|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1193 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... thereof in the addition may by the AO is, therefore, confirmed. Similar is the position w.r.t. to other amounts, inter-alia , the peak of the cash deposited in the bank. As discussed above that the appellant has not been able to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank and ultimately surrendered the peak thereof, and hence addition thereof is hereby confirmed.” 14 Above clearly shows that the assessee has not been able to discharge his burden and addition has been rightly made. In any case it has to be noted that the assessee had agreed for the above addition before the J.C.I.T. by surrendering the same and the directions u/s 144A are binding on the AO. It is settled position of law that if an amount is surrendered the assessee cannot be normally said to be aggrieved person. In these circumstances we do not find any thing wrong in the order of ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 31.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1192 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommunicated to him and not disclosed in the impugned order. As held by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 1 SCC 405, when a statutory functionary makes an order based or certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. In the present case, there are other reasons available in the file but not disclosed in the impugned order. The matter becomes more serious because even in the return, additional reasons have not been disclosed nor the concerned file has been placed for perusal before this Court. Therefore, even this Court is not aware of the other reasons which compelled the authority to pass the impugned transfer order. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned transfer orders being not in conformity with the provisions of s. 127 of the Act are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1191 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the other hand, we agree with the learned CIT (A) that the margin of profit earned by AEs themselves is also reasonable and therefore, it could not be said that there is shift of profits by assessee to its AEs at overseas. Considering the facts of the case and also the order of TPO that RPM method has been accepted in the preceding as well as succeeding assessment years to the assessment year under consideration in respect of distribution segment activity of the assessee, we do not find any infirmity with the order of Id CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,90,07,OOO made by the AO. Ground No.2 is accordingly rejected by upholding the order of Id CIT(A)”. Respectfully following the same, since the facts are similar to the earlier years, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A). Accordingly the Revenue ground is dismissed. 10. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1190 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... appeal of the Revenue. 11. The second ground of appeal in ITA No.1040/Mds/2011 relevant to the assessment year 2005-06 is regarding amount advanced to the Director of the company to be treated as deemed dividend under the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. A perusal of the documents on record show that Shri N.Amrutesh Reddy one of the Directors of the assessee company had advanced huge funds to the assessee without charging interest thereon. The assessee has been utilizing the amount advanced by the Director from time to time. The CIT(A) has given categoric finding on this issue. The learned DR has not been able to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, we confirm the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal. 12. Accordingly, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday , the 31st day of October, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1189 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dants in the course of judicial proceedings before the Registrar of the Society is Absolutely Privileged and for the said reason cannot be made basis for any defamatory action. In the light of this observation, the present plaint deserves to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d), CPC, 1908 being barred by law. 46. Decision on the second issue in favour of the defendants that the statements in the affidavit are entitled to Absolute Privilege automatically disposes of the third issue. Once the statements are held to be Absolutely Privileged, they would always remain privileged and the issue whether the plaint was prematurely filed pending adjudication by the Registrar of the Society is of no significance. In the result, the aforesaid application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC filed by the defendants is allowed and the plaint is rejected as barred by law as discussed above. Accordingly, the suit as well as the application IA NO. 8164/2011 stands disposed of.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1188 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... its an applicant has to pay admission fee also to become a member and at the time of surrender of membership only refundable security deposits are refunded that too after a particular period which at present as per NCDX website is 3 years. It follows from the above that admission fee is not refundable and this fact is particularly mentioned on the website of MCX. Therefore, following the judicial rulings relied upon by the assessee and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the amount paid by the assessee as admission fee to various exchanges and cost of application form was a revenue expenditure. 11. In view of the above, ground No.1 of the appeal is decided in favour of the assessee. 12. Ground No.2,3 & 4 in view of above has become infructuous and therefore do not need any adjudication. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1187 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ollow-up with the Income Tax Department, the Company could obtain such copy of the grounds of appeal on 08.12.2009 and thereupon, the appeal came to be filed before the Tribunal. 