|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1014 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 1037 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... delay is rejected. Apart this, we have heard the counsel on merits. We see no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. No costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1036 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iling of the appeal itself. We are not satisfied with the explanation provided by the appellant. When the comments from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were sought for, it is presumed that both the Commissioner of Customs as well as the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence were well aware of the limitation period of 180 days prescribed under Section 130 of the said Act. This was not such a complicated case where the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence could have been permitted to take its own time to provide the comments. Thereafter, the Commissionerate also took its own time in obtaining legal advice and ultimately sending the draft appeal to the Senior Central Government Counsel. Inter-departmental communications and delay caused by them in giving their comments/draft appeals/opinions cannot be considered to be sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal. 6. For all these reasons, the delay is not condoned. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1035 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... al of the order shows that this was not the submission made before the Tribunal. It appears from the order that before the Tribunal the Appellant has not raised an issue that the matter is not covered by the judgments which were referred before the Tribunal. 3. In our opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in disposing of the appeal. Petition is, therefore, rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1034 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sion of Hon'ble Madras High Court referred to above is also to the same effect. In view of the above, we hold that deduction u/s. 80IA should not be reduced from the deduction allowable u/s. 80HHC. Grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. ............ 79. While deciding an identical ground in A.Y. 2002-03 in ITA No. 644/Mum/06, we have already upheld similar order of learned CIT (A) for the reasons stated therein. This ground of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 80. Ground No. 3 of the revenue is with regard to excluding excise duty and sales tax from the total turnover while allowing deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act. 81. While deciding the similar ground in A.Y. 2002-03 in ITA No. 644/Mum/06, we have already dismissed similar ground of the appeal of the revenue for the reasons stated therein. This ground of the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 82. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 8th Day of July, 2008.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1033 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tice and consequential adjudication, the impugned communications dated 5.9.1997 and 14.10.1997 (Annexure “K” collectively) and the letter dated 14.12.1998, cannot be permitted to hold the field. Accordingly, all the three communications are quashed and set aside. As a consequence, the amount paid under order dated 18.8.1999 shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, without the petitioner having to make a claim therefor. In relation to the other prayers made, suffice it to state that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has not thought it fit to enter into merits of the controversy considering the fact that no show cause notice has been issued and the said issues can be decided as and when the same are raised in appropriate proceedings, if any. 6. The petition is allowed, accordingly, in the aforesaid terms. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1032 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1031 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ces of the case and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT erred in relying on the judgement of Special Bench of ITAT in Oman International Bank in allowing the bad debts u/s.36(1)(vii) inspite of the fact that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions laid down u/s.36(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961? 3. We have perused the judgment of the Tribunal dated 21st September, 2006. The same pertains to the assessment year 1992-93. Specially for the reasons stated in paragraph No.3 of the judgment of the Tribunal, there is no substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1030 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal is filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. According to Mr. Sheshachala, the assessee is not entitled to claim interest on the excess advance tax paid by the assessee since the advance tax paid by the assessee or its own. But we are unable to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant since in view of Section 244A of the Act, when once the assessment is completed and the Department having found that excess tax was collected by it or excess tax was paid by the assessee, the assessee is entitled for order of refund along with the interest atleast from the date of the order of assessment. Therefore, we are of the opinion the Tribunal as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were justified in awarding interest on the application filed by the assessee on ₹ 84,93,141/-. 5. In the circumstances, we do not see any substantial questions of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1029 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound that the Income Tax Officer had committed error. He elected to pass a limited order of directing correction of the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer limited to the question of granting benefit of weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Act. 29.In essence, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer was the one giving effect to the order passed by the Commissioner and thus, while passing fresh orders of assessment, the Assessing Officer was acting within the confines of directions issued by the Commissioner. This was therefore, not a case where the principle of merger could have been applied. The decision in the case of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. (supra) was rendered in different fact situation. 30.Thus, we are entirely in agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal. 31.In the result, we answer the question No.1 in affirmative and question No.2 in negative. In short we answer both the questions in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1028 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... to be deleted. We accordingly, hold so. As a result, on this point the assessee succeeds and the Revenue fails. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Now, we may take up the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 247/Chd/2008. Insofar, the first ground is concerned the same has been considered by us while adjudicating the appeal of the Revenue in the earlier paras. The same accordingly, stands dismissed. By way of ground Nos. 2 and 3, the Revenue is aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to compute the deductions under ss. 80HHC and 80-IA on the basis of the income assessed as a result of the appeal order. In this appeal, the learned Department Representative has not seriously contested the directions of the CIT(A). In our considered opinion, there is no infirmity in the stand of the CIT(A) on this issue. The Revenue has to fail on this issue also. In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1027 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance of expenses - Addition on unexplained cash credit - Disallowance on account of credit in respect of loan from Sit. Chanchal Lamba - Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure - Disallowance of l/10th of car expenses - Disallowance of depreciation.
