|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 844 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 979
... ...
... ... ..... d its proposal for slum rehabilitation and the permission for carrying out the development was accorded on 17th Nov., 2003 and when the assessee commenced development is to be applied.” 7 Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Hiranandani Akruti, JV (supra) and the decision in the case of Saroj Sales Organisation (supra) and in absence of any contrary decision or distinguishable feature brought on record by the ld DR, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT(A) deleting the disallowance. The grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed.” 12. This view that the amendment is prospective is approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Brahma Associates (supra). Respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the revenue. 13. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 3rd Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 978
... ...
... ... ..... 77; 1018 lacs (as per books of accounts) whereas the submission of the assessee is that the impugned expenses were incurred after proper authorization and the accounts were subjected to audit, therefore, no disallowance is called for. In view of these facts, we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to make 10% adhoc disallowance to meet the end of justice so that no grievance is caused to either side because the ld. CIT(A) has not controverted the finding of self-prepared vouchers or some of the expenses and for want of these expenses, these could not be verified along with the persons to whom these payments were made on account of impugned expenses. At the same time, some payments were also made in cash, consequently, this appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in terms as indicated above. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 1.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... on and the last panchanama is the document evidencing conclusion of actual search and the date of such panchnama is to be regarded as the date of conclusion of search and execution of the warrant, and the block assessment shall be within two years from such date and any assessment beyond two years from such date is barred by limitation. The legal and factual aspects involved herein as discussed above will only establish that the impugned block assessment order dated 30.06.2005 is barred by limitation and is without jurisdiction and cannot be enforced against the assessee and the assessee is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for herein.” 5. Since Hon'ble High Court has already held that block assessment was barred by limitation, the appeal of the Revenue before us would not survive any more. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the Ninth Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 976
... ...
... ... ..... sidered by the assessing officer and orders shall be passed in accordance with law both in respect of income derived from drama company and rents received in respect of Kalyan mantap. It is also open for the assessing officer to consider the legal contentions urged on behalf of assessee whether the rents received by the assessee from the choultry fall under Sec.22 or 28 of the Income Tax Act and whether it is an income from the house property or income from the business?” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the parties in the present appeal submit that the saineé order be passed in this appeal and cross objections as the order impugned in both the cases. is identical. 4. Accordingly. this. appeal. and cross objections are disposed of in terms of the order dated 3-10-2007 passed in ITA’ Nos 2329, 2330, 2331, 2337,2535, 223S & 2340 of 29005 and Cross Objections. Nos.4,5 & 6 of 2006. The assessee shall appear before the assessing officer on 4-7-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 975
... ...
... ... ..... of the audit committee that submitted its report to the board of directors. That may be so but we do not think that this would be a mitigating factor. He was the chairman of the company and a whole time director looking after its day to day affairs and having approved the financial results which were untrue, he cannot escape his responsibility by pleading that the financial accounts had been approved by the audit committee set up under Section 292A of the Companies Act, 1956. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had resigned from the directorship of the company in April, 2008. That is so but no action is being taken against him for the financial results published thereafter. In any case, the appellant continued as chairman emeritus of the company thereafter though he claims that he was never invited to attend any meetings thereafter. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 974
... ...
... ... ..... pen to the bank to decide the further course of action. In the event of the bank coming to the conclusion that further action has to be initiated, the bank is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the concerned rules and Regulations and to pass further orders and are at liberty to invoke the Rules 8(a) to (c). 40. Further, according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioners/R1 and R2 herein, the possession of the property in question is with the auction purchaser. In view of our order passed in this writ appeal, the auction purchaser, on receipt of amount from the bank as indicated above, is directed to hand over possession to the bank, within a period of one week thereafter. 41. In fine, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above and in other aspects, the order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed. The Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
-
2011 (6) TMI 973
... ...
