|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1512 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sequently, these grounds are dismissed as “not pressed”. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 11. Now, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA no.1345/Mum./2009, and the sole ground raised is whether or not the learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming penalty of ₹ 89,450, imposed by the Assessing Officer consequent upon confirmation of disallowance in the quantum proceedings. Since the addition in quantum proceedings in ITA no.5293/Mum./2009, has been deleted by us, therefore, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act do not have legs to stand. Consequently, we hereby quash the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer and as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 12. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. 13. To sum up, assessee’s appeal in ITA no.5293/Mum./2009 is partly allowed and assessee’s appeal in ITA no.1345/Mum./2009, is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.5.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1511 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s will be opened and the auction amongst the tenderers will be held before the single Judge on 23.06.2011. (vi)The fact that it is issued by the Official Liquidator both on his behalf and on bahalf of IREDA as well as Sundaram Finance Limited and the secured creditors and non-secured creditors in respect of the assets of the company in liquidation Arunachalam Sugar Mills as well as the machineries of New Horizon Sugar Mills Limited, now lying in the factory premises of the company in liquidation. 137. The matter shall be listed before the single Judge on 16.6.2011 i.e., the last date for receipt of sealed tenders. The learned single Judge shall then call the matter on 23.06.2011 for the conduct of auction and the parties and interested bidders are directed to appear before the single Judge. It is open to the Official Liquidator/IREDA to seek any clarification, if necessary. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1510 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ik, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, ORDER Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition. Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1509 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... but in the absence of any material to show that any excess scrap was generated during the year under consideration, it cannot be said that any addition was called for particularly in the facts of the case when it is the case of the assessee that it has been maintaining stock register with respect to manufacturing and also for generation of scrap. It is observed that the trading result of the assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer and no addition whatsoever has been made on that account. In the absence of any material to suggest that any excess scrap either was generated during the year under consideration or any excess scrap was sold by the assessee during the year under consideration, we find no justification in the upholding of the addition by the CIT (A). Finding substance in the submission of learned AR, we delete the addition in its entirety. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1508 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. in ITA No. 1266/Del/2010, dt. 3fst Aug., 2010, in which higher rate of depreciation was allowed on printers and scanners. If peripherals such as printers, scanners and servers etc. form integral part of the computer system, we have no hesitation in holding that UPS is also an integral part of the computer system, entitled for deduction of depreciation @ 60 per cent. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below We are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that computer accessories and peripherals such as, printers, scanners and server etc. form an integral part of the computer system. In fact, the computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without the computer. Consequently, as they are the part of the computer system, they are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 per cent. 6. In result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1507 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... it was observed that in the past the Tribunal had already considered the said issue and decided in assessee’s favour. Now before us, a decision of the Tribunal Bench “C” Ahmedabad for A.Y. 2004-05 bearing ITA No.2320/Ahd/2007 order dated 30/07/2010 titled as DCIT vs. Arvind Brands Ltd. has been placed wherein after detailed discussion it was held that following few decisions of the Tribunal, the disallowance @ 1/4th of the royalty expenses was deleted. Since in assessee’s own case Respected Coordinate Bench has taken a view in favour of the assessee and no material has been placed to distinguish the facts, therefore, judicial propriety requires one Bench of the Tribunal to follow another Bench. Hence, in the like manner, for this year as well we hereby uphold the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, Revenues’ appeal is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 29/ 4 /2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1506 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng those additions. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) upholding those three additions and reject the contentions of the assessee. 34. In respect of other incidental arguments of the assessee relating to giving credit for tax paid and seized cash etc., the CIT(A) has given appropriate directions to the Assessing Officer. The levy of interest under section 234B is also consequential. 35. After considering all the grounds raised both by the Revenue as well as by the assessee, we find that the cases have been examined by the CIT(A) in a speaking manner and he has modified the additions and disallowances wherever necessary to the extent reasonable. Therefore, we have in fact confirmed the order of the CIT(A) in all aspects. Accordingly, the contentions of the Revenue as well as the assessee are rejected. 36. In result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as the cross objections by the assessee are dismissed. 