|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 722 Records
-
2008 (12) TMI 756 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Computation of profit u/s 80IA - computation of receipts for captively consumed power at the rate at which it had purchased the power from the Board.
Assessing Officer held that since the assessee sold the units to outsiders at the rate of ₹ 3.70 per unit, such amount alone should be taken into consideration as receipts for the units captively consumed.
HELD THAT:- The law has already been settled by this Court. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we do not find that there is any substantial question of law involved in this matter which is to be gone into by this Court.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 755 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... did arise. We did not remit the matter to the High Court, particularly, when the appeal is in respect of the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.” o p /o p 3. Therefore, in view of the two answers given in Clause (a) and (b) of Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment, the matter is remitted to the ITAT for deciding the same afresh in the light of Clause (a) and (b) of Paragraph 15 of CIT V. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. 2007 291 ITR 482 (SC) applying the aforesaid law on the facts of the present case, in case two issues are arising in the facts of the present case, but if no issue arises, the ITAT shall close the proceeding. The order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2291 / Del/ 2002 for A.Y. 1995-96 and the order dated 19.5.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 2290 / Del/ 2002 for A.Y. 1994-95 are set aside. o p /o p 4. Consequently, present Income Tax Appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2008 (12) TMI 754 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as income of the society. The matter was directed to be decided afresh by the Assessing Officer. 3. In view of finding of the Tribunal, there is no reason to hold that grants-in-aid received from the Central or State Government for specific purposes for advancement of sports are not to be treated as voluntary contributions or are to be treated as taxable income of the society. The method of accountancy is a question of fact and the Tribunal has held that the assessee was maintaining cash system of accounting. 4. With reference to proposed Question (ii), it is stated that certain additional grounds were raised. We do not find any reference of any such matter in the order of the Tribunal. In absence thereof, we cannot go into the question whether any additional ground was raised by the revenue before the Tribunal. The revenue had an option to apply to the Tribunal to deal with the said matter. 5. We are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 6. Dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 753 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ry in nature. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 160 ITR 961. Since the tax has been deducted and paid to the Govt. account, then assessee shall be granted interest from the 1st day of assessment year under reference till the refund was granted to the assessee. In any case, whether interest should be paid from the 1st day of assessment year till the date of order for granting the refund or the same should be paid by excluding the period of delay attributable to the assessee is a debatable issue, where two views are possible....." We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. In view of the fact that the assessee was entitled to refund in respect of tax deducted at source and paid to the department, there was no reason to deny interest as per statutory provisions of Section 244-A of the Act. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 752 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on both the dates, i.e., as on 23.09.2002 and as on 31.03.2003, the petitioner satisfied the requirements. However, this contention has been just like that brushed aside by the assessing officer by simply stating that as on 31.03.2003, the value of the new machinery works out only to 21.4 . Even the question as to what is the crucial date - whether it is the date of formation of EOU or the last date of the assessment year has not been taken up for consideration and decided with reference to the relevant provisions by giving reasons. 24. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the assessing officer to reconsider the issue taking into consideration the reasonings stated in the judgment and also by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to place any material to sustain its claim and frame fresh assessment in accordance with law. Such an order is passed. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.
-
2008 (12) TMI 751 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g orders of the Tribunal by way of Writ Petitions, the petitioners are required to prefer Tax Appeals as provided by Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said submission was resisted on behalf of the petitioners to submit that the impugned orders are merely interlocutory orders. 3. On going through Provisions of Section 260A of the Act, it is apparent that an Appeal shall lie against an order made by the Tribunal in Appeal. The orders under challenge have been made in respective Stay Applications filed in related Appeals filed by the respondent-assessee before the Tribunal. Therefore, on a plain reading the preliminary objection deserves acceptance. 4. Accordingly, without entering into merits of the controversy, the petitions are rejected on the limited count, leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of Appeal, if the petitioners so desire. The petitions are accordingly rejected. Registry to place copy of this order in all connected matters.