... ... ..... lakhs. Then the on money component is NIL for urban land and 100% for village agri. Land. 51. Thus the on money amount pertaining to the urban land worked out under the three methods gives a result of 18%, 15% and 0%. The median of the three results is 15%, which in our view appears to be a reasonable percentage. Accordingly, in our view, the on money amount of 181 lakhs may be allocated in the ratio of 15% and 85% between the urban vacant land and village agri. Land respectively and we are of the view that the same would meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. The capital gains computation shall be modified accordingly. 52. In the result, the appeals of the revenue numbered as. 166 to 168 of 2010 are dismissed. The appeal of the revenue numbered as 169 of 2010 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal of the assessee numbered as 447 is allowed and other two appeals of the assessees are partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 28.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 972
... ...
... ... ..... ssee in spite of the fact that it did not comply with the requirement of the Rule?” 3. As it is clear from the said substantial question of law, the question that arise for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in extending the benefit of notification to the assessee. The question whether the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the notification or not is a question to be decided under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act by the Apex Court and the jurisdiction of this Court is expressly excluded under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act under which this appeal is filed. 4. Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Mangalore Refineries and Petrochemicals Ltd., in CEA No. 6/2007 disposed of on 1-9-2010 2011 (270) E.L.T. 49 (Kar.) , this appeal is rejected as not maintainable reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court under Section 35-L of the Central Excise Act.
-
2011 (6) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... sider the written submission filed by the assessee explaining its case on the issue of above additions and the remand report furnished by the A.O thereto by passing an speaking order on the issues. 2. The Ld. D.R. tried to justify the first appellate order on the issues, but considering the above submissions, we prima facie, agree with the contention of the ld. A.R. that written submission of the assessee made before the authorities below has not been properly addressed by the ld CIT(A) in view of the remand report filed by A.O thereto, before him. Under these circumstances, to meet out interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the file of Ld CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh by passing an speaking order after discussing the submission of the assessee thereon along with report of the A.O thereto. The Grounds are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 3. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30th June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 970
... ...
... ... ..... detected in the recovered substance. 38. The Appellants against the above backdrop were to be convicted of offence punishable under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and sentenced to the punishment prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and not to the punishment prescribed for the offence involving possession of “commercial quantity” of Narcotic drug under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Act. However the Appellants arrested on 5.4.2004 and are in custody for last more than seven years. 39. We therefore, alter the conviction of the Appellants to Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentence the Appellants to the imprisonment already undergone and a fine of ₹ 25000/- each. In default of payment of fine the Appellants shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The Criminal Appeal No. 35/2009 titled Mushtaq Ahmad v. State and Cr. Appeal No. 36/2009 titled Gulzar Ahmad v. State are disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (6) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... was an honest difference of opinion. Considering these facts we are of the consciousness view that the question of levy of penalty in the present appeal is covered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. reported at (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC), wherein it has held that no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that in order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision and considering the totality of the facts of the case, the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals) is hereby reversed and penalty is, accordingly, deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 17th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... ies there was no letting of AC plant separately. Similarly in the case JK Investors Bombay Ltd., ITA No.6967/M/03 for A.Y 2000-01 the Tribunal had to consider the receipt of maintenance charges whether will form part of the income from house property. The Hon’ble Tribunal held that the mere splitting of rent is not decisive of the issue and each case has to be decided in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. Keeping in mind above principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the rent for use of building as well as maintenance/amenity charges has to be considered as income from house property. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Consequently the same is confirmed and these appeals by the revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... has not declared the receipts of ₹ 82,46,354/- received on account of ‘Carriage Charges’ from Sh. Kesar Singh, in its original return of income as well as in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, for the assessment year under reference and the addition of ₹ 8,24,640/- was made by the AO by applying net profit rate of 10%. However, the Ld. CIT(A), restricted the addition to 3%. After considering entire fact situation of the case , we are of the considered opinion that the addition has been made and restricted on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without bringing any cogent and corroborative material on record. However, in the interest of justice, we consider it fair and reasonable to restrict the addition to 1.5% of the said gross receipts. In view of the above, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... sessee’s own case in ITA No. 229 to 232/PN/2009 for A.Y. 2001-02 to 2004-05 wherein vide its order dated 23-12-2010 the Tribunal has decided the issue as under 34. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. It is evident that the expenditure in question has resulted in the course of business in terms of a contractual breach and there is no breach or infraction of law so as to justify the disallowance in terms of Explanation to section 37(1) of the Act. The findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard are appropriate and do not require any interference and are accordingly affirmed. In the result, Revenue has to fail on this ground.” Facts being similar, so following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), this ground is decided in favour of the assessee and against the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Decision pronounced in the open court on 15th June 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... ation and for no nexus with business. Similarly, sustenance out of the business promotion expenses has also done for want of verification as the expenses were incurred in cash. The addition of ₹ 50,000/- has been sustained on account of provision made under the head ‘entertainment expenses’ as the same was not actually incurred during the year. Learned AR’s pleading that no res judicata or stoppel are applicable on the issue of consent for addition, however, the facts of the case shows that these disallowances are for want of verification and expenses incurred for non-business purposes. Therefore, considering all these facts, we uphold the additions to the extent consented which is 10% of the total expenses claimed under these heads. The order of CIT (A) on these issues is sustained and these grounds are accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 3rd day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... uld not have directed the A.O. to entertain this claim of the assessee. We feel so because A.O. himself has stated in the assessment order that although the claim of the assessee is genuine but the same is not entertained because of the judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.,(supra). Hence, there is no dispute that the claim of the assessee is genuine and is in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ajanta Pharma Ltd., (supra) and since, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., does not come in the way of the Appellate Authorities to consider and decide such claim of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT (A) on this issue. Hence we decline to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 06 - 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... rd to show that the appellants were adopting dilatory tactics. Similarly, we find that though the appellant s request for cross examination was allowed by adjudicating authority, no such cross examination could be conducted because of non-appearance of deponent. 5. Further, the hearing was also not attended by the appellant inasmuch as the cross examination was not completed and there was no defence reply on record. In such a scenario, the request of the appellant adjourning the matter was not unjustified. 6. Because of the above reasoning, we think it fit to set aside the impugned order as having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority. Needless to say that the principles of natural justice would be observed by adjudicating authority and matter would be decided as early as possible. 7. Early hearing application as also the appeal gets disposed off in above manner. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (6) TMI 961
... ...
... ... ..... ment dated 22-7-2008 the Hon’ble High Court found that there was no question of law involved. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge. In this view of the matter, following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Castle Investment & Industries Pvt. Ltd (supra), we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-M of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 6. Similar issue has been raised by the assessee in ITA No.1223/PN/2009 in the case of Prasanna Holdings Pvt. Ltd. For the detailed reasoning given in preceding paragraphs while dealing with the appeal in ITA No.1222/PN/2009 in the case of Jaya Hind Investments Pvt. Ltd., Pune, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-M of the Act as claimed by the assessee. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the above assesses are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 30th day of June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 960
... ...
... ... ..... applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that in the absence of a positive finding of application of twin conditions that the order sought to be revised is erroneous and it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, it was not open for the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax to assume jurisdiction. Further, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax while setting aside the assessment ought not to have given specific directions to the A. O. to complete the assessment in a particular manner. Furthermore the AO has taken one of the possible view which is valid in law. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 squarely falls outside the purview of section 263 of the Act and hence the same is cancelled. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, allowed. 14. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th June, 2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 959
... ...
... ... ..... 1 On the other hand, the learned CIT-DR submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision of Mumbai High Court, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer so that he may examine the facts of the case in the light of the decision. The learned counsel had no objection to this course of action. 4.2 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The issue regarding disallowance u/s 14A for this year stands squarely covered by the decision of Mumbai High Court. The facts of the case have not been examined by the lower authorities in the light of propositions laid down in the decision. Therefore, we think it fit to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the matter de novo as per law after hearing the assessee. 5. In result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2011.
........
|
