|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1610
... ...
... ... ..... assed by the DIT (CIB), who is equivalent to the rank of CIT(Appeals). It has also been mentioned in the above Circular that whether CIT(Appeals) and DIT(CIB) are equivalent in rank or not is an administrative issue and it has nothing to do with the fact that the CIT(Appeals) can hear an appeal filed against an order passed u/s 271FA of the Income Tax Act by Director of Income Tax(CIB). Further it is clarified in the said Circular that u/s 246A(1)(q) of Income Tax Act, CIT(Appeals) has powers to hear an appeal filed against an order passed under Chapter XXI of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. In view of the above clarification given by the CBDT, in our considered opinion, the appellant should have filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) before filing an appeal directly before this Tribunal. In view of this position, we are dismissing all the four appeals filed by the appellant. 7. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22.02.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1609
... ...
... ... ..... m. The Tribunal following the decision in the case of DCIT V/s. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (Cochin) reported in 76 TTJ 439 held that the interest paid to the RBI was not penalty and accordingly the interest expenditure is allowable. SLP filed by the revenue against similar decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court as reported in 2005 277 I.T.R. (ST) 3. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1608
... ...
... ... ..... ect from any date prior to 13.12.1995. The Central Administrative Tribunal was, therefore, not right in allowing O.A. No. 2484 of 1997 and O.A. No. 2099 of 1997 by order dated 11.08.2000, directing the Government to consider promoting the applicants to Grade-IV with effect from the dates their immediate juniors in the basic grade seniority were so promoted subject to their being found fit with consequential benefits of seniority as well as arrears of pay and allowance and of retiral benefits in the case of those of the applicants in the O. As. who had retired on superannuation. In our considered opinion, the High Court ought to have interfered with the decision of the Tribunal. 18. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders dated 22.05.2003 of the High Court and the common order dated 11.08.2000 of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2484 of 1997 and O.A. No. 2099 of 1997. The two O. As. stand rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1607
... ...
... ... ..... the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond the challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The above judgment supports the revenue's stand. In the case under consideration, the limitation period was expired on 15-9-2008 and nothing prevented the assessee to file the appeal before the Tribunal before the limitation period. There is a delay of 561 days in filing this appeal which, in our opinion, is unacceptable. We find that, in the present case, the delay is mainly due to the negligence on the part of the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case, we refuse to condone the delay in the instant case. Since the appeal remains un-admitted on the grounds of limitation, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the issues involved in this appeal. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 25-2-2010.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1606
... ...
... ... ..... Departmental Representative could not point out any material showing the existence of undisclosed income earned by the assessee which was unearthed during the course of survey. There is nothing on record which could co-relate such additional income offered by the assessee during the course of survey with any other discrepancy. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that there is no basis for sustaining the addition in question. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the view taken by the learned CIT (A) is unimpeachable, which is hereby upheld." 12. As in the present case, the addition is solely based on the statement of the partner recorded during the course of the proceedings u/s.133A which is not corroborated by any other incriminating material. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition. 13. In the result, revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 15th February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1605
... ...
... ... ..... llows "Pending the final disposal of the appeal, the department may continue to raise demands against the appellants so that these do not get time-barred. However, the appellants shall continue to pay the admitted amount of demand for the succeeding months in the same manner they have been paying in the past. Insofar as the disputed amount is concerned, the same shall be put in an ‘ESCROW account’. On the appellants’ complying with this order, no coercive steps shall be taken by the State to recover the differential amount till further orders without the leave of this Court."
-
2011 (2) TMI 1604
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, we have to hold that the conclusions arrived at by both the authorities are unfounded. When that is the case, the argument of the assessee stands acceptable. 12q. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we delete the disallowance of the professional charges paid by the assessee-company and direct the Assessing Officer to deduct the professional charges while computing the taxable income of the assessee-company. 13. The factual situation being same, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in relying on the above order of this Tribunal for deleting the disallowance. Nothing was brought on record by the learned D.R. for taking a different view for the impugned assessment year. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue. Ground No.3 stands dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 25th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1603
... ...