5. We are conscious that there was considerable delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, the Courts have been viewing delay, particularly when the same is well explained, rather liberally. When the cause of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, the Courts are largely reluctant to terminate legal proceedings on technical grounds. In the present case, there was sufficient explanation rendered by the assessee for preferring the appeal before the Tribunal after some delay. In our view, such delay ought to have been condoned. 6. In the facts of the present case, therefore, we are inclined to reverse the impugned order of the Tribunal. The question is answered in favour of the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal would now hear the assessee's appeal on merits.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1186 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he date of commencement of the FEMA Act. The FEMA Act has come into force with effect from 1-6-2002 and since notice of the alleged contravention by the petitioner has been taken on 25-5- 2002 as asserted in the impugned order dated 8-9-2004 the proceedings initiated against the petitioner do not prima facie appear to be barred by the period of limitation specified in Section 49(3) of the Act. In any event we do not wish to record any conclusive decision on this point of the bar of limitation. The order (original) dated 8-9-2004 impugned herein. is admitted to have been served on the petitioner on 24-7-2012. The petitioner has an appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, under Section 19 of the FEMA Act. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner should be relegated to pursue the appellate remedy. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to pursue the available statutory appellate remedies. No costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1185 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... the claim of assessee to get benefit of deduction u/s 80IB of I.T. Act 1961 at 30% of the total income derived from industrial undertaking of manufacture of surgical kits. It is not disputed that assessee is having manufacturing facilities at Amravati and sale shown at Amravati as well as Thapoda are only in respect to goods manufactured at Amravati Unit. The entire sales are in respect to manufactured goods. On above undisputed factual position the conclusion drawn by CIT(A)-II can not be faulted. The decision of CIT(A)-II is on fair and reasonable reasoning as indicated in appellate order. We have perused the various reasonings and findings as recorded in order of CIT(A) and agree with the same. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We find no merit in appeal of revenue and same is dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 19.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Excise duty paid need not be included in the valuation of the closing stock and non-inclusion would be a revenue neutral and would have no impact upon the tax payable - Held that:- In case of an assessee, where common order is passed in respect of more than one assessment year, which involves common issues even if in one of the assessment years the tax effect is more than ₹ 10 lakhs, irrespective of the fact that in respect of other assessment years which is part of the common order, the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue is entitled to file appeal even in respect such assessment years where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10 lakhs. However, in case where there is no common order and an order is passed only in respect of an assessment, year and the tax effect therein is less than ₹ 10 lakhs, the revenue cannot file the appeal.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1183 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t as it is not required to fulfil the conditions mentioned under Section 11 of the Act while claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Further in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there is no whisper that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the Section 11 of the Act for claiming it to be a charitable institution. He had solely relied on the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act while denying the exemption under the aforesaid sub-section. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly restored the registration on the ground that in the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 11 of the Act was allowed to the respondent-assessee. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Allahabad. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1182 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act as it is not required to fulfil the conditions mentioned under Section 11 of the Act while claiming exemption under Section 10(23C) (vi) of the Act. Further in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, there is no whisper that the assessee has not fulfilled any of the conditions of the Section 11 of the Act for claiming it to be a charitable institution. He had solely relied on the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act while denying the exemption under the aforesaid sub-section. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal had rightly restored the registration on the ground that in the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 benefit of exemption/deduction under Section 11 of the Act was allowed to the respondent-assessee. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Allahabad. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1181 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... d to a group concern, the loss on account of escalation of costs could not be declined. In principle thus, there is nothing wrong in the claim of loss on a tour organized for a group concern. It cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to proceed on the basis that the assessee must make reasonable profits on transactions with the associated entities, and thus apply the arms’ length principles in all transactions within the group concerns, even when statue does not provide for the same. We are unable to approve this approach. There is no other reason given by the authorities below in support of the impugned disallowance. We are, therefore, of the considered view that this disallowance of ₹ 8,40,261 must be deleted. We do so. 10. Ground Nos. 5 and 6, which deal with the disallowance of ₹ 8,40,261, are therefore allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 23rd day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1180 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... has summarily rejected the claim of the appellant. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the AO’s action in summarily rejecting the renovation expenses cannot be justified. Accordingly, the addition made by him to this extent (Rs. 4,05,975/-) is deleted.” 8. From the above, it is evident that the assessee furnished the proper bill from the contractor through whom the renovation work was executed. It appears that assessee had also taken the GPF Advance from his employer for the purpose of renovation and repairs. It is not the case of the AO that contractor has not done any renovation and repair work for the assessee and has not disclosed the receipts received by the Contractor. In our opinion, the relief given by the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1179 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ation income or loss from such transactions is to be considered as capital gain or capital loss. No contrary precedent has been brought to our notice by the learned D.R. Respectfully following the above orders, we uphold the impugned order by holding that income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain and resultantly there can be no charge to tax under the DTAA. 7. Ground No. 4, against the charging of interest under section 234B, has in our considered opinion, become consequential in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Facts and circumstances for the A.Y. 2006-07 are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the A.Y. 2005-06. In fact, no separate submission has been advanced by the either side in relation to this later year. Following our view taken hereinabove, we uphold the impugned order to this extent for this year as well. 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1178 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on of the submissions made at the bar, we are of the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Infrastructure Development's case bench consisting of three judges the said decision suggests a liberal approach for condonation of delay where public interest is involved. In that view of the matter and in the context of the averments made in paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 5. On the submissions of both the counsel, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. In view of the decision of this Court in ITA NO.417/2008 between the same parties, the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh assessment giving liberty to both the parties to establish their case as to whether the activities of the assessee amounts to a charitable activity and eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 with reference to the facts and material adduced by the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1177 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ories and not as per the services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd. 6.2 It is evident from the details of payment as well as from the contents of the terms and conditions of the agreement that the payment was made on the basis of the sales turnover effected in these foreign countries namely Sudan and Tehad and the payment is not de-horse the percentage of turnover for any services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd . Therefore, it cannot be said that the payment was made for any managerial or for technical services rendered by M/s EI Tabaldi Co Ltd. 7 In view of the above discussion, we hold that the said payment was in the nature of commission to the selling agent and therefore, not liable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient and accordingly, no tax is required to be deducted at source. Hence, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is deleted. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th,day of Oct 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1176 - ITAT CUTTACK
Disallowance made under the head “Provisions on Standard Assets” - Held that:- Provision for contingent or unaccured liability is not allowable as deduction - We direct the Assessing Officer to delete such disallowance and allow the claim of the assessee in this regard.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1175 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Suit for specific performance - part performance of the contract - no registration of the contract - Held that:- (a) a suit for specific performance, based upon an unregistered contract/agreement to sell that contains a clause recording part performance of the contract by delivery of possession or has been executed with a person, who is already in possession shall not be dismissed for want of registration of the contract/agreement;
(b) the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, legitimises such a contract to the extent that, even though unregistered, it can form the basis of a suit for specific performance and be led into evidence as proof of the agreement or part performance of a contract.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1174 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... eligible business were the only source of income of the assessee during the previous year. Therefore, the CIT (A) erred in ignoring the underlying principle that the eligible business/unit of the assessee should not be denied of rightful claim of deduction by reducing the said profits by unduly setting off either against the losses of the other units of the assessee or against the unabsorbed depreciation as in the instant case. In fact, the said decision of the Tribunal was available at the relevant point of time ie on 27th Jan 2011 the date of the order of the CIT(A) and however, the assessee did not cite the same. Therefore, in our opinion, the issue raised before us is required to be adjudicated by the CIT (A) considering the above decision in the case of Meera Cotton & Synthetic Mills (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT. Ground no.2 is decided accordingly. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
........
|
