Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 844 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 1019
... ... ... ... ..... contention of the assessee to be correct and noted that the assessee kept all the records of labour expenses, therefore, addition is made on mere suspicion. Addition was accordingly deleted. 16. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. It appears to be ad hoc addition made by the AO which was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A) on examination of the facts and material on record. Ground No.3 of the appeal of the revenue has no merit and is dismissed. 17. Ground No.4 of the appeal of the revenue is already dismissed while considering the appeal of the assessee. Other grounds No.5, 6 and 7 are general in nature and calls for no specific finding. 18. In the result, the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. 19. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1018
... ... ... ... ..... cilitate transportation of coal mined so that the business of the assessee could be conducted more efficiently and profitably. There is also no dispute to the fact that the said road is a public road and belongs to the Burdwan Zilla Parishad and the assessee is not owner of the road. In view of the settled position on the issue, we find that the sum of Rs.3.57 cr. incurred during the relevant previous year by the assessee towards contribution for up-gradation/construction of the link road belonging to the Burdwan Zilla Parishad is allowable as revenue expenditure in the year under appeal having been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the Company. We, accordingly, uphold the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of deduction of the sum of Rs.3.57 cr. as revenue expenditure. This issue of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of revenue and C.O. of assessee, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 30.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1017
... ... ... ... ..... by the assessee in respect of a revenue liability on account of exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure allowable under section 37(1) - Under para 9 of AS-11, exchange differences arising on foreign currency transactions have to be recognized as income or expense in the period in which they arise, except as stated in para 10 and para 11 - An enterprise has to report the outstanding liability relating to import of raw materials using closing rate or exchange - Any loss arising on conversion of said liability at the closing rate has to be recognized in the P & L a/c for the reporting period.” 6.3. In view of the above detailed discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is upheld. Hence, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 9th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1016
... ... ... ... ..... use while pursuing activities which are essentially in the nature of charity, assessee could earn a surplus, it would not be a ground to hold that it could not be considered for a registration u/s.12AA of the Act. In taking this view, we are fortified by the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of N. N. Desai Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (246 ITR 452). In any case as already held by us, in assessee’s case its funds were used only for creating the infrastructure necessary for pursuing its educational objects, being in the initial phase of its functioning. We are of the opinion that assessee trust was eligible for registration u/s.12AA of the Act. The order of Commissioner of Income Tax is quashed and we direct the Commissioner of Income Tax to grant the assessee, registration u/s.12AA of the Act as sought by it. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court at the time of hearing the appeal on 23rd June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1015
... ... ... ... ..... sessee. For the balance 887 gms, an addition of ₹ 4,07,880/- was made to the income of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Before us, the ld. A.R. submitted that considering the status of the assessee, jewellery of 1387.330 gms could be taken as received by assessee as gift. 6. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 7. We find that no evidence whatsoever for receiving gift was brought on record either before us or before the lower authorities. Further, no material was brought before us to show the amount of income which was disclosed by either of the parents of the assessee and parents-in-law of the assessee at the time of marriage or thereabout. In the absence of any such material, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 03.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1014
... ... ... ... ..... Motors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is directly on the issue so, we are bound to follow. Such cases are to be decided on the basis of facts of a particular case and cannot be generalized. We have rendered this decision in the given facts and circumstances of this case alone. Therefore, on merits, the assessee succeeds and we set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in all these years on merits of the case and order that this receipt is to be accepted under the head ‘income from business’ in all these years. 6. The other grounds relating to jurisdiction point was not really pressed before us, therefore, we dismiss the same. 7. In the result, on merits, all the appeals stand allowed, but the jurisdiction point, in whatever years it has been raised, fails. 8. To summarize the result, the appeals for assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05 stands partly allowed whereas the appeals for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 stand allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1013