... ... ..... of refund. We find that this contention of the assessee is very cogent. Hence, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s observation is that for that purpose of section 234D only the amount of TDS of ₹ 20,112,432/- could be considered is to be taken as correct and after verification of the said amount of TDS, interest u/s 234D is to be charged and interest granted u/s 244A is to be excluded for charge of interest u/s 234D. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 7. Ld. Departmental Representative could not controvert the decision of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s and assessee’s submissions in this regard. Hence, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/02/2011 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1602
... ...
... ... ..... he balance funds required for the business has to be arranged from other sources. Furthermore, Bank loan is not available just on asking or personal guarantee, but so many other collateral securities are also insisted by the Bank in addition to hypothecation of stock worth more than the amount of loan sanctioned by the Bank, whereas loans from friends and relatives available just on asking depending upon personal relation. Friends are approachable round the clock even during non-banking hours. Thus, we have to keep into account all these facts and circumstances for coming to the conclusion that interest paid by the assessee to friends and relatives were excessive or unreasonable. 6. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the action of ld. CIT(A) for restricting rate of interest at 15 % as against 18 % actually paid by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 8th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1601
... ...
... ... ..... ise objection against acquisition of the premises. If the Appellants felt that six month's time was not sufficient for completing the acquisition proceedings, they could have filed an application in Appeal No. 34 of 1994 for extension of the time. However, the fact of the matter is that no such effort was made by them and the urgency clause was invoked on the pretext of completion of the acquisition in terms of the direction given by the High Court in Appeal No. 35 of 1994. In our view, this was clearly impermissible and the Respondents could not be deprived of their legitimate right to raise objection and to be heard against the proposed acquisition of the premises. 14. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the Notifications issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17 and Section 6 of the Act. 15. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1600
... ...
... ... ..... borrowed. Rather, the question is of interest to be allocated to the stocks and that the sales made during the year. We do not find any cogency in this line of argument of the assessee. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that no opportunity has been given to the assessee with respect to this enhancement made by the learned CIT(A) nor any notice in this regard has been issued to him. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions in this regard. We find considerable cogency in the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee in this regard. Assessee has not been given any opportunity to rebut the points raised by the learned CIT(A) in his order. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) to grant the assessee necessary opportunity and issue the requisite notice in this regard. 12. In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 25th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1599
... ...
... ... ..... be remotely also taken as income for MAT. The assessee relied on the decision of Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 63 TTJ (Mad) 697, wherein it is held that item shown in the Profit & Loss Account as Appropriation cannot be an income." 18. We find in view of the above facts, submissions of the both the sides and arguments that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala Sate Electricity Board v. DCIT (2010) 329 ITR 91 (Ker) and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of CIT(A) on this issue. This issue of Revenue's appeal is dismissed. 19. In the result, Revenue's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this day of 28th Feb, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1598
... ...
... ... ..... r due repayment of the same. Such a finding rendered by the trial is as discussed above by not properly considering the admission made by PW1 in witness box. Both the Courts below have simply arrived at conclusion in favour of the complainant by invoking the presumption without going into other material factors and the finding of the Courts below suffer from legal and perpetual infirmity and which warrants interference by this Court. 20. In the result, the revision is allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence made in C.C. No. 80 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai as confirmed by the judgment dated 15.06.2007 made in C.A. No. 238 of 2006, on the file of the Additional District & Fast Track Court No. I, Erode and the accused is acquitted from charges under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the fine amount if any shall be refunded to the Petitioner and the bail bonds if any executed by the accused stand canceled.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1597
... ...
... ... ..... the present appeal is identical to the issue raised in the earlier years and following the rules of consistency, we remit this issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee and the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly submitted that the issue was covered by the aforesaid order of this Tribunal and, therefore, the matter should be restored to the file of AO to ensure consistency in his decision. The submissions made by both the parties are reasonable. The order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer in this behalf is, therefore, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for fresh decision in the light of the directions given by this Tribunal (supra). Appeal field by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 18 February 2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1596
... ...
