|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 697 Records
-
2009 (10) TMI 938
... ...
... ... ..... e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the respondent may be permitted to contend the grounds other than the substantial question of law that is already answered in favour the Revenue in this appeal, pertaining to allowance and in view of the memo filed and the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent that the tax amount would be deposited within time granted by this Court, the Appeal No. 76/BGM/2004-2005 on the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum in restored to his file and it is open to the respondent-assessee if the tax is deposited within time granted by this Court, to contend the grounds, other than the substantial question of law which has already been answered in favour of the Revenue is this appeal, pertaining to allowance which would be available to the assessee. If the tax is not deposited within the time granted by this Court, the respondent would forfeit his right to raise any contentions in the appeal.
-
2009 (10) TMI 937
... ...
... ... ..... t pointing out any specific expenditure being incurred by the assessee. We have gone through the provisions of section 69C of the Income Tax Act and we noted that there must be evidence on record which may prove that the assessee had incurred expenses much more than what has been shown by the family members. In case the Revenue has the evidence that the assessee had incurred expenses, the onus will got shifted to the assessee to offer explanation about the sources of such expenses to the satisfaction of the AO. Apparent is real onus is on the person who alleges apparent is not real. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmall 87 ITR 349. Even no evidence was brought to our knowledge by the learned DR. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9.10.09
-
2009 (10) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... tion Since, the expression and language used in s. 80G(2)(a) are plain and clear, it is not open to the Courts to enlarge the scope by its interpretative process founded on the basis of the object and purpose underling the provisions for granting relief to an assessee." 11. In the light of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that in the present case, what was given without consideration was only. IMD certificates, provisions of s. 56(2)(v) or (vi) could not have been invoked by the AO. Even on this ground, order of learned CIT(A) deserves to be sustained. We are of the view that the order of learned CIT(A) is correct and does not call for any interference. We have not gone into the aspect as to whether provisions of s. 56 will apply in the case of IMDs which specifically lay down that provisions of GT Act and IT Act shall not apply. For the reasons stated above, we confirm the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal by the Revenue.
-
2009 (10) TMI 935
... ...
... ... ..... ppellant. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The Tribunal on appreciation of the facts decided the issue correctly. The appeal, therefore, lacks merits and is dismissed.
-
2009 (10) TMI 934
... ...
... ... ..... ot include any interest thereon. In cases of penalty orders, the tax effect will mean quantum of penalty deleted or reduced in the order to be appealed against. In the present appeal, the total disputed addition is ₹ 3,94,732/-, therefore, as agreed/canvassed by ld. representatives from both sides, the tax effect is below ₹ 2 lakhs, the limit prescribed for filing appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. Our view finds support from the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the cases of Shri J.S. Luthra (ITA No.712 to 715/Chd/2009) and ITO, Ward 2(2), Ropar vs. The Jhallian Kalan Pri. Coop Milk Produce Society Ltd., Jhallian Kalan Distt. Ropar (ITA No.721/Chd/2009). Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, facts and the judicial pronouncements (supra), this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives of both sides on 6.10.2009.
-
2009 (10) TMI 933
... ...
... ... ..... ement of that payment. Further tax has also been deducted and if Apex Systems Pt. Ltd. was to be taxed at all has got taxed to the extent of withholding tax and therefore, in our view, the learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted this addition because it is a case of payment made on behalf of HDFC Chubb by the assessee, which cannot be termed as income of the assessee company. In these circumstance, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 9. In respect of ground No. 2, we have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the relevant records. We find that levy under section 234B has been correctly deleted by the Learned CIT(A) because interest u/s. 234B is not chargeable to the extent of tax deductible in case of non-resident Indians as per the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Motorola Inc. vs. DCIT (95 ITD 269). Following the decision, we confirm the order of the Learned CIT(A). 10. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (10) TMI 932
... ...