... ... ... ... ..... - Lakra Bros. Reported in 106 TTJ 250 CIT-vs- Rajkumar reported in 23 DTR 304 Bharat C. Gandhi -vs- ACIT reported in 178 Taxman 83 In the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) also accepted the plea of the assessee that these transactions are in the nature of inter-corporate deposits (ICDs) which was extended by the lender to the assessee for business expediency and therefore, within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961. This view adopted by the ld. CIT(A) is also fair and reasonable. Therefore, on this ground also, in our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that addition cannot be made for all these three assessment years. For the aforesaid reasons, we incline to uphold the orders of the ld. CIT(A) in all the appeals for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Resultantly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 30.06.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1012
... ... ... ... ..... mployees' Insurance Court. In my opinion, it is not necessary to render a finding on this aspect because assuming that the Petitioner has an alternative remedy, the Writ Petition has been pending for the last three years. Moreover, the issue raised in this Writ Petition was adjudicated by as many as three High Courts, as noted above. This apart, the doctrine of alternative remedy is only a self-imposed rule by the High Courts and it does not create an absolute bar for entertainment of a Writ Petition. In my opinion, as the dispute raised in this Writ Petition is No. longer res integra, it is wholly unnecessary to drive the Petitioner to avail the alternative remedy, as pleaded by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1. 7. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. 8. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP. No. 21171 of 2008 filed by the Petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1011
... ... ... ... ..... ding on the first issue, there is no need to opine on the second issue, which was raised in the alternative.” 9. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional i.e. J & K High Court in the case of M/s.Shree Balaji Alloys (supra), we hold that the amount of ₹ 76,06,332/- received by the assessee on account of excise duty refund is a Capital Receipt and not liable to tax under the provisions of the Income tax Act, 1961. 10. Since we have allowed additional ground Nos.1 of 3 of the appeal and, therefore, we do not think it necessary to decide ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal. 11. Ground No.3 relates to the additional ground and we hold that the excise duty refund is capital receipt in the hands of the assessee. 12. Ground No.4 of the appeal was not pressed before us and accordingly we dismiss the same as not pressed. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1010
... ... ... ... ..... 7,29,973 can be claimed in the A.Y. 2005-06 since the period mentioned in the TDS certificate was for the F.Y. 2004-05, therefore the assessment made by the ld. AO is in order and needs to be confirmed. 19. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In the assessment order, the ld. AO has categorically noted that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting, whereas the ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is following cash system of accounting. Since there is no clarity in the finding of the Revenue and the first appellate authority, we remit this issue also to the file of the ld. AO to once again examine the method of accounting system followed by the assessee and accordingly assess the contract receipts in the relevant assessment year if found assessable. 20. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1009
... ... ... ... ..... o parts viz., towards interest received and share from firm, is beyond our comprehension. No part of interest expenditure, which is sought to be disallowed u/s.14A, relates to share in profits of partnership firm which is otherwise exempt u/s.10(2A). As there is direct nexus between the funds borrowed on which interest is paid and the funds invested in the firm on which interest is received, in our considered opinion, such interest has to be deducted u/s.36(1)(iii) against the interest income in entirety. We, therefore, hold that no disallowance of interest expenditure is called for u/s.14A as it does not relate to any exempt income. 6 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the order of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue; accordingly, the same is confirmed. 7 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 29th, day of June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1008
... ... ... ... ..... of law much less substantial question of is involved in this matter. Accordingly, both the second appeals have to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. 37. The learned counsel for the second appellant would make an extempore submission that since this Court decided the appeals as against the second appellant/Mani, the advance amount paid under the lease due repayable by the respondents/erstwhile landlords towards the erstwhile tenant Mani be adjusted towards arrears of rent/damages for use and occupation as the case may be. 38. The learned counsel for the respondents-Jayavel and others would submit that certainly that could be adjusted. 39. Accordingly, it is recorded. The sale consideration under the agreement to sell-Ex.B1 deposited in Court by the appellant-Mani shall be refunded to him by the Court concerned immediately. 40. In the result, the second appeals are dismissed. However, there is no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1007
... ... ... ... ..... de of recovery, as contemplated in Sections 45-C to 45-I. 31.In ESI Corpn. v. F. Fibre Bangalore (P) Ltd.2 it was observed that it is not necessary for the Corporation to seek a resolution of the dispute before the ESI Court, while the order was passed under Section 45-A. Such a claim is recoverable as arrears of land revenue. If the employer disputes the claim, it is for him to move the ESI Court for relief. In other cases, other than cases where determination of the amount of contributions under Section 45-A is made by the Corporation, if the claim is disputed by the employer, then, it may seek an adjudication of the dispute before the ESI Court, before enforcing recovery." 13.In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the second respondent's proceedings for proper determination of the issue. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1006
