|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 865 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 810 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Five lakhs o p /o p Group 'C' Rs. Three lakhs o p /o p Group 'D' Rs. Two lakhs. o p /o p .... o p /o p 14. The case of the Respondent was rejected by the Appellants in view of the fact that the family of the deceased Anand Kishore Gautam had been given the following terminal benefit excluding the G.P.F. 1. DCRG ₹ 2,48,248.00 2. Leave Encashment ₹ 88,660.00 3. CGEIS ₹ 44,000.00 4. DLIS ₹ 60,000.00 Total ₹ 4,40,908.00 In addition to above, family pension @ 3100/- per month has been authorised to Smt. Rashmi Gautam for a period of 7 years and thereafter @ 1860/- per month plus admissible relief on pension. 15. In view of the fact that, in the instant case the retiral/ terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding ₹ 3 lakhs, Respondent No. 1 is not eligible to be considered for the Group 'C' post. 16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.
-
2012 (5) TMI 809 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by respondent No. 1 in the suit of 1984, but even assuming that if the written statement was not filed, the very fact that the appellant/plaintiff was forced to file the suit claiming ownership rights pleading that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 was only a benamidar shows that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 was claiming title adverse to the appellant/plaintiff at least from 1984. The present suit therefore filed in 2010 i.e. after 23 years is ex facie barred by limitation. As per Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963 when the period of limitation for filing of the suit qua an immovable property comes to an end, the ownership rights qua the same also get extinguished as against the person who ought to have filed the suit within 12 years. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 2.4.2011. The present appeal, being without any merit, is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 808 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(Appeals) except relying on such evidence has not recorded any cogent reasons for giving outright relief. In view thereof we are inclined to set aside the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(Appeals) to decide the same afresh after calling the assessment record for his perusal and decide the contention of the assessee on the basis of material available on record. In view thereof ground no. 2 of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.4. Apropos ground no. 3 i.e. operational expenses, in our view the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not given proper reasons for deleting the addition. The interest of justice would be met if the ld. CIT(Appeals) decides the same on merits after perusing the original assessment record as directed above. In view thereof, this ground of appeal taken by the revenue is also allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above. Order pronounced in open court on 11-05-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 807 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... e Tax Act relating to deductions, rebate, etc the other provisions of the Income Tax Act shall apply. Therefore it is clear that the provision of sections 87 and 88A to 88E also apply after the total income is computed under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and since the assessee’s total income includes the income from the taxable Securities Transactions, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of the amount equal to the STT paid by him in respect of the taxable Securities Transactions entered into in the course of business during the previous year. The assessee’s appeal is thus allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to give rebate under section 88E for the STT paid by the assessee.” Since the issue is covered by the decision cited supra, respectfully following the same, we allow the claim of assessee. This ground of revenue’s appeal is also dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 8. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (5) TMI 806 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... interest charged for all the years under consideration u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act.” 93. The matter, as seen, is also covered in favour of the assessee by “Jacabs Civil Incorporated” (supra) and “Mitsubishi Corporation” (supra) and “SNC Lavalin International Inc.”(supra). 94. Accordingly, Ground No. 5 is accepted. 95. In view of the above, the grievance of the assessee by way of the grounds of appeal taken for both the years is found to be justified and is accepted, as dealt with in detail above. The impugned orders passed by the AO are, hence, cancelled. 96. Consequently, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed. 97. In the result, the Department’s appeal for the assessment year 2005- 06 in ITA No. 1599(Del)2011 is dismissed, whereas the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 5437 & 5438(Del)2011 for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008- 09 respectively, are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 805 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... wing observation in their order “If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing, nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open cour t in the presence of learned Sr. DR 8.5.