... ... ..... s. CIT (1977) 110 ITR 644 652-653 also support the stand of the Revenue "In CIT vs. H.M. Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb of Morvi (1975) 100 ITR 67 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the deduction which is permissible under sub-section (2) of section 12 is an expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning the income which has been subjected to tax and the dominant purpose of the expenditure incurred must be to earn income. It was further held that the connection between the expenditure and the earning of income need not be direct, and even an indirect connection could prove the nexus between the expenditure incurred and the income. We fully agree with the view taken by the Bombay High Court." 14. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for interference and hence the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court, on this the 5.10.2009.
-
2009 (10) TMI 931
... ...
... ... ..... ch the item was dealt with. As it is noticed that the issue of the excess provision of the interest tax was dealt with in the assessment order passed on 28.11.2003, and the same was not subject matter of the appeal, the provisions of Section 275(c) of the Act would apply and the limitation for the levy of penalty expired on 31.05.2004. As the penalty on the issue of the provisions of interest tax has been levied vide order dated 31.01.2006 which is beyond the period of limitation provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd. referred to supra, it would have to be held that the penalty levied is barred by limitation and we do so. In these circumstances, the penalty as levied on this issue and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted as barred by limitation. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 9. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2009.
-
2009 (10) TMI 930
Goods imported were not accompanied by a pre-shipment inspection certificate as required the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 - Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the confiscation under Section 111 (d) was set aside for the reason that the cargo did not contain any prohibited goods such as arms or ammunitions and penalty was also set aside - confiscation, redemption fine and penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (10) TMI 929
... ...
... ... ..... of the funds in question. Merely, rejecting the explanation of the assessee is not sufficient. The view of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in reliance utilities and power limited gives clear indication that if assessee has sufficient interest free funds, then it shall be presumed that interest free advances was given out of interest free funds. Such presumption is rebuttable and the, Assessing Officer is expected to give his finding on the availability of cash at the point of time when such interest free advances are given. f he chooses not to do so then he loses the right to make addition. This is exactly what has happened in this case. Therefore, addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be justified. As a result this ground of Revenue is rejected. 17. Finally, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.” 12. Respectfully following above decisions, we hold that even on merit, Revenue has no case. 13. As a result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2009 (10) TMI 928
... ...
... ... ..... ording to provisions of sections 4, 5 and 9 of the Act and also that no material whatsoever was placed as to the exact nature of services rendered by the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order clearly reveals that the nature of services have been listed out at paragraph 6 and the issue, in our humble opinion, need not be once again examined by the assessing officer. On this factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that a mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the issues which was already adjudicated upon by the assessing officer as well as the CIT(A) on the evidence which was already on record, were wrongly once again directed to be readjudicated and re-examined and therefore, has to be rectified by recalling the matter. Thus, we recall the matter and post the case for fresh adjudication after fresh hearing in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed. 5. Order pronounced on this 6th day of October, 2009.
-
2009 (10) TMI 927
... ...
... ... ..... do so to come to the conclusion that penalty was to be levied. Thus it is seen on facts that he has proceeded on the premises as though each and every time the additions are not challenged or sustained the penalty is automatically and mechanically attracted. 9.20 Accordingly for the reasons given hereinabove on the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced before the Bench we are not inclined to agree with the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO. We have taken into consideration the various judgments relied upon by the parties before the Bench and we have seen that the principles laid therein qua the facts before us fully support the view taken. Since the principles are settled principles and the decision has been arrived at on the basis of the peculiar facts of the case at hand independently and separate discussion thereon will be academic. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (10) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... ited. S.L.P. (C) ……..CC No. 4025 of 2009 List along with Civil Appeal No. 4464 of 2008.
-
2009 (10) TMI 925
... ...
... ... ..... impugned notifications the differential amount of duty that such units would become entitled to shall be credited and such units shall be permitted to take credit thereof to the said extent by treating every debit to the said account as being payment of Excise Duty in cash to the extent such differential amount of credit gets exhausted in relation to future liability required to be discharged in relation to such units. In other words, the credit shall be to their respective PLA accounts. This direction shall be applicable in each case on the facts as exist. (38) During course of hearing number of authorities have been cited by both the sides. The Court has not found it necessary to burden the judgment by reproducing extracts from various authorities. Suffice it to state that ratio of all the judgments cited have been considered by the Court. (39) The petition is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. RULE made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (10) TMI 924
... ...