-
2008 (12) TMI 750 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... specific purpose. Therefore, they had sent it only to him and it was for the assessee to spend or not to spend in accordance with the directions. But in any way, the amounts have 'come in' to him and therefore, they were income in his hands. (v) Even in the affidavit filed by him the assessee has referred to his spiritual discourses, and that foreign devotees were attracted. Therefore, Krishna Menon's case (supra) squarely applies to this case. (vi) On a careful verification of the questionnaire and the assessment orders it is clear that there is no variation; we also find that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner., and (vii) The AO was right in holding that the property was dealt with by the assessee as his own income. 13. For all these reasons, there are no merits in the writ petitions and the writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected writ petition miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 749 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... en where the assessee had requested the Assessing Officer to issue a Certificate for tax deduction at lower rate of tax. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by various benches of Tribunal in particular Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV vs. DDIT (IT)(supra), we hold that no interest is chargeable under Section 234B of the Act. The assessee before us is a non-resident whose income is subject to tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act merely because the assessee had requisitioned for a Certificate to be issued under Section 197 of the Act on lower rates of tax, does not merit charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer that no interest is chargeable under Section 234B of the Act, in the case of the assessee. The ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 25. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 22.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 748 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... iate that he has not done any activity in relation to the India Specific activities of the employer company, the proportionate salary would not be taxable in India and have to be excluded. The balance, if any, would be obviously includible in the total income of the assessee for the purpose of taxation in India. The submission of the assessee that if the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed, the appeal should be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue of re-opening is not considered here as the issue on merits has been restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. However it is specifically clarified here that the issue of reopening having not been decided by either ld. CIT(A) nor by us, the liberty is reserved with the assessee to raise the issue before the AO. 8. In the circumstances, the finding of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue is set aside and the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 05.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 747 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
... ...
... ... ..... s not conclusive. Certain payments may be incidental to the business and have to be allowed on the test of 'commercial expediency', if no violation of law or public policy is involved. Where penalty is not for deliberate violation of law, the amount may be allowed as deduction. There may be cases involving illegality or moral turpitude on the one hand and innocent violation on the other. Law is well settled. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Brothers vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 350 (SC), Malwa Vanaspati & Chemical Co. vs. CIT (1997) 142 CTR (SC) 137 (1997) 225 ITR 383 (SC), Parkash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 111 CTR (SC) 389 (1993) 201 ITR 684 (SC). The test has to be applied from case to case. 4. Since the Tribunal has followed an order of this Court, which is not shown to be different, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 746 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80-IA - business carried out by the assessee amounted to manufacturing of article or things for the purpose of deduction or not.
HELD THAT:- It is well settled that every change or process cannot be termed as manufacture or production. Well known tests applied for determining whether a process amounted to manufacture or production are that a new and distinct commercial product is produced. In each case, it may be a question of fact whether a particular process involves manufacture or not. The question may be of degree and extent of change and though, the issue may at times be debatable, by applying the relevant tests, the Tribunal has recorded a finding and such finding cannot be held to be perverse, it cannot be held that a substantial question of law arises.The Tribunal has applied the correct test and recorded a finding that the process undertaken by the assessee involved manufacture. Merely because a different view can be taken will not be a ground to hold that a substantial question of law arises.
In a recent order of this Court in CIT v. Mahesh Chadra Sharma [2008 (10) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], dealing with an identical issue. Thus, the question raised cannot be held to be a substantial question of law.
Hence, dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 745 - ITAT BANGALORE
Disallowance of expenses - investment Portfolio - enhancing the assessment being depreciation in valuation of investment portfolio.
HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Commercial Bank vs. CIT [1999 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] held that preparation of the Balance sheet in accordance with the statutory provisions would not disentitle the assessee in submitting the Income Tax return on the real taxable income in accordance with the method of accounting adopted by the assessee consistently and regularly. For the purpose of Income Tax, what is to be taxed is real income which is to be deducted on the basis of accounting system regularly maintained by the assessee.
Further, the method by which the assessee Bank is valuing securities is in accordance with the accounting principles by treating such securities as stock-in-trade. Moreover, the revenue itself is treating the profit on maturity of such security as business income and, therefore, such securities cannot be treated as capital assets.
Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that the assessee Bank is entitled to value all the investment at cost prices or market value whichever is lower by treating such investment as stock-in-trade. We, therefore, delete the disallowance made by the Ld. CIT(A).
In the result, appeal of the assessee Bank is allowed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 744 - ITAT JAIPUR
Validity of order of revision u/s 263 - CIT held assessment order allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4) as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue - assessee has earned profit from the Goshi Khurd Project wherein dam gates have been constructed and installed by the assessee - during the AY 2003-04 claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) - in AY 2004-05 in respect to the profit earned, assessee filed its return of income, which was accepted by the AO.
CIT was however, of the different opinion that as per the provisions of section 80IA(4) for the relevant previous year, the enterprises or undertaking carrying on the business of "Developing the Infrastructure facility" was eligible for deduction but only the profit earned from "Operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility" was exempt and not the profit derived from "Developing the infrastructure facility".
HELD THAT:- The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of PATEL ENGG. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLES 24 & 26. [2004 (6) TMI 245 - ITAT BOMBAY-F] relied upon by the AO vide para 8 thereof, under almost similar facts and circumstances has held that the assessee therein was the developer or infrastructure project and eligible for deduction under section 80IA. As per the Law Dictionary, the term "development"is bringing into being, converting natural resources, like land into a specific purpose by building extensively, realizing and making real the potential of natural resources, and bring to a more advanced or effective stage etc.
