|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 845 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 898 - CESTAT MUMBAI
GTA service - payment of service tax in cash of through utilization of cenvat credit - contention of the Revenue is that prior to 19-4-2006, irrespective of whether a person provided taxable service and/or manufactured dutiable final products or did not provide any taxable service or manufactured any dutiable final products, he was required to pay the service tax on the GTA service received by him in cash, not through Cenvat credit - whether service tax on GTA service received can be paid through Cenvat Credit or cash? - Held that: - The ratio of the Delhi Bench in the case of M/s. ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur [2011 (3) TMI 186 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], is squarely applicable to the present case, where it was held that - the service tax on GTA service received by them by the appellant which was not paid in cash but was paid through Cenvat credit account the same would be recoverable from them.
Penalty - Held that: - the issue relating to payment of service tax on GTA service through cash was in dispute, the penalty is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (6) TMI 897 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cisive factor is the nature of the activities of the assessee and not the actual income from such activities during a particular year. In that view of the matter, there was no mistake in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in holding that the case of assessee-company was not hit by Explanation to section 73 and the loss so suffered should be treated as business loss and not speculation loss.” 7. In the light of the aforesaid precedent, we are of the considered opinion, that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is correct in holding that Explanation to section 73 is not applicable, as assessee’s case falls in the exceptions provided in Explanation to section 73 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), hence, we uphold the same. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/6/2011 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2011 (6) TMI 896 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... upto 31.03.05. In our opinion, assessee had clearly established use of the wind mill for production of electricity. Electricity as a product, unlike other tangible material, would be the same whether it results out of a trial production or of a commercial production. Nobody would attempt to touch a electrical wire carrying potential difference, just for a reason that the electricity charged there in, was from the trial production of a generator unit and not from commercial production. Electricity as a commodity remains the same whether in trial production or commercial production. Rules relating to necessity of establishing commencement of commercial production cannot be transported to a case where the commodity produced is electricity. Assessee was clearly eligible for depreciation and it was unjustly denied. Disallowance stands deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 895 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... assessee by purchasing building materials directly from the market. The CPWD rates adopted by the DVO have definitely enhanced the cost of construction as against the State PWD rates in which local conditions are better reflected. Likewise, procurement of building materials directly from the market helps to earn substantial saving and this economy also could cause to reduce the cost of construction when these two matters are taken into consideration. We are of the view that there is no justification for sustaining the addition of 6,55,380/-. The said addition is accordingly, deleted. 4. The issues of disallowance of 24,000/- out of the advertisement expenses and 1,68,010/- out of the sales promotion expenses are confirmed as they cannot be telescoped to other additions as prayed for by the assessee. 5. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing, on Thursday, the 16th day of June, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (6) TMI 894 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... cost of construction cannot be estimated for the assessment year 2007-08 by applying the rate applicable to the assessment year 2007-08 to make an addition for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. Further as the books of accounts have not been rejected, no addition can be made in regard to the cost of construction in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema v. CIT, reported in 328 ITR 513. However, as this is an appeal by the Revenue and the assessee has not appealed for further reduction in the cost of construction estimated, insofar as the cross objections filed by the assessee have been withdrawn, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue in reducing the estimated cost of construction stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stand dismissed. 8. The order was pronounced in the court on 21-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 893 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... to the tune of ₹ 4,60,174/- for sale of scrap outside the books of account. 15. The Ld. ‘DR’, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT(A). 16. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material placed on record. In the course of present appellate proceedings, the assessee was specifically asked to file details of closing stock. However, the assessee has expressed its inability regarding availability of such details. In view of this, the contention of the assessee, cannot be appreciated, in the absence of such details. However, in order to meet ends of natural justice, the addition is restricted to ₹ 3 lacs instead of ₹ 4,60,174/-. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 10th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 892 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... andard rent, then it is the fair rent which shall be taken as ALV and not the standard rent.” 13. Both the parties agreed that the matter may be sent back to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication in the light of the principles and the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) in the case of Moni Kumar Subba (supra). We, accordingly, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restored the issue of determination of the Annual Letting Value of the property for fresh adjudication with the direction that he should decide the same in the light of the principles and guidelines laid down in the case of Moni Kumar Subba (supra). Needless to say the A.O. should give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. 14. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed and revenue’s appeal is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 30th June