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 804 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rs of the CIT(A) in directing the assessing officer to estimate the profit of the assessee at 3% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year, as noted above, are based on the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.591/Hyd/2011 dated 28.7.2011. We find that the coordinate benches of this Tribunal have been consistently following that very decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the CIT(A), in their recent orders in similar cases, as in ITA No.1997/Hyd/2011 & CO No.28/Hyd/2012 in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Srinivasa Wines, Nalgonda and others, vide order dated30.3.2012, to which one of us, viz. the Accountant Member is a party. In this view of the matter, following the consistent view taken by this Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the CIT(A), which are accordingly confirmed and the grounds of the Revenue in both these appeals are rejected. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 4.5.2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 803 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s of the CIT(A) in directing the assessing officer to estimate the profit of the assessee at 3% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year, as noted above, are based on the decision of the Tribunal in ITA No.591/Hyd/2011 dated 28.7.2011. We find that the coordinate benches of this Tribunal have been consistently following that very decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the CIT(A), in their recent orders in similar cases, as in ITA No.1997/Hyd/2011 & CO No.28/Hyd/2012 in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Srinivasa Wines, Nalgonda and others, vide order dated 30.3.2012, to which one of us, viz. the Accountant Member is a party. In this view of the matter, following the consistent view taken by this Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the CIT(A), which are accordingly confirmed and the grounds of the Revenue in both these appeals are rejected. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 4.5.2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 802 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manjir Singh Bagga Vs. ITO in ITA No.371 & Others dated 30th September, 2010 held that the estimation of the net profit at 3% is reasonable. In view of the matter, ends of justice would be met if we estimate the net profit of the assessee at 3% of purchases or stock put for sale during the year under consideration as against the estimation of 5% made by the CIT(A)”. In view of our aforesaid decision, we uphold the order of CIT (A) and direct the AO to estimate net profit at 3% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee which merely supports the findings of the CIT (A), has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such. Order was pronounced in the Court on 04-05-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 801 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... uch loan was not utilized for the business of the assessee, the same was held to be not deductible. In the final analysis the A.O. made addition for the said sum of ₹ 56,606. The learned CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this issue. 9. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record it is noted that this amount of ₹ 56,606 was admittedly paid by the assessee but not accounted for in the books of account. No evidence has been produced before us to demonstrate as to why such interest was not recorded in the books of account or the source of such amount. In such circumstances we are of the considered opinion that this amount has rightly been added by the authorities below. This ground is not allowed. 10. Ground no.5 about the confirmation of addition of ₹ 30,000 was not pressed by the learned AR. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 800 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Anil Katiyar,Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. Issue notice. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. Tag this petition with S.L.P. (C) No.29816 of 2011.
-
2012 (5) TMI 799 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er were long-term capital gains. His claim was accepted by the Tribunal. Held, that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain was a long-term capital gain." In view of the decisions cited above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to indexation benefit on the NCPA flat from the date of agreement and not on the basis of actual payment." 7. Respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the benefit of indexation will be given from the date when the assessee entered into the agreement for acquiring the two flats in question and not on the basis of various dates of payments made for acquiring the said properties and the computation filed by the assessee in the revised return is accordingly upheld. Thus, we affirm the findings of the CIT (A) and consequently, the ground raised by the Department is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed Order pronounced on this 11th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 798 - ITAT COCHIN
Addition made in the Income - Assessee received as security deposit (Cost of equipment) in respect of supplies deep-freezers/freezers/fridges to various vendors - Sale proceeds of land - to be treated as business income or under capital gains.
Addition made in the Income - As per agreement entered into between the assessee and the vendors, the assessee supplies them with deep-freezers/freezers/fridges of sizes as per requirement of the Vendors concerned after taking from them full cost of the equipment as Security Deposit - HELD THAT:- Since the co-ordinate bench in the case of High Range Foods (P) Ltd.[2011 (2) TMI 1117 - ITAT, COCHIN] has already taken a view on identical issue, by following the said decision, we hold that the deposits collected from vendors cannot be considered as the income of the assessee so long as the agency agreement continues. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue in the hands of both the assessees and direct the AO to delete the addition made on this issue in the hands of both the assessees herein.