The contention of the ld. D/R is concerned regarding that the assessee is not the developer of irrigation project since u/s 80IA(4) "developer" who do not "operate and maintain" the infrastructure facilities are not eligible for the deduction, we do not agree with. Since in our view the word "OR" has been inserted in section 80IA(4)(i) as any enterprise carrying on the business of:- (i) developing, or (ii) operating and maintaining, or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility has been introduced by the legislature from assessment year 2002-03 only to remove the ambiguity. Hence the insertion of word "OR" was clarificatory in nature.
In our view, AO has also rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal. The assessment order, therefore, cannot be held as erroneous merely because the ld. CIT nurturing a different view on the issue. Hence the mid assessment orders on the issue, which is not erroneous even if it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue cannot be made a subject matter of revision u/s 263. There is also no substance in the contention of the id. D/R that the assessment orders on the issue have only been set aside by the ld. CIT vide the impugned order and the assessee will be at liberty to avail the opportunity to present its case on the issue before the AO in a fresh assessment so directed by the ld. CIT, because it cannot be a acceptable reason for justification of invocation of provisions of section 263.
The requirement for invocation of the provisions of section 263 is that the assessment order on the issue must be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and mere mentioning of the said two ingredients will not extend any jurisdiction to the ld. CIT to invoke the supervisory provisions u/s 263. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessment orders in question on the issue were neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue hence the ld. CIT was not justified in setting aside the same. The assessment orders on the issue for the assessment years under consideration are restored while setting aside the revisional order u/s 263 in question.
The issue is decided in favour of the assesses Grounds raising the issue are accordingly allowed - In the result, appeals are allowed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 743 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mmunication services. 3. As regards the proposed question 'd' which reads as follows "Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,96,300 made by the AO on account of payment made to the Registrar of Companies for increase in share capital following the decision of the Supreme Court in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT 1997 140 CTR (SC) 598 1997 225 ITR 798 (SC) and of this Court in CIT v. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. 2001 167 CTR (Del) 78 2001 250 ITR 338 (Del) ?" We find that the same already stands concluded in favour of the Department and against the assessee in view of our decision in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. 2001 167 CTR (Del) 78 2001 250 ITR 338 (Del). Accordingly, this question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The appeal survives only in respect of the question framed in the first paragraph above. The appellant shall file the paper books within three months as per rules.
-
2008 (12) TMI 742 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Valuation of property - cash credits - Difference between the value of the property declared by the assessee and the value of the property determined by the DVO was added back - cash credits were treated to be the income from other sources.
HELD THAT:- Other questions cannot be held to be substantial questions of law, in view of the clear finding that the valuation of the registered valuer relied upon by the assessee was not correct - Finding of Tribunal in this regard is not shown to be perverse.
No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 741 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") can pass an order in absence of the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of this case?
-
2008 (12) TMI 740 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he order dt. 31st July, 2006 of learned CIT(A)-VIII, Mumbai relating to asst. yr. 2003-04. At the time of hearing, the ITA No. 5285/Mum/2006 (assessee’s appeal) was not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed. IT(SS)A No. 253/Mum/2006 Revenue’s appeal. At the outset, we have to mention that in Form No. 36, Revenue has wrongly described the assessment as one under s. 158BC r/w s. 143(3) of the Act. In fact, order of assessment is only under s. 143(3). Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Revenue raised in this appeal are identical to ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2045/Mum/2006. We have already dismissed identical grounds of appeal while dealing with the appeal of the Revenue for asst. yr. 2002-03. For the reasons stated while discussing identical grounds of appeal in asst. yr. 2002-03, these grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. In the result both the appeals by the assessee and the Revenue for asst. yr. 2003-04 are dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 739 - CESTAT CHENNAI
SSI exemption - denial on the ground that assessee availed CENVAT/MODVAT credit - It is also the case of the department that scrap being the result of manufacture, duty is required to be paid at the time of its clearance
-
2008 (12) TMI 738 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the petitions. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2008 (12) TMI 737 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... premises and found the seal to be intact. Paragraph No. 2 of the said panchnama dated 20-9-2000 mentions that "2. As today’s search was in continuance of the proceedings on 31-8-2000, we along with the aforesaid authorised officers before the commencement of proceeding today, inspected the seals which had been placed on that date and found them to be intact/tampered with as narrated in the enclosures." Annexure-2 of the said Panchnama dated 20-9-2008 mentions that "Stock valued at ₹ 1,61,55,035 (Rupees one crore sixty one lakhs, fifty five thousand and thirty five) as per inventory made on 4/5-8-2000. 3. It is apparent that the Panchnama dated 20-9-2000 and the visit of the revenue to the premises appears to have been made only to get over the limitation issue. Under these circumstances, we are not at all inclined to entertain question Nos. (A), (B) and (C), and in view thereof, the Question (D) does not survive. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
........
|
