|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 638 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 804 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.” 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/-. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2010 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2010 (6) TMI 803 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r which the assessees’ claim for exemption under the notification, is pending finalisation, we consider it appropriate to fix a time frame for the learned Tribunal with a request to it to adhere thereto in disposing of their appeals on merits. On an estimate of all aspects of the matter, we ordain a period of 60 days herefrom for completion and hearing of the appeal and disposal thereof by the learned Tribunal. The substantial questions of law framed by this Court therefore stand answered accordingly. 15. At this juncture Mr. Bhattacharyya prays for an interim protection to restrain the Revenue from taking coercive action/steps against the respondent-assessees pending the disposal of their appeals by the learned Tribunal. As we have remitted the issues to the Tribunal for decision on merits, it would be open for it to consider and pass appropriate orders if a request is made to this effect before it. 16. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 802 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ndustries - 2006 (09) LCX0013 is applicable. In any case, in this case it cannot be said that mens-rea was not present. In his statement the appellant had clearly stated that he was aware that raw silk was being disposed of illegally and not only he opened a bank account in the name of fictitious firm and he has also stated that he received remuneration of ₹ 15,000/- to ₹ 20,000/- per month. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeals. Further, taking note of the fact that the period in which the transactions took place is about six months and during the period as admitted by the appellant he had received remuneration of ₹ 1.2 lakhs and taking note of the fact that he is old and unemployed etc. we consider it appropriate that some reduction in penalty is warranted. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty to ₹ 50,000/- in case of Appeal No. 1393/02 and ₹ 10,000/- in case of Appeal No. 1394/02. (Pronounced in open Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 801 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt in arbitration proceeding between the respondent and awarder, we are not able to uphold the Tribunal’s order allowing the claim based on a provision in the contract providing for payment after receipt from the awarder. We therefore, allow the appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal but remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the respondent have deducted TDS and the sub-contractors have offered the amount and paid tax. If this has happened, that is, recovery of TDS and assessments of the same amounts in the hands of the sub-contractors, then we do not think department can apply another yard stick in the case of the respondent as above. The Assessing Officer should verify the position as to whether the respondent has collected TDS on the amounts and the very same amount is in the hands of contractors and if so to allow the deductions or otherwise to disallow the claim. The appeal is allowed to the above extent and in the way stated above.
-
2010 (6) TMI 800 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that regarding the noting of the calculation on page 222 & 252 containing page 17 of the document A-10, the notings are regarding petty amounts of ₹ 400/-, Rs..1,000/-, ₹ 3,000/-. It is also noticed by the Ld. CIT(A) that it is absolutely incomprehensible that how the A.O. relying on these documents come to the conclusion about the monthly installments and number of persons involved and number of months to determine undisclosed commission income 3 amounting to ₹ 20.41 lacs. The Ld. D.R. could not point out any specific mistake in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and considering the facts & circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue also. The ground No.11 of the revenue’s appeal is also rejected. 64. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose whereas the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 65. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 02.06 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 799 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... given. Wherever payment is made by cash, the name of the person concerned to whom the payment has been made in cash towards various expenses are mentioned. The AO has not made any sort of enquiry or cross verification from the respective person to ascertain the genuineness of the expenses. When the assessee did not produce supporting vouchers but details of payment were duly furnished, the AO should have examined and verified the expenses by making necessary enquiry, and if on enquiry, the expenses were found to be not genuine, the AO could have proceeded to disallow the expenses to certain percentage but that exercise has not been done by the AO despite the various details of expenses were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, in this background, the ad hoc disallowance of 1/3rd of all the expenses is not called for. We, therefore, delete the same. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. This decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 25th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t Sushila Suresh Malge recorded on 13 and 14th July 1996 u/s 132(4) of the Act, if the A.O is intending to rely on the said statements for determining undisclosed/conceal income of the assessees. 11 As we have already observed that the conduct of the A.O is against the well settled norms of judicial discipline for not furnishing the statements dated 13 & 14th July 1996 to the assessees recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and thereby consciously refusing to comply to specific directions of the Tribunal; we, therefore, levy cost of ₹ 5000/- upon the A.O and the A.O should pay the same to the assessee within one month from the date of receipt of this order. We further direct that the amount of cost should be recovered from the concerned A.O. who has passed the Assessment Order dt 26/12/2008 which is subject matter of these appeals. 12. In the result, the appeals filed by both the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 18th, day of June 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 797 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he valuation of investment. Contrary to this, AO except, raising a suspicion has not bring any evidence on record that these shares were not held in the investment portfolio. We could appreciate the apprehension of the AO to some extent if after the sale of 209500 shares during the present accounting year the number of shares held in the investment portfolio was below the share in the stock in trade in that situation. AO may raise a suspicion that in the garb of sale of shares from investment assessee appears to have hold stock in trade also. But even after sale there is still 3551841 shares available with the assessee in the investment portfolio. Ld. First Appellate Authority has considered all these aspects in detail thereafter upheld the version of assessee that it has accrued only capital gain on sale of shares held as investment. We do not find any error in the order of Ld. CIT(A). This appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.6.2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 796 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... eceding the financial year in which such payment is credited or paid to the account of the contractor. In the immediately preceding Assessment Year 2004-05, the assessee was not liable to get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore, he was not required to deduct TDS from the payments made to the contractor during the year under consideration. Therefore, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was fully justified in holding that the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS from the transport payments made by it and deleting the disallowance of ₹ 88,35,698/- paid as transport expenses. We therefore, do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 795 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... es shall include supply of design and drawings. o p /o p Hence on the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that design and drawing charges are in the nature of fee for technical services. However, it may be pertinent to note that the Tribunal in that case, accepted the alternative contention of the assessee that the said fee cannot be assessed in India, unless it is shown that some part of work has emanated from Indian territories. o p /o p 4.4 Hence on a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that the amount received by the assessee for supply of design and engineering drawings is in the nature of plant and since the preparation and delivery has taken place outside Indian territories, the same can not be subjected to tax in India. Accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition on this issue. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open Court on 22nd June, 2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (6) TMI 794 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute.” 9. Under the circumstances, following the above precedents, we hold that assessee’s claim was not ex-facie bogus and hence penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) is not attracted merely because the revenue has not accepted the claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the levy of penalty. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/06/2010 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2010 (6) TMI 793 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hich are cited by the assessee before ld CIT(A) in its written submission filed by it before Ld CIT(A) and which are available on pages 44 to 51 of the paper book, we find that these judgments are also of no help to the assessee in the light of this fact that no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the assessee for its failure and moreover the assessee has not disclosed all the facts relating to and material to the computation of the total income and therefore explanation-1 to section 271(1) is applicable and it has to be deemed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed and therefore penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) is justified. 10. In view of above discussion, we reverse the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.6.2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 792 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ntral Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In show-cause notice there is no proposal to penalize the respondent under Section 11AC of the Act and in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra) this Tribunal has held that when there is a proposal under Rule 25 of the Rule no penalty can be levied under Section 11AC. As in the case of Schrader Duncan Ltd. (supra) the penal provision invoked in the show-cause notice where Rule 25 of the Rule read with Section 11 of the Act the original authority invoked Section 11AC and the same was confirmed by the appellate authority. The facts of this case for invoking penal provision are identical to the case cited by the learned Advocate. Following the ratio of the case cited by the learned Advocate, I am also of the view that no penalties under Section 11AC be imposed on the respondent in this case also. Accordingly, impugned order is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 791 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... e case in accepting the assessee's claim of deduction in respect of self-supervision 10 per cent instead of 7.5 per cent as allowed by the DVO which is as per CPWD norms. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case by deducting the investment shown, as per books by the assessee upto 31st March, 2007 amounting to ₹ 56,93,677 from estimated cost of investment by the DVO, as the DVO in his report clearly mentioned that his report is regarding investment upto June, 2006 and investment declared by the assessee upto June, 2006 was ₹ 41,84,472.'' 13. Since we have deleted the additions of ₹ 2,46,515 and ₹ 2,97,704 in ITA No, 192/Luck/2010 and ITA No. 193/Luck/2010, therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue have become infructuous and accordingly, we dismiss the same. 14. In the result, ITA No. 192/Luck/2010 and ITA No. 193/Luck/2010 are allowed partly, while ITA No. 245/Luck/2010 and ITA No. 246/Luck/2010 are dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 790 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... easons for reopening the assessment then it is not necessary for the Tribunal to enter into the controversy as to whether the non communication of the reason is fatal to the validity of reassessment proceeding. Considering this order of the ITAT and the deletion on addition of merit we are of the opinion that it will be a futile exercise even if we set aside this issue to the file of AO for read judicating the application of assessee against the reopening of assessment. After perusal of the record we are satisfied that there were sufficient information for confirming a prima facie opinion in the present case that income has escaped assessment. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in invalidating of the reopening of assessment. Therefore we allow this ground of appeal and reverse the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. o p /o p 15. In the result ITA No.1197/Del/2007 is dismissed and ITA No. 3806/Del/07 is partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 25.6.2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (6) TMI 789 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the ld. CIT(A)on this account and accordingly the grounds taken by the revenue are rejected. C.O.No.226/Mum/2009 (By Assessee) (A.Y.2005-06) 7. All the grounds taken by the assessee in its C.O. are against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the activity of the assessee in holding exhibitions as a business activity. 8. At the time of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly submits that in view of consistent view of the Tribunal on this issue which is against the assessee, the grounds taken by the assessee become infructuous and accordingly the same may be rejected which was not objected to by the ld. DR. 9. This being so and keeping in view the finding recorded in revenue’s appeal, in para 6 of this order and the consistent view of the Tribunal we reject the grounds taken by the assessee being infructuous. 10. In the result, the revenue’s appeal and assessee's cross objection stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.6.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 788 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e by the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case in ITA No.361/Hyd/03 for the assessment year 1998-99. Decision of the Calcutta High court in the case of CIT vs. A.S.Wardekar reported in 283 ITR 432 have also decided the similar issue observing that amount received for agreeing not to engage in competitive business is a capital receipt. Even the insertion of sub-section (va) to section 28 of Income-tax Act by the Finance Act, 2002 is effective from 1-4-2003 which brings non compete fees within the purview of section 28 to make it taxable in the hands of the recipient of such income. Hence the same is not applicable in the assessee's case as the assessment year under consideration is 2002-03. In view of the above, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above. Order was pronounced in the Court on 25-6-2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 787 - ITAT JABALPUR
Addition u/s 68 - Unexplained share application money - search and seizure operation - creditworthiness and genuineness of the shareholders - Third Member Order - difference of Opinion between learned Members - Whether, the learned Vice President is correct in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 5,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis on account of unexplained share application money from one company, or the issue is to be restored to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as opined by the ld Accountant Member?
