|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 924 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1191
... ...
... ... ..... valued the property at much higher rate than the consideration shown in the sale deed and on this basis additions were made in the hands of all these assessee, under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment?. These additions were deleted by the CIT (A) and the order of the CIT (A) has been affirmed by the ITAT. Vide impugned order the ITAT decided the cases of all joint owners who purchased the said property which includes Smt. Suraj Devi, Sh. Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, late Sh. Shiv Narain Aggarwal etc. The Department had filed appeal in the case of Smt. Suraj Devi under Section 260-A of the Act to this Court which was registered as ITA 811/2010 and has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide orders dated 13th August, 2010. Following that order, appeals of other co-owners/assessees i.e. ITA 1551/2010, ITA 1370/2010 and ITA 1660/2010 were also dismissed. Following those orders, these appeals are also dismi ssed as no question of law arises in these appeals.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1190
Nature of expenses - pre-project expenses - Allowable business expenditure - Held that:- In the present case, the expenses related to two projects, namely, Ayirumthengu Project and Bhimji Project. The said projects had to be abandoned due to stiff resistance from local to carry out exploratory drilling by the foreign company and also on account of environmental problems and presence of of Oliva Ridley turtles, a rare specie of turtles around the coastal area. The tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the nature of the assessee's business is mining of ore and for achieving that object it has to carry out exploration activities. The outcome of such exploration is always contingent. The exploration activities being the regular line of assessee's business, expenses incurred on such activities have been allowed as revenue expenditure.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1189
Subsidy with respect to Sales Tax payable - Tribunal holding that the subsidy received by the assessee cannot be reduced from written down value for purpose of computing depreciation of wind mills - Tribunal committed no error in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1188
... ...
... ... ..... as allowable to the assessee on the basis of material available on record. In these facts of the case, we hold that it shall be justified to modify the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under S.263 to the effect that the assessment is set aside to the file of the assessing officer with a direction to reframe the assessment de novo in accordance with law and to adjudicate the issue of deduction allowable to the assessee, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee shall be at liberty to claim deduction under some other provision of law, which shall be decided by the assessing officer on merits thereof. We direct accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Since the very appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the foregoing paras of this order, the Stay Application of the assessee has become infructuous We direct accordingly. Order pronounced in the court on 5.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1187
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- The requirement of law under section 68 in the case of capital contribution is that the identity of the contributor is required to be established by the assessee. The identity is not under challenge at all. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1186
... ...
... ... ..... appeal before us. 11. Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the assessment order. 12. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that this disallowance was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by following the tribunal decision rendered in the case of M/s. Aswani Industries, Surat in I.T.A. No. 2103/Ahd/2010 dated 29.10.2010 and in the case of M/s. Haripriya Processors Pvt. Ltd., Surat in I.T.A. No. 1569/Ahd/2010 dated 08.09.2010. No contrary decision of the Tribunal or any higher forum was brought to our notice by the Ld. D.R. and hence, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present case. No difference in the facts could be pointed out by the Ld. D.R. and hence, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.2 of the revenue is rejected. 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 14. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th Aug., 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1185
... ...
... ... ..... covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s.Gopal Puhorit reported in 2010 228 CTR (Bom) 582. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1184
... ...
... ... ..... , did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whether they were creditworthy. There was no effort made to pursue the so-called alleged creditors. In those circumstances, the respondent could not do anything further. In the premises, if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent had discharged the burden that lay on it, then it could not be said that such a conclusion was unreasonable or perverse or based on no evidence. If the conclusion was based on some evidence on which a conclusion could be arrived at, no question of law as such arose”. In view of the above factual and legal position, we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We reverse the orders of the lower authorities and allow appeals of the assessee. 7. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed. 8. Order is pronounced in open court on 12.08.11.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1183
... ...