Sale proceeds of land - to be treated as business income or under capital gains - Tribunal has held in the case of High Range Foods (P) Ltd,(supra) that the intention of the assessee at the time of purchasing the land would decide the nature of income arising on its sale, i.e. if an assessee purchases a land in order to hold it as a “Capital asset”, then the gain arising on its sale shall be assessed as “Capital gain”. On the other hand, if the intention was to hold it as stock in trade, then the profit arising on its sale would be assessed as “Income from business”.
Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issues and restore the same to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh in the light of principles discussed by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of High Range Foods (P) Ltd, supra, and decide the issue accordingly.
In the result, the appeals filed by both the assesses are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (5) TMI 797 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ich is not a scenario envisaged by the CBDT while fixing TCS of 1% for liquor trade. 9. Under the circumstances cited above, it is requested that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct that the estimate of net profit above 5% of the purchases made by the assessee. 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record as well as the orders of the authorities below, after taking into consideration the submissions of the DR, inter-alia, that estimate of net profit above 5% of the purchases made by the assessee is to be adopted, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby upheld on this count and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, MA is allowed and appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 796 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (2011) 203 Taxman 364 (Delhi). The Assessing Officer while computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act", for short) will apply the ratio as expounded in Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra). Issue notice to the respondent limited to the second issue regarding interest under Section 244A of the Act, returnable on 17.08.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 795 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dismissing the appeal on the ground of non compliance of the order of the High Court. It is not disputed that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- was not deposited within the time provided in the order of the High Court. Therefore, the proper course was to seek extension of time from the Court itself if that was possible. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he wants to seek extension of time in the earlier application. He may do so by making a proper application in this regard, if he so desires. As prayed, list this petition in July 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 794 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... implead the State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Industrial Finance Branch, Raj Bhavan Road Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500082,as newly added Respondent No.3. Notice be issued to newly added Respondent No.3.Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, we direct the Petitioners to restore the Importer-Exporter Code No.4606000066 in favour of Respondent No.1 forthwith. Pursuant to restoration of such code, Respondent No.1 would be allowed to re-export the goods aforesaid, subject to conditions as imposed by the High Court. In the light of this, the proceedings in the contempt matter against the Petitioners and its officials shall be kept in abeyance. List the matter after service is complete.
-
2012 (5) TMI 793 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hat freight, octoroi, testing charges and cartage expenses crystallized in the year in question. Salary out of misc. expenses an amount of ₹ 2,10,806/- has been disallowed for want of details. Before ld. CIT(Appeals) no additional evidence has been filed to come over the deficiencies pointed out. In view thereof, we see no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) on these issues. Thus ground raised by the revenue as well as the assessee on this issue are dismissed. 5.5. Coming to the remaining ground of assessee’s appeal i.e. eligibility of weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) for the previous year, respectfully following the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Claris Life Sciences 326 ITR 251 (supra), we are of the view that the assessee is eligible to deduction. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner as stated above. Order pronounced in open court on 11-05-2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 792 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... y the appellant, were without any co-relation and without any substantiation, inasmuch as the impugned order gives the reasoning that the Kacha/Pakka challans indicates receipt of grey fabrics, while the statement of approximately 27 merchant manufacturers were not recorded to corroborate. All these inherent commission and omission has to be properly reasoned out by the adjudicating authority in his findings for confirmation of demand against the appellant. We find that the reasoning given by the adjudicating authority is not addressing all these issues, which were raised before him. In the absence of any such co-relation, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority and hence we set-aside the impugned and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice. 9. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (5) TMI 791 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e on this issue. 11. Grounds No.3 of the assessee in this appeal read as follows- “3. The assessing officer and CIT(A) both erred on facts and law in disallowing the expenditure of ₹ 31,671 incurred in purchasing of carry bags.” 12. We heard both sides and perused the orders of the lower authorities and other material on record. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions (supra) that once business income of the assessee is determined by the assessing officer, by resorting to estimates, on rejection of book results, there is no scope for any separate addition, we find no justification for the disallowance of ₹ 31,671 made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). Consequently, the addition of ₹ 31,671 is deleted and this ground of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 4.5.2012
........
|