Addition on unexplained cash credit - identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and the sources for making the credits not established - HELD THAT:- The department has not brought any material on record to doubt the identity of the creditors who have filed their confirmatory letters which have been reproduced hereinabove. In view of these details found on record, there remains no stock of doubting the genuineness of transactions of credits. On going through the assessment order it appears that the AO has raised suspicion only on those grounds which are not based on any material - Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has successfully discharged its burden in proving the identity of the creditors; genuineness of the transactions of credit and the source of the credits. We are therefore, unable to concur with the findings of the learned CIT(a) and set aside the same. Consequently ground No.1 taken by the assessee stands allowed and the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
Disallowance on account of credit in respect of loan from Sit. Chanchal Lamba - HELD THAT:- The departmental authorities have doubted the genuineness of the transactions by making surmises and conjectures, which cannot be justified. The departmental authorities have also gone the test of human probabilities. However, no doubt can be raised about the genuineness of the transaction on the basis of probabilities and improbabilities - Merely because GPF advance was taken for purposes of marriage but was diverted for making advance of loan, it cannot be said that the transaction of advancing loan was not genuine. The creditor is an employee and she might have indulged in misconduct in utilizing the sanctioned amount for the purpose for which it was not sanctioned but for that action could have been taken against her by the department, if it was so considered - In any case merely on that basis the genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. Thus, we are unable to concur with the findings of the learned CIT(A) in relation to this credit also. Hence setting aside the order of the learned CIT(A) we allow ground No.2 in favour of the assessee. Consequently the addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) is deleted.
Ad hoc disallowance of expenditure - AO proceeded to make disallowance without assigning cogent reasons - HELD THAT:- After having examined the books of account and vouchers, AO has not pointed out any specific instance to show as to why the expenditure was not allowable. The learned CIT(A) has also not appreciated this aspect properly - Therefore, the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure without pointing out and justifying the reasons for doing so, cannot be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition. This ground stands allowed in favour of the assessee.
Disallowance of l/10th of car expenses - HELD THAT:- This disallowance is also justified on the ground of personal use of the vehicle. This disallowance is, therefore, upheld.
Disallowance of depreciation - AO allowed l/6th of it - HELD THAT:- In appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 1/10th Car depreciation cannot be disallowed on the ground of persona! user of the car. The departmental authorities were therefore, not justified in disallowing any portion out of car depreciation. Our this view is supported by the decision in the case of Mukesh K. Shali vs. ITO [2004 (5) TMI 530 - ITAT MUMBAI]. This ground is therefore, partly allowed.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1026 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r make an enquiry/scrutiny of the amount on the purchases by the assessee." Several decisions were relied upon by the learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion in favour of the assessee. Incidentally it is to be mentioned here that the Tribunal specifically dealt with all the issues which were raised before it and also considered the point of jurisdiction after relying upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT -vs- Poddar Cement (P) Ltd. in 226 ITR page 625 and the other decisions. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Tribunal correctly upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in affirming the said order of the Commissioner and do not find that there is any irregularity or illegality so passed by the Tribunal. Hence we do not find any substantial question of law involved to admit this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1025 - ITAT MUMBAI
Applicability of sections 41(1) and 28(iv) - Liability written off - deduction on loss, expenditure or trading liability - loan for meeting the day-to-day requirements of the company - section 41(1) were wrongly invoked - Whether the action of AO, linking the loss of the assessee to the loans given by lender (SDD&CPL) and thereby considering that the amount given by the lender is in respect of the said loss, is correct? - Assessee submitted that he never claimed any deduction or allowance of losses or expenditure involving M/s. SDD & CPL in respect of the amounts written-off -
HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee was in huge losses and was in search of incoming group. Such group wanted a Balance Sheet of the company cleared off the liabilities. The SDD & CPL has come to the rescue of the assessee to provide loans and write off the same. In this case, the amount given by SDD & CPL is not a trade deposit and the said amount has not become a definite trade surplus. Further, giving loans and the write off of the same by SDD&CPL happened in the time span of only 5 months.
Applying the provisions of section 41(1) to the facts of the instant case, we find that the amount of loan received has no connection to any such allowance or deduction. It is a mere loan unconnected to any allowance or deduction made in the assessee’s assessment. Although it is an undisputed fact that the assessee received benefit by way of remission or cessation of liability, the same is certainly not in respect of any trading liability.
