|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 638 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 844
... ...
... ... ..... ontained in section 2(22)(e) apply in such cases where the company pays to a related person an amount as advance or a loan as such and not in any other context. The law does not prohibit business transactions between related concerns, and, therefore, payments made in the ordinary course of business cannot be treated as loans and advances. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the judicial pronouncements considered above, especially in the light of decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Nagindas M Kapadia (supra), we hold that payments made by a company in the course of carrying on of its regular business through a mutual, open and current account to a related party do not come under the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act." 16. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Pronounced on 30.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 843
... ...
... ... ..... impugned order. It appears that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Sahara Airlines Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (110 Taxman 378). Further reliance was placed on the Board Circular No.261 dt.8.8.79 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank in 238 ITR 889. Looking to the aforesaid decisions, we find that it is a settled law that the date of presentation of the cheque should be treated as the date of payment of tax, inspite of the fact that some time was required for realization of the cheque". o p /o p 7. In the light of the above finding of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal, we hold that the date of presentation of the instrument is to be reckoned while calculating interest u/s 234C of the Act. o p /o p 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p The order pronounced on Friday, the 25.6.2010 at Bangalore. o p /o p
-
2010 (6) TMI 842
... ...
... ... ..... 30 days from the date of communication of the order in terms of proviso to Section 11AC. Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs. Swati Chemicals & others as reported in 2009 (94) RLT 684 (CESTAT), has held that where no such option is given by the lower authority, such option can be extended by the higher appellate forum. As such, he prays that the appellant be given an option to pay 25 of the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. 2. Learned SDR does not object the above plea of the appellant. In view of the law declared by the Tribunal in the case of Swati Chemicals, while confirming the demand of duty, I uphold the imposition of penalty to the extent of 100 . Also, I extend the option to the appellant to deposit 25 of the penalty amount within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, in which case the penalty shall stand reduced to 25 of the amount. 3. The appeal is disposed off in above terms. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 841
... ...
... ... ..... undertake de novo adjudication of the case in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. It goes without saying that natural justice cannot be secured without giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being personally heard as well as an effective opportunity of replying to the show-cause notice. Two of these appellants have to be given copies of the requested documents, whereafter they should be allowed reasonable time for replying to the show-cause notice. If any other appellant is yet to reply to the show-cause notice, they also should be given such opportunity. Thereafter, it is incumbent on the Commissioner to give all the parties a reasonable opportunity of being personally heard, after ensuring that the hearing notices have been served on them sufficiently in advance. We trust these mandatory requirements of the rule of natural justice would be scrupulously followed by the learned Commissioner. 15. All the appeals stand disposed of by way of remand.
-
2010 (6) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... determination of withholding tax liability. This implies that the assessee in that case had not deducted the tax under section 195(1). The controversy was whether it was open to the CIT(A) to entertain an appeal under section 248 against a Chartered Accountant’s certificate holding that tax at a particular rate is required to be deducted by an assessee from a remittance to a non-resident where the assessee is of the view that no such tax was required to be deducted by him. The question before the Tribunal was thus completely different in the cited order. 6. In the view we have taken it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the merits of the assessee’s claim which have not been dealt with by the CIT(A). We therefore set aside his order and restore the appeal to his file for disposal on merits in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30th June 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 839
... ...
... ... ..... ise has not been undertaken by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the matter is remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration of the above mentioned aspect only and that too only to the extent of the write-off.” 6.1. Once the Hon'ble Court has held that it is enough if the bad debt is written-off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee, then it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, had become irrecoverable. 6.2. We are governed by the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, all the arguments as raised from the side of the Revenue have thus, rendered futile. In the result, view taken by the Assessing Officer is hereby reversed, and the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is upheld, resultantly it was directed to allow the claim. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30/ 06 /2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 838
... ...
... ... ..... (INDIA) LTD. V/s. INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS reported in 2003 ITR 19, the petition is not required to be entertained, more particularly, as the impugned notice has been issued within a period of 4 (four) years from the end of the relevant assessment year. 2. Hence, without entering into the discussion and the merits of the issue involved, the petition is rejected for the afore-stated reasons. 3. Petition is accordingly summarily rejected.
-
2010 (6) TMI 837
... ...
