Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 441 to 460 of 547 Records

• 2012 (2) TMI 199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Companies Act 1956 - Petition filed u/s 433(e) & 433(f) of Companies Act, 1956 seeking to wind up the Respondent-Company - 'respondent - Company', is a partnership firm engaged in the business of accepting deposits from the general public – non-repayment of deposit of petitioner – Held that:- Respondent Company is unable to clear the debts of the creditors and therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for winding up of the Company – Decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 198 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Acquittal of charge u/s 135(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 – CLP filed u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking special leave to appeal against the said judgment – seizure of gold biscuits – Held that:- In present case, adjudicating authority as also the appellate authority both found the respondent guilty on merits but the revisional authority exenorated him on account of benefit of doubt. Further, there is no retraction of statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act by the aforesaid 3 witnesses and retraction of statement of accused/respondent is highly belated.

  Therefore, the case requires full consideration and re-appreciation of entire prosecution case. Consequently, leave is granted to the petitioner/department for filing an appeal against the impugned order of acquittal.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 195 - ITAT, KOLKATA
  

  Traveling Expense - "Personal" OR "Business" - CIT(A): expenses were related only to travel & conveyance undertaken by the employees - Held That:- No evidence was brought on record by revenue to controvert the finding of CIT(A). Appeal of revenue rejected.

  Export Promotion - CIT(A) reduced dis allowance to 20% against 25% made by AO - Held That:- In respect of foreign tours, keeping full details, bills & vouchers is impossible. When in past years above position (20% disallowance) was accepted there is no reason to interfere with the same.

  Bogus Purchases - Held That:- Payments made by A/C payee cheque, copies of ledger has been filed with paper book. CIT(A) rightly deleted additions.

  Undisclosed Income - "Donations" shown as gifts - Held That:- Assessee has filed copies of statement of donations with relevant receipts issued by the donees - personal bank account with HSBC Bank reflecting donations made - and balance sheet with Income & Expenditure account and Receipts & Payment Accounts etc. Donation made by A/C payee cheque same are duly reflected in the assessee’s individual accounts. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 194 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Unexplained credits – alleged bogus share application money received – assessment reopened on the basis of information received by A.O. from DIT (Investigation), furnishing information regarding entry operators/accommodation providers – statements of directors of company providing entry taken - Tribunal deleted addition made u/s 68 – assessee stating that documentary evidence regarding identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and the genuineness of the transactions were produced - Held that:-The Tribunal, apart from adopting an erroneous legal approach, also failed to keep in view the material that was relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Involvement of the assessee in such modus operandi is clearly indicated by valid material made available to the A.O. as a result of investigations carried out by the revenue authorities into the activities of such “entry providers”. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the order of the Tribunal confirming the deletion of the addition made u/s 68 – Decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 193 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of re-opening of assessment beyond the period of four years of the end of the relevant A.Y. - Investment company – reopened on ground that provision for diminution in the value of the unquoted investments was an unascertained liability and ought to be added back to Net Profit - Original order framed u/s 143(3) – A.Y. 03-04 - Held that:- In the absence of any specific provision in Section 115JB at the time when the original assessment was made and having regard to the debatable nature of the issue as to whether Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB would cover cases of amounts set aside for diminution in the value of investment, it can never be postulated that it was the duty of the assessee to have instructed or informed the A.O. as to the legal inference which he should draw from the primary facts. There was thus no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose full and true primary particulars at the time of the completion of the original assessment. The notice issued u/s 148 is therefore, declared to be without jurisdiction – Decided in favor of assessee.

  Validity of re-opening of assessment of A.Y. 06-07 questioned on basis of judegment in A.Y. 03-04 - adjustment to the book profit u/s 115JB not made for provision for NPA and for doubtful debts – return processed u/s 143(1)(a) – Held that:- Firstly, notice issued u/s 148 is within the period of 4 years from the end of relevant A.Y. Secondly, issue whether the provisions in question should be added back in terms of the relevant clause in the Explanation-1 below Section 115JB is debatable but the fact remains that it could not be examined since the return filed by the assessee was merely processed u/s 143(1)(a) and, therefore, no inference or opinion could have been formed by A.O. as to the disallowbility of the provisions. Validity of notice issued u/s 148 upheld – Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 192 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Long-term Capital gains – determination of date of acquisition – property acquired through inheritance - acquired by previous owner prior to 1-4-1981 – assessee share in property determined by virtue of family settlement dated 11-9-2000 - Revenue contending indexed cost of acquisition to be as per F.Y. 2000-01 & not 1981-82 – Held that:- Assessee succeeded to this property and in such eventuality the word “hold” is to be interpreted keeping in mind the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Manjula J. Shah holding that benefit of indexation shall be available from the year when previous owner first acquired it – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 191 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Principle of natural justice - Un-explained deposits in bank - Held That:- Notices issued only on December 2006 and the assessee was given time upto 28.12.2006 vide notice dt 22.12.2006 to file the details. The assessee made a request on 28.12.2006 that he is sick and could not gather the necessary details. The Assessing Officer turndown the request of the assessee and passed the assessment order on the next day i.e. 29.12.2006. Such an order is against Principle of natural justice and thus do not sustain.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 190 - ITAT, CHENNAI
  