... ... ..... art of sale proceeds and recognized as income when sale took place by way of transfer u/s 2(47) of the IT Act. In this view of the matter, we agree with the findings of the ld.CIT(A) in all respects.” 5. There is no dispute on the fact of offering of the sum of ₹ 7.5 lakhs in the AY 2003-04 and taxing of the same in that year, the year of completion of the project. The dispute relate if the said receipt should have been offered to tax in the AY 1999-00 on cash basis, when the receipt is undisputedly linked to the project. In our opinion, this issue is settled vide the discussion extracted above. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) has to be reversed on this issue. Factually, the said decision of the Tribunal was filed before the CIT(A) in the first appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 26-8-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1182
... ...
... ... ..... alore and in the case of M/s TaxCorp e-Practice Mega DVD reported in (2009) 30 SOT 1(Mum.), it has been held that where the assessee has made an application to the authority seeking extension for receipt of remittance as per FEMA regulation and the RBI has taken the remittance on record then it should be assumed that RBI has given deemed approval and such receipt is to be considered for deduction u/s 10B of the IT Act. 10.2 Having heard both the parties and having gone through the material on record and also judicial precedents cited supra, we find that the order of the CIT(A) is in consonance with the above decisions. Respectfully, following the decision of the co-ordinate benches, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A), hence the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 05-08-2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1181
Whether the appellant Ethiopian Airlines is entitled to sovereign immunity in this case - proceedings before the Consumer Forum are suits - According to the respondent there was gross delay in arrival of the consignment at the destination, which led to deterioration of the goods. the respondent filed a complaint. the State Commission held that the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. The respondent aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (`the National Commission'). The National Commission categorically observed in the impugned judgment that Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `C.P.C.') was not applicable since the case in dispute is covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (`the Act'). The National Commission set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remitted it to the State Commission so that the State Commission could decide it afresh in accordance with law. The appellant, aggrieved by the said order, has preferred this appeal on the ground that a foreign State or its instrumentality cannot be proceeded against under the Act without obtaining prior permission from the Central Government. The appellant contends that a foreign State or its instrumentality can legitimately claim sovereign immunity from being proceeded against under the Act in respect of a civil claim.
HELD THAT:- Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled to sovereign immunity with respect to a commercial transaction is also consonant with the holdings of other countries' courts and with the growing International Law principle of restrictive immunity. It may be pertinent to mention that the Parliament has recognized this fact while passing the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Section 86 was itself, a modification and restriction of the principle of foreign sovereign immunity and thus, by limiting Section 86's applicability, the Parliament through these acts, further narrowed a party's ability to successfully plead foreign sovereign immunity. In the modern era, where there is close interconnection between different countries as far as trade, commerce and business are concerned, the principle of sovereign immunity can no longer be absolute in the way that it much earlier was. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant before the court is devoid of any merit and must be rejected.
However, we agree with the findings of the National Commission so far as it has remitted the matter to the State Commission for adjudication. In the facts and circumstance of this case, we direct the State Commission to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1180
... ...
... ... ..... d when the goods first despatched for delivery at Varanasi. In the facts of the case the local market area is admitted to be the market area of Ghaziabad. In view of section 48(iii) of the Trade Tax Act it is with reference to the prevalent value of the goods in the market area of Ghaziabad that the Department should have framed an opinion as to whether the price of the goods disclosed in the documents accompanying the transport were under value to the extent of more than 50 per cent or not. Since in the fact of the case the Department failed to produce the value of the goods as in the market area of Ghaziabad on the date the transaction was entered into this Court has no hesitation to record that the seizure of goods itself was patently illegal. The Tribunal is justified in not relying upon such valuation of goods as per the markets where transaction had not taken place. No case is made out so as to warrant interference with the order of the Tribunal. Revision is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1179
... ...
... ... ..... (22)(e) of the I.T. Act and this ground is allowed.” 11. After hearing both the parties, perusing the record and going through the provisions of section 2(22)(e), we are of the considered opinion that in the light of the intention of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act and in the absence of indication in said section to extend the legal fiction to a case of loan or advance to a non-share-holder also, loan or advance to a non-share-holder cannot be taxed as deemed dividend in the hands of a non-share-holder. Since the assessee is not a registered share holder of the lender company, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are not attracted in this case and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that the AO was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 3,56,878/- as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. This ground of Revenue is also dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 5/8/11.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1178
... ...
