|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 731 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 970
... ...
... ... ..... r-in-Appeal No. P-I/245-246/06 dated 15.6.2006. She followed the precedent and held in favour of the assessee. In the present appeal, the department submits that they have not accepted the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal dated 15.6.2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing learned SDR, I learnt that the appeal filed by the department against the above order dated 15.6.2006 was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal vide Order No A/492-495/08/SMB/C-II dated 5.6.08 in appeal Nos E/3079 and 3080/06 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I vs Premium Energy Transmission Ltd). Ld SDR has furnished a copy of the Tribunal’s order, which elaborately considered the issue and concluded that the Revenue’s appeals were devoid of merits. The Tribunal’s order dated 5.6.08 has since attained finality. In this scenario, the present appeal of the Revenue is only to be dismissed. 2. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated in Court.)
-
2009 (11) TMI 969
... ...
... ... ..... t generation and disposal of scrap was integral part of manufacturing activities undertaken by the assessee, therefore same constituted profit derived from sale of industrial undertaking. The scrap so generated was out of manufacturing process only, the income derived from sale of such scrap cannot be said to be income in the nature of incentives or any duty drawback etc. received from outside agency. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India, which disentitles the assessee from claim of deduction u/s 10B with regard to incentives received in the form of DEPB/duty drawback is not applicable in respect of income received out of generation and sale of scrap during manufacturing process undertaken by the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of income derived from generation of scrap. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 5th November, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... nancy rights of the premises and the same was revalued and a revaluation reserve account was created, which was then credited to the partner’s account. It was held that no capital gains arose to the firm u/s.45(4) on the footing, inter alia, that there was no physical distribution of a capital asset (tenancy right). On similar facts, it was held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ITO v Smt. Paru D. Dave (2008) 110 ITD 410 that crediting the partners’ accounts with the revaluation reserve, without actual distribution of the assets, does not give rise to capital gains u/s.45(4). 6. Respectfully following the above orders of the Tribunal and having regard to the facts of the present case where there was no distribution of any capital asset in specie to the partners, we uphold the decision of the CIT(A) that section 45(4) is not attracted and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the open court 20th November, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... nts produced by the Department, the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer and that there is not infirmity in the order. Therefore he requests the court to dismiss the appeal. 5. We have perused the entire order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the case of the parties only in paragraph 4 of its order. After going through paragraph 4 we are of the opinion that the learned counsel for the revenue is justified in making a statement in contending that the Tribunal has reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer without considering each and every document produced by the Department. Therefore we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is without application of mind. Therefore without answering the substantial questions of law formulated, we pass the following order. Order The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... e of the co-noticees who had filed an appeal before her not liable to penalty under Rule 209A on the ground it had not dealt with excisable goods which it had reason to believe were liable for confiscation. The above matter had arisen before the Commissioner (Appeals) in a second round when the appeals filed by others including DTPL had been pending before the Tribunal. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given detailed findings to substantiate her decision that charge of clandestine clearance against DTPL was not sustainable. This decision has been accepted by the department. In view of this position, the impugned order could not have validly held a different view on the transactions engaged by DTPL. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned order confirming demand of duty and penalty on DTPL, and other is not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... 006, as such he took us to the said order and made his submissions. 4. Having heard Mr. Gupta, assuming he is right, even then the appeal against the order dated 30th October, 2006 would be barred by limitation for want of challenge within time. No prayer for amendment much less for condonation of delay is to be found. Hence, the submission made is misplaced. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the order dated 31st October, 2006, no case can be said to have been made out by the appellant to entertain this appeal against the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law, with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee but all these developments which had taken place after report has been given by chartered accountant dt. 28th Oct., 2003, i.e., extension of time upto 31st Dec., 2003 and further extension of time upto 31st March, 2004 in respect of the amount to be brought in India and the fact that amount was not received till extension was granted and exemption was in respect of its total export sale, the said facet of the matter has not at all been dealt with. 8. Tribunal ought to have adverted to, on the version of Revenue authority also instead of proceeding to place reliance on the version of the assessee alone. Decision-making process is vitiated. 9. Consequently, order dt. 12th Sept., 2008 passed by Tribunal is hereby set aside. Matter is remitted back to Tribunal to decide afresh in accordance with law preferably within next two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. With the above observations and direction present IT appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... s of this case, special leave petition is dismissed. Question of law kept open.
-
2009 (11) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... ccount should be maintained. 4. Now, coming to the activities relating to donations made to widows, scholarships granted, Jayanti celebration etc. these are expenditure incurred for the objects of the trust. The assessee was granted registration on identical facts in earlier years. Therefore, we do not find nay reason why the assessee should be denied the benefit of section 80G. It is not the case of the Revenue that assessee was found to have violated the provisions of sections 13 or 11. At the time of grant of registration, what is to be seen is whether the objects are charitable or not. Since, the assessee has been granted on identical facts, the registration in earlier years, we do not find any reason as to why the benefit of registration should be disallowed to the assessee. We accordingly set aside the order of CIT and direct him to grant registration u/s 80G. 5. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. Order pronounced in open court on 20.11.2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 961
... ...
... ... ..... order of non granting of permission is not a speaking order and which would be better if the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner to pass a speaking order. 3. Heard. 4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, I find that the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (E) Nhava Sheva, to pass an appropriate order on the application for grant of factory stuffing permission for stuffing of export cargo after hearing the appellant within two weeks of the communication of this order. 5. With these directions the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (E) Nhava Sheva. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 960
Whether the partial compounding applied for by the assessee and approved by the assessing officer is permissible under the provisions of Section 7(1)(a) of the Act? - Held that: - the compounding scheme for payment of tax opted by the assessee and accepted by the officer, does not achieve finality, because it is subject to supervisory jurisdiction by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, if the scheme approved by the officer is in violation of the charging provision, then the Deputy Commissioner has power under Section 35 to correct the same which extends to even correction of final assessment wherein tax is finally determined.