-
2011 (6) TMI 891 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ppellate order of the CIT(A) for the A.Y. 2006-07. It was also submitted that the assessment order for A.Y. 2005-06 cannot be sustained without considering the year of taxability of the capital gains afresh by the AO. The ld. DR though opposed to the submissions of the ld. AR, reluctantly agreed for both the appeals to be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for his fresh consideration. In these circumstances, we set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) for both the assessment years under appeal before us to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the matter in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the proceedings before the Assessing Officer. 8. In the result, both appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 890 - ITAT DELHI
Deduction u/s 54F - Meaning of Residential House - CIT(A) deleted the addition which the AO had allowed in respect of only one unit by treating the units as two separate residential properties
HELD THAT:- We find that issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SMT. KG. RUKMINIAMMA [2010 (8) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that, “The context in which the expression ‘a residential house’ is used in sec. 54 makes it clear that it was not the intention of the legislation to convey the meaning that it refers to a single residential house. As in the earlier part, the words used are buildings or lands which are plural in number and that is referred to as “a residential house”, the original asset. An asset newly acquired after the sale of the original asset also can be buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, which also should be “a residential house”. Therefore, the letter ‘a’ in the context it is used should not be construed as meaning “singular”. But, being an indefinite article, the said expression should be read in consonance with the other words ‘buildings’ and ‘lands’ and, therefore, the singular ‘a residential house’ also permits use of plural by virtue of sec. 13(2) of the General Clauses Act –COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS D. ANANDA BASAPPA [2008 (10) TMI 99 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]"
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) and hence, uphold the same - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Portfolio Management Fees - CIT(A) deleting the addition - HELD THAT:- ld. counsel of the assessee conceded that disallowance has been rightly made by the Assessing Officer. Hence, we allow this issue in favour of the Revenue.
-
2011 (6) TMI 889 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d Another v. Union O India And Others (292 ITR 470). On merit, this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. Commissioner of Income-tax (245 ITR 428). In law, the issue is again in favour of the assessee by virtue of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. And Another vs. Union of India And Others (292 ITR 470) wherein the Hon'ble Court has struck down sec.43B(f) which stated that leave encashment could be allowed only on actual payment. In these circumstances, we direct the assessing authority to give deduction for the provision of ₹ 93,815/- made by the assessee towards leave encashment. The assessee is successful in its cross-objection. 7. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 27th day of June, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (6) TMI 888 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee to reimburse the expenditure to M/s Nicholas Piramal and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit the issue back to the AO with a direction to the assessee to produce the relevant material before the AO and on such production of the material, the AO shall reconsider the issue as to liability of assessee to reimburse the expenditure and decide the issue in accordance with the law. 16.1 This ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 17. Ground no.7 of the appeal relates to levy of interest u/s 234B of IT Act. This issue is only arising for the assessment year 2003-04. As the levy of interest u/s 234 is consequential in nature, this issue is also remitted to the file of AO for the relevant assessment years. 18. In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 are allowed and the appeals for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 30th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 887 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 392 (SC) wherein it is held as under “Held accordingly, reversing the decision of the High Court, on this point that the main eligibility condition in the scheme was that the incentive had to be utilized for repayment of loans taken by the assessee to set up new units or for substantial expansion of an existing unit. The subsidy received by the assessee was not in the course of a trade but was of a capital nature. So respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) we decide this issue against the department and in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 30th June 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 886 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nce given by the assessee. On 31.03.2005 the Minutes of the meeting of directors of the assesseecompany approved the waiver of principal amount i.e. ₹ 139.58 crores due from MBPL. The accrued interest was not waived. Rather this sum due from MBPL was diverted in favour of another company named Radiovani for ₹ 22 crores. Thus it is evident that the assessee-company did not waive the accrued interest but assigned this amount due from MBPL in favour of another company for ₹ 22 crores. When the assessee itself is valuing the right to receive such interest together with the interest already accrued, it cannot turn around to contend that the interest of ₹ 8.10 crore did not accrue to it. In our considered opinion the ld. CIT(A) was justified in approving the view taken by the AO on this issue. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue as well. 7. In the result, the both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 885 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... egarding interest subsidy relating to earlier years, we feel that the same is not a business profit for the present year and it is not relatable to interest cost of the present year and interest expenses of earlier years is not lying debited to the Profit and loss account of the present year. Hence, entire amount of such interest subsidy should have been reduced from business profit of the present year whereas only 90 was excluded and therefore, we confirm the same. The A.O. should restrict the exclusion from business profit to the extent of 90 of interest subsidy, which is not related to the present year. Ground No.5.2 is rejected, whereas ground No.5.3 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ground No.5.4 is rejected because no argument was advanced with regard to this ground. 37. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 884 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(Appeals)25 and 27 and predecessors Ld. CIT(A), I hold that the Appellant is entitled to deduction u/s.80IB(10) and therefore AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the Appellant ofRs.2,89,99,016/-.” From the above, it is clear that the project was already approved in the name of Shri Harish P. Doshi who is a physically challenged person and, therefore, he floated an AOP by taking help of others for execution and development of the project. Shri Doshi remained a major shareholder in the AOP, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) correctly observed that basically the project has been developed by the AOP. In any case, Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Parth Corporation vs. ITO supra wherein it was held that sec.80IB(2)(i) is not applicable for claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10). Therefore, following this decision, we reject the third objection also. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 30/6/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 883 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s are subject to judicial scrutiny. No doubt that at the stage of initiating reassessment proceedings, it is not necessary to establish that there has been an escapement of income, but essentially there have to be valid reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and these reasons, on standalone basis, must be considered appropriate for arriving at the conclusion arrived at by the Officer recording the reasons.” 13. In view of the above observations made by the co-ordinate Bench, in which, we are in considered agreement, the fact that assessment is completed under section 143(1), in the present case will not come to rescue to the department. The facts remains that the conditions of section 147 are not complied with and, accordingly, the reassessment proceedings must be quashed. 14. In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 882 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER This petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 881 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ical Certificate from the Block Medical Officer, CHC, Aron, Dist Guna along with registration receipt which establishes that the assessee was sick from 31st October, 2005 to 5th November, 2006. These documentary evidences filed by the assessee have not been negated by the Revenue authorities by producing any contrary evidence. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and penalty of ₹ 59,654/- levied under section 271B of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has established reasonable cause for not filing the audit report within the time due to his bad health which he has proved with the support of documentary evidences. Therefore, the penalty in dispute deserves to be cancelled and we cancel the impugned penalty of ₹ 59,654/- levied under section 271B of the Act and accept the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.06.2011).
-
2011 (6) TMI 880 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Act may arise but the provisions of s. 44AB of the Act do not get violated in case where the accounts have not been maintained at all and, therefore, penal provisions of s. 271B of the Act would not apply.” 7. Following the aforesaid observations, which are squarely applicable to the present fact situation, we find no justification to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) sustaining the penalty under section 271B of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Act amounting to ₹ 40,940/-.” 20 Respectfully following the same we cancel the penalties levied for both the assessment years u/s.271B. 21. In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA no.3641 and 3642/Mum./2008 are allowed. 19. Ultimately, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 879 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... . This ground of appeal taken by the appellant is partly allowed.” 6.1. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A), as the same are based on proper appreciation of the legal and factual position of the case. Accordingly, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 7. In C.O. No.22(Asr).2010, the only effective ground raised by the assessee, is as under “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed part of the addition of ₹ 20 lacs on account of debit note being the rate difference (including excise duty applicable from this year) charged from the assessee.” 7.1. Since, we have upheld the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A), and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, the C.O. filed by the assessee needs no separate adjudication, as it falls in the realm of academic interest. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and C.O. filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2011.
............
|