... ... ..... effect it was projected in the assessment year for the year 1998-1999. The balance amount was included in the assessment year for the year 2006-2007. The provisions are, thus, genuine. As regard question (vi), apart from submitting that this question cannot be held to be a substantial question of law as the amount involved is ₹ 3797/-, learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the finding of the Tribunal that the amount of scrap was not incidental to the activities of manufacturing and export and he submitted that, in the circumstances, it has been held in CIT v Madras Motors Ltd., (2002) 257 ITR 60 (Mad.), CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd., (2007) 297 ITR 107 (Mad.), CIT v Vardhman Polytex Ltd., (2007) 296 ITR 382 (P&H), that the amount is not required to be included in the turn over. 7. In view of the discussions of the rival submissions mentioned above, we are of the view that the questions proposed are not substantial questions of law. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (10) TMI 923
... ...
... ... ..... asset is acquired and if it is a benefit of enduring nature, then, of course, the assessee cannot get deduction of the amount for acquisition of land as revenue expenditure. When land was not acquired, no capital asset has been acquired and therefore, the payment of ₹ 9.50 lakhs is to be allowed as a business loss. In view of the above, we allow the claim of the assessee as business loss and the findings of the lower authorities on this issue are revised and this issue of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.2375/Ahd/2006. 10. Since we have already deleted the addition in the quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No.3050/Ahd/2004, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) will not survive. Accordingly, we delete the penalty and this issue of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 16/10/2009
-
2009 (10) TMI 922
... ...
... ... ..... in the market. It is not possible for the Courts to ignore these facts while considering the issue of hardship, more so when the economy is in recession. The Courts cannot close their eyes to the fact that any additional unjust demand or burden may result in effecting production and job losers. These aspects have to be borne in mind while considering the issue of hardship. 6. The petitioner have therefore made out a prima facie case as also the issue of hardship requires reconsideration. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the impugned order dated 7th August 2008 is liable to be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the Tribunal for rehearing the parties and passing appropriate order in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. During the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the respondents not to take steps to recover the amount which is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Tribunal.
-
2009 (10) TMI 921
... ...
... ... ..... if tax deducted in excess or paid in excess. There is also no merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in view of the circular, instruction issued by the Government of Karnataka, no deduction has been made at source in view of the principle laid down by the Ho’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh’s case (Supra), as circular cannot override the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. o p /o p 8.Accordingly, following the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bikram Singh’s case referred above, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and pass the following order o p /o p Appeal is allowed. Order passed by the income tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, Panaji in ITA No. 323/PNJ/2004 confirming the order passed by the commissioner of Income Tac ITA No. 200/BGM/03-04 is set aside and order passed by the Tax recovery Officer, Belgaum dated 18.08.2003 is restored. o p /o p
-
2009 (10) TMI 920
... ...
... ... ..... wer appellate authority has reversed this finding after taking into account the facts of the case and the provisions of the said Rule 2(2)(iv). Neither the grounds of appeal nor the arguments made by the learned SDR show us any evidence to alter the finding of the lower appellate authority. As such the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The cross objection filed by the respondent also stands disposed off. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (10) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... ceived by the assessee, from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer is found bogus then department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law but it cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the present assessee. This view is fortified by the decision from the Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Lovely Export Pvt. Ltd. (2008) (216 CTR 195) (SC). Our view is further fortified by the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jai Mata Foods (ITA No.719/Chd/2008). However, in the present appeal, the assessee has proved the identity of share subscribers, therefore, we have not found any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), consequently, the same is upheld. 6. In the result, these appeals of the revenue are having no merits, therefore, dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 8.10.2009.
........
|
