After introduction of s. 153A w.e.f. 1st June, 2003, there is no specific penalty provision to deal with the assessments framed in consequence of search and seizure action under s. 132 of the Act. In the present case, as the returned income and income assessed are the same, otherwise also, no penalty can be levied. We, therefore, hold that in all the appeals before us, the AO was not justified in levying the penalty under s. 271(l)(c) of the Act. We accordingly, delete the penalties levied by the AO in all the appeals for the abovementioned reasons. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 955 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd - 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that any service which has nexus with the business activity whether it is manufacturing or rendering service, has to be treated as "input service" coming within the purview of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 4. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged, I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. Stay application is also disposed of in the above terms. Dictated in Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 954 - ITAT DELHI
Exemption u/s 11 - franchisee fees received by the DPS Society from different satellite schools which are running under the name and logo Delhi Public School having different management than the DPS Society - denial of depreciation to assessee trust
-
2012 (9) TMI 953 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ation of gross profit. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the A.O. 4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the A.O. be restored.” 5.1 It was agreed by both the sides that this issue is similar to ground No.3 raised by the revenue in assessment year 2005-06. Both the sides agreed that this issue can be decided on similar lines as in assessment year 2005-06 wherein we have decided this issue in favour of the assessee as per para 2.2.5 above and accordingly, in the present year also, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 5.2 In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed and for the assessment year 2006-07 is allowed and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 952 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition being interest on unexplained investment - Held that:- A careful perusal of the orders on record would suggest that except for the impounded document and statement of partner, there was no further evidence with the Revenue to make addition. In fact document itself only suggested entry of Rs . 3,12,159/-. It was on the strength of the statement of the partner during the survey that the Revenue inflated such figure 10 times by adding zero. Statement of partner also suggested that it was his personal income and not that of firm. Thus entire statement was also not taken in its entirety. Further other than such statement, there was no further material available on record. In fact, the Tribunal recorded that from the document there was nothing to suggest that the entries pertained to loan and advances.
-
2012 (9) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT
Whether subsequent purchaser can challenge the acquisition proceedings?
Whether a person who purchases land subsequent to the issuance of a Section 4 notification with respect to it, is not competent to challenge the validity of the acquisition proceedings on any ground whatsoever, for the reason that the sale deed executed in his favour does not confer upon him, any title and at the most he can claim compensation on the basis of his vendor’s title?
-
2012 (9) TMI 950 - SC ORDER
Addition u/s 68 - Cash Credit - Unexplained share application money - assessee has not been able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of certain expenditure or where any sum is found credited in the books of accounts, the AO can treat the same as undisclosed income and add to the income of the assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 949 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d. 2010 (251) ELT 147 and Zenith Rubber and Plastic Works 2009 (238) ELT 646 held that whosoever is found to have committed something paving the way of shipment of the goods without LEO or to have omitted to do anything to ensure compliance with the requirement of section 51 of the Act must be held to have rendered the goods liable for confiscation and consequently liable to the penal consequences. The only question to be decided is whether the penalty imposed is harsh or not? The only ground which can mitigate the action of the appellant is that the vessel set sail before its scheduled date of departure. 6. Considering these facts, I reduce the penalty from ₹ 3.5 lakhs to ₹ 1.4 lakhs on the exporter M/s. HLE Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and from ₹ 4 lakhs to ₹ 1.6 lakhs on the CHA, M/s. Patkar and Sons Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. But for this modification, the order of the lower authority is upheld. Stay applications are also disposed of. Dictated in Court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 948 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... lip;……………………………………………………………………… (4)……………………………………………………………………………. (5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes;” 6.1. On careful perusal of the above, we are of the view that since the act has not specified that the assessee himself has to use the said property in order to get exemption u/s 2(ea) of the WT Act we find no infirmity in the orders of ld. CIT(A) to be interfered with. Therefore, we confirm the same and dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 7. In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 947 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sessee to the benefit of the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiab). Even in the case of IIM the grant equal to 36.42 was held to be substantial finance by the Government. 22. In the instant case, the grant available was 56.86 , much higher than the grants accepted to be substantial by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. 23. With these observations and respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, we do not intend to disturb the findings of the CIT(A), which we sustain and as a consequence thereof, reject the appeal of the Revenue. 24. It is strange and interesting to point out that this is a classic case, where the assessee has made inputs towards finances, from its own source and saved tax payers money, but, the AO, in such a case has objection, i.e. why the assessee did not use the tax payers money. 25. The appeal filed by the Revenue is thus dismissed. Held accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 26th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 946 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , and that seven witnesses, whom the petitioners now want to cross examine, are totally unrelated to the dispute in question and their evidence is irrelevant and unnecessary and that it is therefore, that the respondents are proceeding with the matter without examining those seven witnesses. 3. First of all, adjudication is only pending and final orders are yet to be passed. If as contended by the petitioners, evidence of seven witnesses is essential and the matter is finalized without affording them opportunity to cross examine those witnesses, that will give rise to a case of violation of principles of natural justice. However, such a plea can be raised by the petitioners only after final order is passed by the 2nd respondent, on conclusion of the adjudication which he is now seized of. 4. Therefore, at this stage, the writ petition filed is premature and the petitioners will have to await for the final orders to be passed by the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 945 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation on sale and lease back contracts and lease contracts disallowed - Held that:- In the absence of proof of suppliers and there being no attempt on the part of the assessee to establish the said fact that there was in fact a sale in its favour, rightly, the authorities rejected the case of the assessee. Mere production of lease agreement and copies of invoices indicating alleged sale in favour of the assessee would not be a sufficient ground to grant the relief. A perusal of the documents relied on by the assessee clearly show that the assessee could not in any manner substantiate its case that there had been purchase of machineries for the purpose of effecting lease in favour of the lessees. As rightly pointed out by the authorities below, the transactions were purely financial transactions and they were given the name of the lease transactions through the lease agreements. There being no error in the reasoning given by the Tribunal, we have no hesitation in rejecting the case of the assessee, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal.
-
2012 (9) TMI 944 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - appeals are permitted in respect of the impugned orders - Section 35(g) of CEA - Held that: - petitions are not maintainable as appeals are permitted - Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with liberty to file appeals - petition dismissed.
............
|