No contract between assessee and assessing officer is conceived under the Act and no order of the officer prejudicial to the Revenue is immune from scrutiny by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 35 of the Act.
The assessee will have liability to pay interest partly because of the mistake committed by the officer in approving the compounding applied for by the assessee in violation of the charging provision - the assessing officer is directed to limit levy of interest under Section 23(3A) or Section 23(3) at compensatory rate of 12% per annum, for the entire period of delay.
-
2009 (11) TMI 959
... ...
... ... ..... rospective effect from 1.6.1994 enabling the Additional Director of Income-Tax to issue authorizations under Section 132(1) of the Act. This ground is, thus, no longer valid which position was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent.. In view of this legislative amendment retrospectively with effect from 1.6.1994, this question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee holding that the warrants signed by the Additional Director of Income-Tax would not be invalid as he had the necessary authority in view of the amended provisions of Section 132 of the Act. Consequential Order - 23. The appeal of the Revenue in the case of M/s. Independent Courier (ITA No.337/2009) is dismissed on the ground that search warrants in this case were vague for want of details in respect of the premises to be searched. Other appeals preferred by the Revenue are allowed and the matter in those cases is referred back to the Tribunal for decision on merits. 24. No costs.
-
2009 (11) TMI 958
... ...
... ... ..... n 80HHC and allow deduction under Section 80IA only on the balance of profits left after the deduction under section 80HHC. This controversy has now been settled by the order of a Special Bench of five Members sitting at Delhi in the case of ACIT Vs. Hindustan Mint and Agro Products (P) Ltd., (2009) 119 ITD 107. It has been held in this order that the profits of the unit eligible for deduction under section 80IA have to be first reduced by the deduction, if any, allowable under Section 80HHC. The Special Bench has therefore agreed with the view taken by the AO in the present case. Accordingly, respectfully following the Special Bench decision, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this point and restore that of the AO. The ground of the department is allowed. 24. Ground no.3 is general and requires no decision. 25. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. To sum up, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court 20th November, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 957
... ...
... ... ..... ase vide ITA No.427/Bang/2009 dated 25/09/2009. A copy of Tribunal's order is placed on record. The learned DR fairly conceded the issue is covered by above said Tribunal order in favour of assessee. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra, wherein it was held as follows "In view of the above, the corresponding effect of the reduction of the expenses incurred in foreign currency from Export Turnover be given by reducing it from the Total Turnover as well, for uniformity between the two components while computing the deduction u/s 10A of the Act." Hence, following the co-ordinate bench decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case cited supra, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 13th Nov, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee was actively involved in the purchase and sale of the shares and there cannot be other motive than to earn the profit in the shortest possible period. Moreover, in the some of the cases the assessee has carried out the speculative transactions and the holding period for good number of transactions, is only for few days that is less than 10 days. Thus, from the facts it is clear that the assessee had no intention to hold the shares for longer period for appreciation of the investment and earning the income of dividend income but the motive of the assessee is quite apparent from the frequency and the volume of the transactions carried out by the assessee. Accordingly, the case relied upon by the assessee are not relevant and applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the AO. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. . Order pronounced in the open court on 18th Feb, 2011
-
2009 (11) TMI 955
... ...
... ... ..... that no material was brought on record before us, to controvert the above finding of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). We therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in respect of this issue. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9 The ground no.3 of the appeal reads as under - “3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and the submissions made and filed at the time of hearing of the appeal and also not following the order of the earlier years. IT is therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) be quashed and set aside to the above extent.” 10. This ground of appeal is general in nature and hence requires no separate adjudication by us. 11 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced at the close of the hearing in the presence of the parties in the Court on 24/11/2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 954
... ...
... ... ..... rt, the claim of the assessee can be said to be based on one possible view and though the claim was not accepted in the quantum proceedings in view of difference of opinion, making of such claim bona fide on the basis of possible view could not be treated as concealment of its income by the assessee or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income so as to attract penal provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kartar Singh (2008) 14 DTR (P&H) 68. There is no material brought on record by the Department to show that any of the particulars submitted by the assessee were wrong. Full particulars are disclosed. Therefore, keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where levy of penalty can be held to be justified. Accordingly, penalty is deleted and the appeal is allowed. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 953
... ...
... ... ..... 01-02. 26. The ld. DR narrated the facts and placed reliance on the order of the AO. The ld. counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, placed strong reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 27. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides, material on record and the orders of the authorities below. 28. It is noted that, in fact, this income was to be included in assessment year 1998-99. However, the same was inadvertently not so included, but the assessee has offered the same as its income in assessment year 2001-02. Thus, there is no basis for including this sum as income of the year under consideration and that too without excluding it from the total income of the year in which it has been offered. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law. Hence, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue’s appeal also. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2009.
-
2009 (11) TMI 952
... ...
... ... ..... ,Adv. O R D E R Learned Attorney General submits that nothing survives in this Special Leave Petition. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (11) TMI 951
... ...
... ... ..... nder - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,79,402/- for claim excess depreciation on tube well and electric installation.” 27. As regards the ground no.3, we find that the assessee claimed depreciation on tube well and electrical installation 25 , which was reduced by the Assessing Officer to 5 to 15 respectively. 28. The Ld. CIT(A) has agreed with the contention of the assessee that depreciation on such assets had been claimed as per the rates prescribed in the schedule. These findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have remained un-controverted before us by the Revenue. Hence, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 30. To sum up, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2009.
........
|