We find that the assessee did not receive the said amount in respect of any sales or purchases or other related direct or indirect expenses to qualify for trading activity. The said amount was given by the M/s. SDD&CPL for the purpose of making the assessee-company fit for takeover and for shaping up a presentable Balance Sheet for the incoming group. In this regard, we have also examined if the AO has made out any case against assessee for the proposition that if the amounts given by M/s. SDD&CPL are given to assessee on behalf of other trade debtors in order to be covered by the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, that is also not the case here.
Therefore, The AO action of linking the loss of the assessee to the loans given by lender (SDD&CPL) and thereby considering that the amount given by the lender is in respect of the said loss, is an incorrect finding and the same is not in accordance with section 41(1) of the Act. It is almost a settled law that ‘A debt waived by the creditor cannot be the income of the debtor’ as held in the case of British Mexican Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Jackson and affirmed in the case of CIT v. P. Ganesa Chettiar [1979 (6) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Hence, the transaction between assessee and SDD & CPL are aimed at making the company eligible for take over by the income group and are consequential to the contractual agreement. The transactions in the books of account are not found bogus or collusive by the AO. The loans has nothing to do with the assessee’s claims of deduction or allowances in that assessment as assessee within the meaning of section 41(1) as held by the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jahangir Gullabbhai [2007 (12) TMI 316 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Further, the provisions of section 28(iv) of the Act does not come to the rescue of the revenue in the view of the co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of Hellios Food Improvers (P.) Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 348 - ITAT MUMBAI].
Therefore, assessee’s ground is allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... subsequent year. The correct course of action is to disallow the amount, where it is not allowable and do not charge tax it in the year in which it has been inadvertently offered for taxation. Under these circumstances, we hold that the addition has been rightly confirmed in this year. However, the assessee is at liberty to take remedial action in the assessment year 2007-2008 if the same amount was offered for taxation there. This ground is, therefore not allowed. 28. Ground No.2 of the Revenue's appeal is against the deletion of addition of ₹ 1 lakh out of telephone expenses towards personal use. Here also we find that there is no difference in the facts of this ground and those of the additional ground raised by the Revenue in the preceding year. Following the view taken by us supra, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. 29. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 18 July, 2008.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1023 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ient’ includes any service provided in relation to promotion or marketing of games of chance, organised, conducted or promoted by the client, in whatever for or by whatever name called, whether or not conducted online, including lottery, lotto bingo.” Learned counsel for the parties state that written submissions in regard to the interpretation and/or application of the said Explanation to the facts of this case would be filed within four weeks. Put up the matter for final disposal after four weeks on a non-miscellaneous day.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1022 - CESTAT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... visional assessment and all the past provisional assessments in respect of similar import will be subject to the outcome of this appeal." Mr. Vellapally appearing for the assessee has informed us that in view that in view of the above interim order provisional assessments or the subsequent imports have been made. The Department is directed to frame the final assessment in terms of the order passed today with consequential effects. 3.1 In terms of the above judgment, the assessment carried out by the department on the second hand machineries in terms of the Board's Circular is not correct. The authorities were bound to have accepted the transaction value as declared under Section 14 of the Customs Act. The ruling rendered by the Apex Court in assessee's own case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case also. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1021 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ugned order has observed that the credit stands availed in respect of duty paid on steel bars, tubes, angles etc. which are used in the construction of the tower and NO CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY IS PAID ON THE TOWER ITSELF. As against the above observations and findings of the Adjudicating Authority, ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the invoice issued by the supplier of the tower indicating payment of duty in respect of one tower by classifying the same under heading 7308.20.11. This basic dispute can only be resolved at the lower level, for which purposes, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for re-adjudication after clarifying as to whether the credit of duty is being claimed in respect of duty paid on tubes, angles, bars rods channels etc. used in the manufacture of tower or the claim is in respect of duty paid on the tower itself. The stay petition as well as appeal get disposed off in the above manner. Dictated and Pronounced in Court.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1020 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seizure of Heroin - whether the statements under Section 67 NDPS can be relied upon by the prosecution? - retraction of statement - truthfulness of statement
-
2008 (7) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. IC 14827 Major A. Hussain AIR 1998 SC 577 and observed that the High Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence recorded by the authorities and substitute by its own finding replacing the conclusion reached by the competent authority. Though the Division Bench of the High Court has not given detailed reason in its judgment for setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, yet in substance we are of the opinion that the said judgment on merit warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us by the appellant. In our view, there is no merit in the contentions taken by the appellant. For the reasons above stated, there is no merit in this appeal and it is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1018 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ala v. Puttamana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999 (2) SCC 452) it was held that the revisional jurisdiction is one of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate Court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction. Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice. 9. We find that the trial Court and the Revisional Court have analysed the evidence in detail to come to the conclusion about the guilt of the accused. There is no manifest error in the conclusions or in analyzing the evidence. That being so, the High Court was justified in law in not exercising revisional jurisdiction. 10. The appeal is dismissed.
........
|