... ... ..... e of scrap. It has rightly been deleted by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and erroneously sustained in assessment year 2006-07. It is directed to be deleted in all the three years before us.” 7.1 The facts in the present case are quite identical. There is no finding that assessee has suppressed production by showing excessive wastage or excessive generation of scrap. Manufacturing, production & trading accounts have been duly accepted. Moreover, the above decision in assessee’s own case was rendered after duly considering that decision in the case of Krishna Kumar Aggarwal referred by the revenue authorities. Under the circumstances, adhering to the doctrine of staire decises, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition made in this regard. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/06/2010 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2010 (6) TMI 836
... ...
... ... ..... he addition is confirmed partly on the basis of estimates and not on any defects. It is a factual question, whether the assessee has made purchases from the bogus entity or not but it is not in dispute neither by the Assessing Officer nor by the CIT(A) that the sales effected by the assessee are bogus. In that eventuality, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is just on the basis of conjecture and surmises. We further find that just on the basis of estimate the penalty cannot be confirmed. We further gone into the penalty order and finding that there is no finding of facts as to how the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing the income. Accordingly, we delete the levy of penalty. This appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No.1458/Ahd/2008 is partly allowed and in ITA No.1019/Ahd/2010 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 18/06/2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 835
... ...
... ... ..... al for the AY 2003-04 and relying upon decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arihant Tiles & Marbles P Ltd.(supra), especially when facts in the year under consideration are similar to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the AY 2003-04, we have no hesitation in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. However, as observed by the ITAT in their directions for AY 2003-04, the AO shall verify the calculation of deduction u/s 80IB and allow the same in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. With these directions, ground nos. 2 to 4 are disposed of. 6. Ground nos. 1 & 6 in the appeal being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground no. 5, all these grounds are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 11-06-2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 834
... ...
... ... ..... carried on by the assessee. Two projects which were undertaken were for the expansion of same business, namely, one for taking over Savitri Cinema for conversion into multiplex and operation and management therefore and other for conversion of Priya Cinema into four-screen multiplex. Payments were made to the consultants for preparing feasibility report in respect of both the projects. However, ultimately projects were not found to be financially and technically viable and were shelved. Thus, we find that no new asset came into existence, which was the basis adopted by the AO for treating the expenditure as capital expenditure but wrongly.” Respectfully following the decision of the Hon.Delhi High Court in the case of Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd (supra), we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The order of the CIT(A) is upheld qua this issue. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 25.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 833
... ...
... ... ..... during the course of reassessment only along with the income which has escaped assessment for which reason to believe was formed and recorded under section 148(2) of the Act. Our above view finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj). We therefore, set aside the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and quash the reassessment framed by the Learned Assessing Officer on 29.12.2006 in all the years under considerations. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed in all the years under consideration. . 13. In view of our above decision in respect of ground nos.1 & 2 of the appeal of the assessee, other grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in its appeals become infructuous, academic in nature requiring no adjudication by us. Accordingly, all are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 11th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 832
... ...
... ... ..... nt year 2003-2004 was fully justified, we uphold the same and reject the ground nos.1 and 2 of the assessee’s appeal. 8. Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal reads as under “Ld.AO has erred in law and on facts to disallow 20 of general expenses, maintenance exps., salary expenses and traveling expenses amounting to ₹ 29,619/- ignoring the fact that these expenses are being incidental to the nature f business activity, should not be disallowed on ad hoc basis. Ld.CIT(A) Valsad has also erred in sustaining the said addition.” 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, in our opinion, the disallowance of 20 out of various expenses is excessive. We direct that the same be reduced to 10 . 10. In the result, ITA No.3613 and 3614/Ahd/2007 are allowed and ITA No.3615/Ahd/2007 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 18th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 831
... ...
... ... ..... ossible, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted. As per the above discussion, we find that on this issue, there are two views. One view is against the assessee i.e. of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court whereas other view is in favour of the assessee and this view is taken by three different High Courts i.e. Madras, Punjab &Haryana & Allahabad High Court and under these circumstances, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex court rendered in the case of Vegetable Products (supra), we adopt the view which is in favour of the assessee and hence by respectfully following three judgments of various High Courts cited by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. In view of this, other contentions raised by the Ld. A.R. of the assessee regarding reasonable cause etc. do not call for any adjudication. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 18th June 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 830
... ...
