|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 638 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 824
... ...
... ... ..... s that the mater should be restored back to the file of the learned AO with a direction that he shall refer this matter of valuation in the light of sub-section (2) of s.50C to the DVO for determining the consideration of this plot sold by the assessee under s.50C of the Act. The other connected grounds are also related to this main round. Therefore, the entire appeal is restored back to the file of the AO with the direction that he would do as directed above and also give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law.” 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. with the direction that the A.O. shall refer this matter for valuation to the D.V.O. for determining consideration of the asset sold by the assessee under section 50C of the Act. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.06.2010).
-
2010 (6) TMI 823
... ...
... ... ..... Indian origin' occurring in the regulations referred to above, it cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled to transfer the lands described in Ext.P2 to an Indian citizen. Further, the land sought to be transferred is not agricultural land or plantation property or farmhouse. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners cannot execute an instrument of sale in respect of the lands described in Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. However, it will be open to the registering authority to insist on the petitioners producing proof of their identity issued by the State of which they are citizens. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the third respondent to permit the petitioners to execute and register a sale deed in respect of the lands described in Ext.P2, in favour of a person of Indian origin/Indian citizen on the petitioners producing proof of their identity before him, subject to payment of proper stamp duty.
-
2010 (6) TMI 822
... ...
... ... ..... n fact, in the subsequent years, Assessing Officer has not invoked the provisions of section 194J of the Act in assessee's own case. It appears that the assessee agreed to deduct 2 tax under section 194C of the Act based upon an understanding reached by all the industrial undertakings in that locality and such understanding was accepted by the Revenue. It may be pointed out that in the subsequent years the Assessing Officer admitted that provisions of section 194J of the Act are not applicable in respect of payments, made by member industrial undertakings to VWEMCL, in the form of affluent treatment charges. On a conscpectus of the matter, we are of the view that the impugned payments are not hit by the provisions of section 194J of the Act and consequently disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is not in accordance with law. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-06-2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 821
... ...
... ... ..... e find that the short question arising in this case for consideration stands settled in favour of the respondent by an earlier decision of this Bench which has been accepted by the department vide order No. 1310-1311/WZB/2003 dated 19/09/2003 in appeal Nos. E/2159 & 2545/2002 (M/s. Skol Breweries Ltd. and another vs. CCE, Mumbai). In the said case, this Tribunal found the above commodity to be not marketable / excisable and accordingly, the demand of duty raised on appellant-breweries was set aside. We are also told that, in the assessee's own case for a subsequent period, the Commissioner of Central Excise as adjudicating authority dropped a similar demand of duty following the Tribunal's decision cited above. We are also told that the Commissioner's order has not been challenged. 3. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The so-called Cross-Objections also gets disposed of for the record. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 820
... ...
... ... ..... es, when the revenue wants to tax the amount of liability as income of the year under section 41(1) then the onus lies upon the revenue to bring some positive material on record to show that the assessee actually received some benefit in respect of the aforesaid amount during the year under consideration. We find that in the instant case, no material was brought on record by the Learned Assessing Officer to discharge the above onus which in the law was on it. In absence of any such material brought on record, in our considered view, the addition made under section 41(1) during the year under consideration was unsustainable and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the same. We therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 2,14,195/- made under section 41(1) and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 21. In result, the appeal filed by Assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 11th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 819
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the A.O., then the Department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. Hence, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment.” 1.5 Thus the Supreme Court has held that even if share application money received by the assessee company is from the bogus shareholder, the same cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee-company. The decision of the Supreme Court has to be followed throughout the territory of India. Thus, no addition can be made in the hands of the company even from bogus shareholders unless an amendment is made in the Income Tax Act. The addition of R.15,00,000/- therefore, has to be deleted and the appellant must succeed in view of Court decisions. Ground no.1 is allowed.” 6. We uphold these findings of the CIT(Appeals) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 818
... ...