37. Order pronounced on Friday, the 29th day of April,2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1505 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 7; 10 lakhs. As per the new guidelines of the CBDT, in those cases where the tax effect is less than 10 lakhs, appeal is not to be filed. The present appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1504 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The petitioner is directed to make payment of ₹ 69,500/- in the following manner - "A sum of ₹ 19,500/- be paid by May 31, 2011. The balance amount of ₹ 50,000/- be paid in five equal instalments commencing from June 30, 2011 and thereafter last day of each succeeding month." 5. In case payments are made as per schedule, sentence for six months, imposed by the Court below, would stand set aside and the order of sentence would stand modified to the extent of payment of compensation only. 6. In any event, so long the amounts are paid as per the above schedule the sentence for imprisonment would not be put to execution. 7. In default of payment of first instalment or any one of the subsequent instalments, this order would stand recalled and the revisional application would stand dismissed. Otherwise the revisional applications are disposed of. 8. Urgent certified photostat copy of this order if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1503 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Singh,Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent Ms. Radha Rangaswamy,Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1502 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs or par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that wrong has been committed on some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality Respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. o p /o p 34. As a result of the above discussion and finding that there is no merit in the three contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, there is no alternative, but to dismiss this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged, but without any order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2011 (4) TMI 1501 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s further made for making suitable changes to the Telegraph Act, as noticed above in the Telecommunications Act, 1996 of the United States of America with respect to the extent of intervention by the State Government / Municipalities in the matter of installation / erection of such equipment which fall within the definition of ―telegraph‖. E. Till the aforesaid is done, it is deemed expedient for this Court to step in and as such the Office Order dated 8 th April, 2010 is dealt with as under - (i) Clause 5 (providing for Priority of selection of site) and Clause 6 (providing for Fee) are struck down as illegal and beyond the competence of MCD. (ii) The other Clauses of the Office Order insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Building Bye-Laws to continue to apply till Building Bye-Laws expressly applicable to such installations / towers or amendments as suggested to the Telegraph Act are promulgated. The writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1500 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee is concerned, there was nothing hidden which required thrashing. There was also no tax planning for which any colourable device or collusion could have been used. It was a simple share transaction at the most appropriate time for which substantial evidences were laid by assessee on record. The onus lies on the department to prove that the sale consideration of shares claimed by the assessee was actually his unaccounted money converted under the guise of share transaction. While making addition as income from undisclosed sources, the burden on the department is very heavy to establish to the hilt that the alleged receipt was actually income of the assessee from the undisclosed sources. In view of above discussion, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is a well reasoned order and does not call for any interference. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.11.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1499 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of the Government Grants - agreement for erection of oil storage tank - petroleum products to the site decanted - lease or license - The Appellant had been granted under the Government Grant Act separate and distinct licenses for the purpose of maintaining depot for storage of petroleum products at a yearly license fee. the Appellant is in possession of the buildings since 1958. They have been permitted to raise huge constructions and the nature of construction is of wide range. An administration block along with tanks for storing petroleum had been constructed. A boundary wall around installations and administrative block had also been constructed. The Respondent MCD passed an assessment order with regard to the property tax qua the aforesaid property and confirmed the rate able value proposed by it. The said assessment order was challenged by the Appellant.
HELD THAT:- It is well settled legal position that a deed must be read in its entirety and reasonably. The intention of the parties must also as far as possible be gathered from the expression used in the document itself. By reason of the agreement in question, the buildings in question do not belong to the Administration. Admittedly, it belongs to the grantee i.e. Appellant herein. As discussed, the Oil tanks has been construed as buildings for the purposes of tax. Therefore, Section 119 of the MCD Act would not apply to the building in question. That being the case, the grantee/Appellant is liable to pay tax although the ownership of the land may belong to the Administration. Section 115 of the MCD Act clearly provides that the general tax shall be payable in respect of lands and buildings. Such lands and buildings may be in lawful occupation of the owner. Once it is held that the grantee were liable to pay tax, the same becomes payable from the date of accrual of the liability. The said position is also fortified from specific stipulation in the agreement that the liability to pay all taxes including municipal taxes is on the grantee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the document in question constitutes lease in favor of the Appellant-grantee; and accordingly liable to pay taxes.