... ... ..... y considered and decided by the Tribunal. In view of the rival but common submissions and respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned orders. 5. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances in other cases are mutatis mutandis similar to those discussed above. Following the view taken hereinabove, we uphold the impugned order for all the years.” 8. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any distinguishable features brought before us by the Revenue, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. Since grounds in the remaining appeals are identical to the grounds in I.T.A. No. 3711/Mum/06, therefore, following the same ratio, the grounds raised by the Revenue in the remaining appeals are dismissed. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself, i.e., on 10.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 829
... ...
... ... ..... he subsidiary company. This only means that the respondent has instead of accounting purchase on 1st April, 2002, accounted the stock as opening stock. It is seen that protective assessment is made on the same stock in the hands of the subsidiary company. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that assessee is contesting in appeal the protective assessment of the subsidiary company before the Tribunal and they have raised a ground pertaining to the closing stock of that year. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that ground pertaining to the opening stock addition of the subsidiary company will not be contested by the assessee in that case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal on specific condition that the assessee will not press the addition pertaining to the opening stock in the hands of the subsidiary company namely, M/s.Karinos Weave Private Ltd. However, assessee in that case will be free to challenge the ground pertaining to gross profit addition.
-
2010 (6) TMI 828
... ...
... ... ..... omments on this issue. We find that it is not the case of the revenue that cash in hand was utilised by the assessee for non business purposes or cash in hand was kept for any purpose other than the business consideration by the assessee. In our considered opinion, how much cash should be maintained by a businessman is the prerogative of the businessman and the Learned Assessing Officer cannot lay down any guidelines in this regard. A businessman may make an imprudent decision but that by itself does not entitle the Assessing Authority to not to allow deduction for expenses incurred out of commercial expediency. Thus, we find that the addition of ₹ 33,000/- was made on a wrong footing and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was fully justified in deleting the same. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 18th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... me, deduction in respect of capital expenditure cannot be read into the said section. In fact in the said decision while answering question No. 4. The Calcutta High Court was concerned with the question as to whether the advances made for the project expenditure in petro-chemical project was for a business purpose or not and while so answering held that the deletion in disallowance was not correct. 7. We find that since Section 37 does not incorporate such a condition and it expressly excludes all expenditure in the nature of capital expenditure, the contention raised by the learned for the respondent cannot be accepted and hence, the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal have to be answered in favour of the appellant. Accordingly the order of the tribunal is set aside by allowing this appeal and answering the questions of law in favour of the revenue. Consequently, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer confirmed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... ncurred cost by way of interest on caution depreciation. Therefore, three is no justification whatsoever for computing the value of the same at ₹ 10/- in respect of each student. If one excludes ₹ 10/-, the value of perquisite in respect of Class V to X is worked out upto to ₹ 1,000/- P.M. Following the aforesaid decision dated 13.10.2006 of ITAT, ‘D’ Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA Nos. 1833 to 1835/AHD/2006 alongwith CO Nos. 234 to 236/AHD/2006 in the case of ITO -vs.- Institute of Rural Management, Anand for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05, we are of the view that there is no perquisite value in respect of Class KG-I to X. For Class XI & XII, the perquisite value is only ₹ 100/- P.M. per student. On this basis, Assessing Officer is directed to re-work out the short deduction of tax for all the four assessment years. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 25.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 825
... ...
... ... ..... l income assessed would be taken at ₹ 3,28,357/. There from the concealed income of ₹ 61,03,790/- is to be reduced. After reduction what is worked out is a loss of ₹ 57,75,433/-. The tax payable thereof would come to Rs. Nil and, therefore, the tax for the purpose of second limbs would be Rs. Nil. The tax for the purpose of first limbs would be the tax on ₹ 3,28,357/-. Therefore, the difference between the two would also be the tax on ₹ 3,28,357/-. o p /o p 11. The learned Counsel for the assessee is, therefore, justified in contending that penalty shall have to be calculated at the revised total income of ₹ 3,28,357/-. We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below to that extent and direct the AO to levy minimum penalty on the tax to be calculated on total income assessed by the AO at ₹ 3,28,357/-. o p /o p 12. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced on 11-06-2010 o p /o p
........
|