... ... ..... dence. It is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to the specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In this case delay for filing the appeal late for only a few days was not condoned. In the case of Asstt. CIT V. Taggas Industries Development Ltd. (2002) 80 ITD 21 (Cal), Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Calcutta, did not condone the delay for filing the appeal late by 13 days because the delay was not due to sufficient cause. 6. Considering the above discussion and relying upon the above judgments, we hold that the Revenue has failed to explain that the delay in filing the Cross Objection was due to sufficient cause. We, therefore, do not intend to condone the delay in filling the Cross Objection. We accordingly, hold that the Cross Objection is time barred. Same is accordingly dismissed. 7. As a result, the Cross Objection of the Revenue is dismissed being time barred. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-06-2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... 865) ,(30 SOT 55) (Chennai Special Bench) where in it was held that for the purpose of applying the form under sub sec.4 of sec.10B, the freight, telegraph charges or insurance attributable to the delivery of articles or things or computer software outside India of the expenses if any incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical services outside India are to be excluded both from the export turnover and total turnover which are numerator and in the denominator respectively in the formula. 8. In view of the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that foreign travel expenses to be reduced both from export turnover as well as from total turnover and as such we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and the same is confirmed. Accordingly, this ground in assessee appeal as well as Revenue appeal is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court 11 .6.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 816
... ...
... ... ..... Central Excise duty payable, the education cess has to be levied once again. 3. Both sides agree that this issue is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sarla Performance Pvt. Ltdl. 2010-TIOL-408-CESTT Ahmedabad, wherein it was held that once the measure of Customs duty equivalent to Central Excise duty leviable on the like goods has been worked out, the question of levying education cess separately in respect of clearances by 100 EOU to DTA does not arise. Inasmuch as the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal cited above, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 4. The stay petition as also appeal gets disposed off in above manner. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... t would be moved for stay of operation of our order soon after it is reopening after summer vacation. Today, a representative of the company submits that the matter is yet to be taken up by the High Court and, therefore, a further period of 10 days should be given for report of compliance. It is submitted that the High Court matter is on board for the 14th of this month. In answer to a query from the Bench, the company's representative is not able to produce documentary evidence of the submission made by him, nor is his counsel present today to answer the query satisfactorily. 2. The appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 814
... ...
... ... ..... cted to refund to the petitioner the amount of ₹ 10 crores on one pretext or the other and thereby deprived the petitioner the legitimate use of their funds. The aforestated conduct of the respondent cannot be overlooked since by doing so the purpose of introducing Section 27A to the Customs Act, 1962 and issuance of circulars from time to time to enable the assessees to get their refunds on time and thereby discourage the respondent from delaying grant of refunds to the assessees would certainly be defeated. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order ORDER The respondent shall pay to the petitioner interest 6 p.a. on the sum of ₹ 10 crores from 9th October, 2003 to 12th October, 2006 on or before 15th August, 2010, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest 10 p.a. w.e.f. 16th August, 2010 till payment in full and final. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of the above order with costs quantified in the sum of ₹ 10,000/.
-
2010 (6) TMI 813
... ...
... ... ..... es verification on this aspect as to whether after excluding any proportionate area of project in the ratio of total area of the flats having built up area of more than 1000 sq. ft and the flats having area of less than 1000 sq. area, the remaining project fulfills the condition of minimum area of one acre. Accordingly, we remit the issue to the record of the AO for necessary verification and examination and thereafter pass the order as per law as discussed above. 12. As regards the commercial establishment /shops are concerned in the project when this issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal in the case of Harshad P Doshi V/s ACIT (supra), and the project was approved by the local authority as well as the clause (d) has been inserted w.e.f. 2005-06 then we do not find any error in the order of the CIT(A) qua this issue. The same is upheld. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open Court on 18.06.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... nd that the assessee has borrowed funds for investment in the shares but interest paid has not been claimed as deduction. This clearly establishes that the intention of the assessee was to make investment and not to deal as trader. One more fact was pointed out by Ld. counsel for assessee that even the STT has not been claimed in the computation of capital gains. We again further find that the number of transactions and number of scripts entered into by the assessee are not much enough and not repetitive. Accordingly, relying on the Tribunal’s decision in other assessees of group cases (supra), we dismiss these appeals of the Revenue. Now coming to assessee’s CO No.260-262/Ahd/2008. 6. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee has not pressed the CO and accordingly, same are dismissed as not pressed. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and that of assessee’s CO are dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced on this day of 24th June,2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... y the earlier order of the Tribunal has handled goods worth ₹ 80 crores without any irregularity having been pointed out by the Revenue. The appellants also undertake not to deal with the imports of individuals till the matter is finally decided. 4. I find that the Tribunal in case of Ajay Clearing Agency 2008 (228) ELT 297 (Tri-Mumbai) has held that punishment of 6 months in the case of order of suspension is said to be sufficient. Similarly, in the case of Setwin Shipping Agency 2010 (250) ELT 141 (Tri-Mumbai), it was observed that it is impossible for the CHA to verify the physical existence of the exporters and importers. In the present case, I find that the goods were found to be the same as declared by the importer and it may not be possible for CHA to find out as to whether the same were branded or not. In view of the above, I set aside the suspension order by the Commissioner and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (6) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... ertaken for some non business purposes. Observing as above, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleted the addition in question. 11. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of toothbrushes. We find that no material could be brought on record by the revenue to show that the visit to Pakistan was for some other purposes than the business of the assessee. Further, if the argument of the Learned Assessing Officer is accepted then the same will imply that when an assessee does not have any prior business in a country and his trip to that country also remains unsuccessful then such business trip will be treated as non business expenditure of the assessee. Obviously, such an interpretation cannot be accepted. We therefore, do not find any force in this ground of appeal of the revenue. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 11th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 809
... ...