... ... ..... lanation or making a clarification. Prior to such substitution, an asset definitely included any building or land whether used for residential or commercial purposes. Exclusion of properties in the nature of commercial establishment and complexes came in only after the substitution made through Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 which came into effect on 01-04-1999.. So we cannot accept the view of the CWT(A) that commercial establishment was excluded from the term “asset” even for AY 1998-99. Therefore, the factory land and building of the assessee, rented out by it was certainly a commercial establishment and had to be included as a part of its assets for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act for the impugned assessment year. Therefore, we set aside the order of CWT(A) in this regard and reinstate the addition made by AO. Appeal of the Revenue stands allowed. 34. To summarise the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 25 - 02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1595
... ...
... ... ..... at the assessee filed the return of income on 31/10/2001 and an order of assessment under section 143(3) was passed on 23/3/2004. Thereafter the Assessing Officer recorded reasons on 1/3/2006 and issued notice under section 148 of the Act. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are identical to the one in A.Y 2000-01. The discussion made on this issue for A.Y 2000-01 will hold good for this Assessment Year also. For the reasons stated therein we hold that the initiation of reassessment proceedings were not in accordance with law and, therefore, the order of reassessment is annulled. 17. In view of the decision on the preliminary issue of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee and the revenue in their appeals are not taken up for consideration. 18. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed whereas the appeals by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1594
... ...
... ... ..... alty levied by Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the C.I.T.(A) has erred in law in cancelling the order levying penalty of ₹ 15, 64, 180/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the IT Act while tacitly admitting that the failure of the assessee to reduce capital subsidy of ₹ 131.20 lakhs from the cost of assets was clearly in violation of provisions of law extant at the relevant point of time.” 22. As we have already decided this issue of capital subsidy, in favour of assessee in quantum appeal vide para-17 of this, the penalty will not survive. Accordingly, we delete then penalty and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 23. In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and that of assessee’s appeals and CO are allowed except ITA No.734/Ahd/2007, which is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced on this day of 4th Feb, 2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1593
... ...
... ... ..... sued by the petitioner at Balasore and the cheque was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, cause of action had taken place in the State of Orissa. Therefore, institution of said complaint at Daman in the State of Uttaranchal is not maintainable. Further, though the complaint is lodged at Daman in the State of Uttaranchal, in view of the amendment to Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Writ Petition filed before this Court, questioning the correctness of the same and seeking to quash the proceedings initiated at Daman, is perfectly maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to supra upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 16. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition must succeed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and proceedings initiated by the opposite party No. 1 against the petitioner at Daman is hereby quashed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1592
... ...
... ... ..... we note that this issue have been considered and adjudicate by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Sind Co-operative Society vs. ITO 2009 317 ITR 47. The Hon’ble High Court has held that the amount received on account of transfer charges as per the government notification cannot be treated as income of the assessee to the extent of ₹ 25,000/- in each case. The learned AR of the assessee has submitted that in this case of the assessee the amount of transfer charges is less than ₹ 25,000/- in each case and, therefore, it is less than the amount which is permitted by government notification. Accordingly, in view of the facts submitted by learned AR, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow claim of the assessee if the amount on account of transfer charges is up to ₹ 25,000/- in each case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is disposed of in terms of the above order. Order pronounced on this 11th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1591
... ...
... ... ..... he purchaser during the month of March 2003 and capital gains arising out of its transfer was assessed during the A.Y. 2003-04.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions. The ld.DR has repeated the reasons taken in the petition, but the ld.AR has objected to therecall of the order on the ground that these miscellaneous petitions, if allowed, would amount to review of the Tribunal order which is not permissible in law. After considering the rival submissions in the light of the record, we are also of the considered opinion that these petitions cannot be allowed because the sheer perusal of the grounds mentioned in these petitions evince that the petitioner wants us to rewrite the order by way of review which is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. Consequently, there being no merit in these miscellaneous petitions, the same stand dismissed. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous petitions filed by the Revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.2.2011.
........
|