... ... ..... utside. No office or staff was maintained by the assessee for looking after the purchase and sale of shares. In the earlier as well as subsequent years, the surplus from the sale of shares was accepted as capital gain. Therefore, in our opinion, the above decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench would be squarely applicable. Similar view is taken by the ITAT in other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee. In view of the above, we respectfully following the above decisions of the ITAT, direct the AO to treat the sum of ₹ 2,41,132/- as short term capital gain. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal on the ground nos.1 to 5 is allowed. 6. Ground No.6 is against the charging interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C, the ground being consequential, the AO is directed to charge interest after re-computation of the income, as per our above order. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 12th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1177
... ...
... ... ..... ia, the creditor. Regarding second plea of the assessee, that the assessee never maintained the books of accounts and therefore, the addition under section 68 can not be made, is also not tenable as the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, in a latest decision in the case of Smt. Indira Rani-vs- CIT reported in 211 ITR 346 (Ker.), has held that in absence of proper explanation, addition under section 68 can be made for the credit in bank account. The ld. CIT(A) also followed the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Indian Woollen Carpet Factory -vs- ITAT reported in 260 ITR 658 (Raj.). Therefore, I am of the view that addition of ₹ 1,50,000/- was rightly made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order. Hence, I incline to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1176
... ...
... ... ..... by the appellant in its proper perspective. Revenue's appeal " 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the A.O. to recompute the excess/ short consumption on the basis of directions given by his predecessor in assessee's own case for A.Y. '02-03, without considering the merits of the case" 54. The only issue in these cross appeals relate to addition of ₹ 32,08,452/- made the A.O. on account of excess consumption of raw material. The facts are similar to A.Y. 1998-99. Since the facts are similar to A.Y. 1998-99, for the reasons therein, vide paras 27 to 31, the ground of assessee are allowed and the ground of the Revenue is rejected. 55. In the result, appeal in ITA No. 5318/Mum/2006 is partly allowed, ITA No. 5319/Mum/2006 & ITA No. 447/Mum/2009 are allowed, ITA Nos.5540 & 5541/Mum/2006 and ITA No. 682/Mum/2008 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1175
... ...
... ... ..... onferring double benefit. His view was affirmed by the CIT(A) but the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal. On further appeal by the revenue to the High Court, it was held that the income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There was thus no double deduction claimed by the assessee. In coming to this conclusion the Punjab & Haryana High Court, inter alia, followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court cited above and distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra. In this view of the matter, and respectfully following the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court cited above, we affirm the decision of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1174
Disallowance of depreciation to assessee trust - Held that:- The income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There was thus no double deduction claimed by the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1173
... ...
... ... ..... rder. 21.This contention of the learned counsel for the State, again deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Commissioner of C.EX., Bangalore vs. Karnataka Agro Chemicals, 2008(227)E.L.T.12(S.C.), has been pleased to lay down, that is generic sense "micro-nutrients" are also a kind of fertilizer, in the functional sense. Though, in the said case, it was held that it was not be so treated for the purposes of Central Excise Act, in view of its exclusion under Excise Act. Whereas in the present case, it is not in dispute that the product was sold and exported under HS CODE 3105.90, which deals with the fertilizer. 22.It is also well settled that if two interpretations are possible, in that case, the one favouring the assess is to be followed. 23.For the reasons stated, all the writ petitions are allowed, and impugned orders in all the writ petitions are set aside. 24.Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1172
... ...
... ... ..... ent angle. Suppose the assessee had not revised the return at all and no loss was shown in the original return due to some mistake but the AO in the assessment under section 143(3) is required to compute income or loss correctly. Once the loss has been determined by the AO under section 143(3), it cannot be said that the loss cannot be allowed to be carried forward when return has been filed within time allowed under section 139(1). We are therefore of the view that loss is required to be carried forward. This view is also supported by the decision of the Tribunal in case of Ramesh R. Shah vs. ACIT in ITA No.4312/Mum/2009 (supra), in which under identical circumstances loss arising from sale of shares of M/s. Phlox Pharma Ltd. has been allowed to be carried forward. We therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee to carry forward the loss. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.8.2011.
............
|