It is well settled legal position that a deed must be read in its entirety and reasonably. The intention of the parties must also as far as possible be gathered from the expression used in the document itself. we are of the considered view that the document in question constitutes lease in favor of the Appellant-grantee; and accordingly liable to pay taxes.
we find no merit in the present appeal, accordingly, the same is liable to be dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1498 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 2,12,01,732/- among other items. It is clear from the above, that the assessee has already deducted certain items and arrived at a taxable profit of ₹ 61,03,423/-. The argument of the assessee seems to be correct. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly held that the addition of ₹ 2,12,01,732/- made by the Assessing Authority has resulted in duplication of addition. Since these are of matters of simple arithmetic, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is justified in holding them as rectifiable mistakes. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 22. The Revenue fails in this appeal for the assessment year 2007-08. 23. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is allowed and the appeal filed for the assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 12th day of April, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1497 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... h in our opinion cannot be regarded as a voluntary act. The various judicial pronouncement cited by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are of no help to the assessee as the same are prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendre Textiles 306 ITR 977 (SC). In the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was found to have furnished all the relevant particulars relating to the claim truly and fully and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the assessee had claimed the expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not attract the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). However, in this case, considering all the facts, the assessee has claimed loss which are clearly not allowable and hence the lower authorities have rightly held that the assessee is to be imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of April, 2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1496 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the activity in the proper viewpoint. The Commissioner of Income tax erred in not considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, before arriving at the untenable conclusion. 6. In any event the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income tax is hyper technical and superfluous. 7. The application is liable to be allowed and approval u/s.80G granted. “ 4. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the trust remained registered u/s 12AA of the Act and is, undisputedly, carrying on charitable activities by pursuing its charitable objects. Simply basing his finding on technicalities, the ld. CIT has denied the renewal of approval u/s 80G. In our considered opinion, this is not a valid reason to deny approval u/s 80G. Hence, we direct the ld. CIT to grant approval u/s 80G to the assessee-trust by issuing requisite certificate. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.4.2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1495 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ove discussion in my opinion establishes that both the exceptions contained in explanation under sec. 73 are not applicable to the appellant’s case. Facts on record show that the appellant’s case was not covered by either of the exceptions contained in the explanation itself As a consequence, appellant’s business of purchase and sale of shares is to be treated as “speculation business”. The AO is directed to set off the profit derived from business of purchase & sale of shares against the speculation Losses as per law. This ground of appeal is allowed.” In this view of the matter and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the revenue at the time of hearing before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open Court on 13.04.2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 1494 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t in the manner forbidden by section 13(3) of the Act. Support in this regard can be drawn of the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs Kamla Town Trust, 279 ITR 89. As stated above, it is only the trust, which has been benefited by taking the property on lease by utilizing the property belonging to the company and without paying any lease rental. We do not find any reason, whatsoever, to deny the benefit of section 11 to the assessee- trust. Concomitantly, we do not find any violation by the trust of any provisions of section 11 and/or of section 13 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption as provided u/s 11 of the Act. Having held so, interest levied u/s 234A and 234B will also not survive. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust stands allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 19.4.2011.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1493 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... pplication asking for issue of exemption certificate nor could show any objection if any raised by the Department or any information called by the Department for grant of such exemption. Even the ld. CIT DR could not bring any material on record to suggest that for noncompliance of any detail/information, the Department has refused the approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. From the record, it is not clear as to whether any such application is still pending before the competent authorities and why he has not acted upon it even after lapse of such a long period. 11. In view of the above, we restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) to verify the factual position with regard to the application of assessee pending before CCIT and action taken by CCIT for grant of approval u/s 10(23C)(vi), if any, and to decide the issue afresh. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on April, 2011.
........
|