learned Vice President - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that there is no material to disturb the order of the first appellate authority. It is true that some of the evidences were not before the Assessing Officer. That alone is not sufficient to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Assessee made request to admit additional evidence and it was accepted and remand report was called for. The registration of the Companies is evidenced by the Registrar’s certificate issued by the Registrar of Companies. The share application is also reflected in their returns. The allotment of share is also reflected from the share allotment done by the assessee.
From the Schedule 3, i.e., investment in shares by this companies, which appears that they had their holding, which they had applied for shares from among other companies, which is reflected and was before the competent authorities, which was produced along with the return and this fact is not denied. All these indicate the existence of companies. Registration of the companies cannot be denied in the light of the above facts, merely because in case of certain companies when the enquiry conducted, the details were not forthcoming ipso facto coming to the conclusion that the application and allotment of shares is false.
Thus, we are of the view that there is no material before us to disturb the order of the learned first appellate authority.
The appeal by the revenue on this ground fails.
Deletion of the addition on substantive basis on account of explanation of share application money from one company - Assessee explained that this was also a part of share application money. In the absence of any clinching evidence to the contrary there is no reason to interfere with the order of learned first appellate authority. Hence, appeal by the revenue on both grounds fails and it is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed.
ld. Accountant Member, wrote the dissent, opined that the matter needs to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Third Member Order - I have carefully examined the above documents, which are available in assessee’s Paper Book filed before the Tribunal. In my opinion, the assessee has discharged the onus which lay upon him u/s 68 of the Act. It is observed that the ld. CIT(A) has also examined the documentary evidences referred to above furnished by the assessee before him and after examining the same, the ld. CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the shareholding has to be accepted as genuine.
The ld. CIT(A) and the ld. V.P. have examined the question of identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of each of the shareholders. Even the documentary evidence referred to above shows that the assessee has offered an explanation about the nature and source of the sum found credited in its books and the explanation is satisfactory. The assessee has not only established the identity of each of the shareholders but has also proved that each of them are income-tax assessees and had disclosed the share application money in their accounts which were duly reflected in their income-tax returns as well as in their balance sheets. Thus, no addition is called for.
Thus, I agree with the order of the ld. V.P. in confirming the deletion of addition of ₹ 20 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis and also in confirming the deletion of addition of ₹ 5 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on substantive basis on account of unexplained share application money.
The matter will now go to the Division Bench to pass order as per majority view.
-
2010 (6) TMI 786 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... which was first converted into scrap, then to reprocessed granules and finally used for the manufacture of fresh BOPP films cleared on payment of duty. Accordingly, duty demand of ₹ 72,244/- has been confirmed and a penalty of identical amount has been imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Learned advocate Shri J.C. Patel on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue is no more res-integra and stand settled in their own case, made out by Revenue for the earlier period. He refers to the Tribunal’s decision in his own case, being Order No.A/72/WZB/AHD/ 2010, dt.01.01.10. Vide said order, the Tribunal allowed the appellant s appeal on the same ground. 3. Learned SDR accepted the above factual position. 4. In view of the above, by following the order of the Tribunal No. No.A/72/WZB/AHD/2010, dt.01.01.10, we set aside the present impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 785 - ITAT JABALPUR
... ...
... ... ..... a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in cash which immediately was transferred as gift to the assessee. (vii) The donors belong to a very low financial strata. In fact, they are just hand to mouth, rather are struggling to manage their livelihood. It is, thus, unbelievable that such a person can ever dream of making a gift. (viii) There is no material on record to show as to why the donors have showered gifts of enormous amounts on the assessee, particularly in absence of any relationship between donors and the assessee and there was no occasion for gifts. (ix) The genuineness of gifts cannot be accepted because donors have allegedly given the gifts to the assessee, who is a person of means. 30. In view of the above discussion, I agree with the order of the Ld. A.M. in confirming the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. Therefore, the question referred is answered in the affirmative. 31. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for deciding the appeal in conformity with the majority opinion.
............
|