  Registration under 12AA - Object: Develop automobile design, Architectural design - Held That:- Possibility of a future contingency with a remote probability will cannot make the Trust itself a commercial venture.The clause of levying fees from apprentices will not per se convert the assessee-Trust to a commercial establishment.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 189 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Share Capital from Undisclosed Sources - Notice under 133(6) returned unserved - No Directors produced nor the books of account - Investigating report: Entities engaged in providing entries no actual business carried on - Held That:- The addition could not sustain as the primary onus was discharged by the appellant by producing PAN number, bank account, copies of income tax returns of the share applicants, etc. - Assessing Officer was influenced by the information received by the Investigating Wing and on the general modus operandi, whether such modus operandi existed in the present case or not was not investigated by the Assessing Officer. AO is mistaken in question assessee for source of receipt of application money such enquiries should have been made to M/s Diamond Protein Ltd.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 188 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Principle of mutuality - Assessee co-operative society running Gymkhana, received deposit - Interest Income assessable as business Income - Held That:- In view of Effluent Treatment Plant (2010 - TMI - 76801 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT),principle of mutuality is not applicable. - As regards the claim u/s 80P is concerned, if any income by way of interest or dividend derived by the cooperative society from its investment with any other cooperative societies, then deduction u/s 80P is allowable in respect of the said income. - case remanded back to verify the deposits.

  Transfer fee upto 25,000 covered under mutuality - Amount not received under coercion or under pressure - Held That:- In view of Sind Cooperative Hsg Ltd (2009 -TMI - 34176 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), claim of assessee allowed.

  Amount received for additional FSI under TDR rules - AO: amount charged per sq.ft is higher than rate charged by local authority - Held That:- When there is no profit motive or business by collecting such fund by the assessee society, then only because of the rate charged by the assessee society from its members is higher than the rate of local body cannot be a ground for rejecting the principle of mutuality.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 187 - ITAT, BANGALORE
  

  Deduction under 10A - Conditions unfulfilled - transfer of more than 20% of the plant and machinery from the old unit to the new unit - Held That:- We remit the issue of deduction u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act to the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify if the plant and machinery transferred from the Rajajinagar unit to the Whitefield unit is less than 20% as demonstrated by the assessee and also to verify as to whether the assessee satisfies the conditions under the CBDT Circular No. 1 of 2005. Allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 179 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Clearing & Forwarding Agent Services - determination of assessable value including incidental and ancillary expenses connected with and integral to the taxable service provided – Held that:- The issue of inclusion is no more in res integra in view of decision in the case of Sri Bhagavathy Traders vs. C.C.E., Cochin (2011 -TMI - 206710 - CESTAT, BANGALORE).

  Further, it may not be improper to grant waiver of penalty imposed u/s 76 of Finance Act, 1994 since the determination of assessable value was in debatable stage at the inception of law. However penalty imposed u/s 77 of the said Act is confirmed – Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of delay of 570 days – appeal filed against order passed by Appellate Tribunal constituted under the FEMA, 1999 – appeal filed to Appellate Tribunal against an order of adjudication passed on 30.10.2003 by the Special Director of Enforcement, after the repeal of the FERA, 1973 – Held that:- An appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal would be governed by the provisions of Section 35 of the FEMA, 1999. This Court does not have any jurisdiction to condone a delay in excess of sixty days beyond the period of sixty days prescribed for the filing of an appeal – Decided against the petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 176 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Quantification of reversal of credit – electricity - credit reversed @ 10% of the value of the electricity - no separate records are maintained in respect of Cenvat Credit on the common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods - Held that:- In as much as the issue relates to the correct quantification of reversal of credit which can only be decided at the original adjudicating authority level, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner(Appeals) for quantifying the credit amount required to be reversed. See Maize Products vs CCE (2008 - TMI - 48307 - High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 173 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  Indo-French DTAA – French Company entered into an IT Agreement with the applicant to provide support services in the area of IT - whether royalty or FTS – whether payment would fall under the provisions of Article 13 of the Indo France DTAA in view of the Fact that foreign company does not have a PE in India – assessee contending such payment to be reimbursement of expenses - Held that:- Services provided under the IT agreement are in the nature of Fees for Technical Services and taxable under the DTAA as well as under the Act. It is also clarified that payment under the proposed agreement does not represent reimbursement of cost and is taxable in India.