... ... ... ... ..... dministration of the trust, the result would be utter chaos. Therefore it is natural that the general body entrusts a selected few to run the institution, which has the responsibility of reporting to the general body. There is nothing wrong in the arrangement made by the assessee. 9. If at all something is going wrong in any particular assessment year, the Assessing Officer is free to examine the case and decide whether the assessee is entitled for the benefit of section 11 for a particular assessment year or not. 10. In short, we find that the reasons stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax to deny registration to the assessee trust is not sustainable in law. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to grant registration to the assessee trust under section 12AA. 12. In result this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 9th day of June, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1005
... ... ... ... ..... attention was invited that the issue was also covered by the order of the Tribunal in the assesses own case pertaining to the Assessment Year 2001-02, 2004-05 and 2006-07. In those orders the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to correlate the Foreign Exchange Loss/gains to specific assets and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the principle stated and also in accordance with the law. Since the impugned issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and restore the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the directions to correlate the foreign exchange loss /gains to specific assets and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the principles laid down in that order of the Tribunal and also in accordance with the law. 5. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 2/6/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1004
... ... ... ... ..... 77; 1,24,041/-. 4.5 The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance. 4.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted that the AO has not given any justifiable reasons for making adhoc disallowance. 4.7 We have heard both the parties. The ld. AR in the paper book has not filed the details of traveling expenses. The AO was justified in asking the assessee to give the details of expenses debited for the purpose for which traveling was done. We are not having the details of the expenses debited in the immediately preceding year. It is true that the traveling expenses may contain the expenses in respect of the assessee as well as the employees. Thus the disallowance made by the AO out of the total expenses at 10% is excessive. We therefore, feel that it will be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance to ₹ 50,000/-. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1003
... ... ... ... ..... /11 dt. 17.02.2011, the order passed by the Hor’ble Supreme Court in ONGC.'s case reported 2007 (7) SCC 39 has been recalled. -In view of the above referred judgement of the Hon'lbe Supreme Court in ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., case referred to above, substantial question of law has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and order passed by the Tribunai is liable to be set aside and remanded to the Tribunal for passing orders on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly, we pass the following ORDER Appeal is allowed. Order dt. 09.10.2009 passed by he Income. Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' in ITA Nos. 961 & 548/ Bang/06 is set aside and ITA Nos.961 & 548/ Bang/06 are restored to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench 'A' with a direction to dispose of the said appeals on merits in accordance with law. Sri A. Shankar, learned counsel is permitted to file vakalath within four weeks from today.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1002
... ... ... ... ..... e Respondents by the High Court. The law on the issue is settled to the effect that only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (See Brahm Swaroop and Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 2011 SC 280; V.S. Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 317; and Rukia Begum and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 4 SCC 779). 10. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the High Court acquitting the said Respondents. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1001
... ... ... ... ..... e interest income. On similar and identical issue, this Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2000-01 vide order dated 30-11-2000 in ITA No.340/Hyd/2006 held against the assessee and in favor of the department. Following the reasoning given in the order of the Tribunal mentioned above, we reject the ground raised by the assessee on this issue and hold that the interest received by the assessee represents income from other sources and the benefit of netting of interest also cannot be extended to the assessee by following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2000-01 dated 30-11-2007. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee stands rejected. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee (ITA Nos. 1175/H/2007 & 1196/H/2008) are partly allowed while both the appeals of the revenue (ITA Nos. 1171 /H/07 & 1176/H/08) are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 08-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1000
... ... ... ... ..... ld be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which have to be applied for the purpose of the trust. There is no double deduction claimed by the assessee as canvassed by the Revenue. The judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Escorts Ltd. 1993 199 ITR 43 is distinguishable for the above reasons. It cannot be held that double benefit is given in allowing claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. The questions proposed have, thus, to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” No other decision, which would go against assessee, was brought to our attention. Hence, we are of the opinion that the assessee has to succeed in these appeals. Depreciation has to be considered for the purpose of calculating the income of the assessee even under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 7. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 24th June, 2011.
........
|