... ... ..... the prescribed limit of ₹ 20,000/-, therefore, in our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has wrongly invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In our conscientious view, such disallowance was out of the scope and ambits of the provisions of section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, therefore, we hereby direct to delete the same. For both the years, this ground is hereby allowed. Ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2004-05 12. For Assessment Year 2004-05 the appellant has also raised ground No.3 in respect of telephone expenses disallowance and petrol expenses disallowance. At the time of hearing, this ground is not contested being trifle in nature by the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee, therefore, hereby dismissed being not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeals of the Assessee for Assessment Year 2003-04 is allowed and for Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 18/ 06 /2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 808
... ...
... ... ..... of depreciation and application of income in capital assets for the purpose of objects of the assessee trust/society. We further find that incurrence of such expenditure for the purposes of objects of the Trust/society is not in dispute. Hence, excess expenditure incurred for charitable purposes in the year under consideration is liable to be adjusted against the income of succeeding year while computing the taxable income of that succeeding year. This view is duly supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (supra) and other judicial decisions cited by the assessee. Accordingly, we accept ground no.2 of the assessee. Therefore, the issue raised in ground no.1 becomes of academic, hence, no need for any adjudication thereof. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed in terms indicated above. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 807
... ...
... ... ..... se brokers. We, therefore, delete the addition made amounting to ₹ 7,97,200/-, ₹ 19,34,830/- and ₹ 37,42,887/- u/s. 68 of the Act.” The Ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that evidence is not produced to show that transactions are genuine. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since the issue relating to genuineness of the share transaction with Calcutta Stock Exchange has been decided by the Tribunal in several judgements and we find that assessee has discharged the onus and there is no material to show that money received from the brokers is not satisfactorily explained. Respectfully following above judgements and particularly in the case of Vishal Sushilkumar (supra) we uphold the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A) and direct to tax the capital gain as declared by the assessee. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 04 / 06 /2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 806
... ...
... ... ..... ;ble Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Cement Ltd. 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals Ltd. 239 ITR 775. o p /o p 3.2 After hearing both the sides we find that the C.IT.(A) has not committed any error in following the decisions of the ITAT in assessee’s own case which themselves are based upon the binding precedent of the Apex Court, as cited supra. We decline to interfere.” o p /o p 4. Ld. Departmental Representative agreed with the proposition that the issues are covered by the ITAT order in favour of the assessee. However, he submitted that department is in appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this regard. o p /o p 5. Following the aforesaid precedent, we affirm the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on these issues and decide the issues in favour of the assessee. o p /o p 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 07/06/2010 upon conclusion of hearing. o p /o p
-
2010 (6) TMI 805
... ...
... ... ..... ner-company, since, on commencement of liquidation proceedings, the authorized officer is only the Official Liquidator. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the fact that an Official Liquidator was appointed in the year 2000 is admitted. 5. Since the order itself records that notices were served only on the Managing Director of the company on 21-3-2003 and, since the Official Liquidator could not have had sufficient knowledge of service of notice on the Managing Director, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order of the CESTAT rejecting the application to condone the delay of 1831 days, on payment of costs of ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within a period of four weeks from today to the Central Government. On proof of payment of costs, the CESTAT shall entertain the appeal, and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
........
|