  Article 5 of India France DTAA states that even existence of a computer server amounts to existence of a PE within a jurisdiction. In such circumstances, Areva T&D SAS France has a PE in India, the payment to it would not fall under the provision of Article 13 of the DTAC. As the Applicant has a PE in India, the income by way of FTS will be taxed under Section 44DA and at the rate provided under the Finance Act for the relevant year and tax withheld accordingly.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 172 - ITAT BANGALORE
  

  Transfer pricing - What is the data to be considered by the TPO at the time of determining ALP - Whether the appellant should have been given an opportunity to refute the material sought to be utilized by the TPO – Turnover filter – deduction u/s 10A - Held that:-By providing a specified date in the Act, the obligation is cast upon the assessee to keep and maintain the documents for that period. But, it does not restrict the TPO from making enquiries thereafter for determining the correct ALP. TPO shall take into consideration the contemporaneous data.

  TPO need not inform the assessee about the process used by him for issuing the notices u/s 133(6) nor is he under any obligation to furnish the entire information to the assessee. However, principles of natural justice requires that appellant has to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing on that material. In present case, TPO had furnished all the information to the appellant, to which appellant has raised objections. Non- consideration of objections would be an error of judgment, but, not violation of principles of natural justice.

  Turnover Filter - TPO considered turnover range of ₹ 1 crore to ₹ 200 crores and ₹ 1 crore to ₹ 500 crores – Held that:- Turnover of the company is in the range of 24 crores, therefore, the companies, which have turnover of ₹ 1.00 crores to 200 crores alone should be taken into consideration for the purpose of making TP study. Therefore, this issue requires to be remitted back to the file of the TPO for fresh consideration with directions in this regard.

  Deduction u/s 10A - Held that:- While computing the exemption u/s 10A, if the export turnover in the numerator is to be arrived at after excluding certain expenses, the same should also be excluded in computing the export turnover as a component of total turnover in the denominator. See CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.(2010 - TMI - 76903 - Bombay High Court ) - Decided partly in favor of assessee for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – dis-allowance of bad debts – assessee funished records & confirmations during penalty proceedings – non-examination of documents by A.O./CIT(A) – Held that:- Tribunal went into the details, examined the records and the confirmations which were furnished by the assessee and has come to the conclusion that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified. In the present case, A.O. and the CIT(A) failed to consider/examine the veracity and correctness of the said papers without any reason. Revenue is unable to show what and where the tribunal has made a factual error or mistake – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 170 - ITAT RAJKOT
  

  Foreign travel expenditure - Son of partner, technical person - AO disallowed expense being personal in nature - CIT(A) affirmed AO - Held That:- Merely stating that the assessee has booked a stall and the sons of the partners were attending is not sufficient. The circumstances exhibits that the sons of partners were taken as those were in close relationship of partners and nothing to do with the business of the firm. Decided against assesee.

  Repair on rental building - Capital OR Revenue Expenditure - Held That:- In view of Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd. (1998 - TMI - 5686 - SUPREME Court), repairing expenses carried out on a rental building are revenue in nature.

  Payment for Labour Charges - job work for sister concern - Held That:- Job work done is almost 5 times than the actual production. This clearly shows that the alleged job work charges have been paid to sister concerns merely with a view to avoid payment of legitimate taxes. Thus provisions of 40(A)(2) are clearly applicable.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 169 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Sale/Purchase of Shares - "Capital Gain" OR "Business Income" - One share of Jubilant Organosys Limited held as long Term - Investment in (JOL) under Special resolution - Motive to earn dividend - Shown as Investment In B/ST - Held That:- Taxable under head Capital Gains.

  Shares held for small period of time - motive to earn profit - Held That:- Short term capital gain assessable under Business Income.

  Expennditure in relation to exempt Income - Held That:- In view of Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co.(Mumbai High Court). Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 163 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Modvat Credit of duty paid on the cleanflow, welding electrodes and various iron and steel items – Held that:- As regards Cleanflow, issue already stands decided in the appellants own case, thereby, held to be eligible Modvatable input and credit is allowed in respect of same.

  Steel items – Following the decision in case of Jaypee Bela Plant vs CCE (2011 - TMI - 210276 - CESTAT, DELHI), we remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for examining the availability of credit in respect of various steel items, depending upon actual use of the same.

  Welding electrodes – Held that:-Original adjudicating authority would also re-decide the issue of availability of credit on welding electrodes in the light of decision in case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (2010 - TMI - 77888 - Chhaitisgarh High Court).

  ---

1 ....192021222324252627........ 28