|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 926 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1317
... ...
... ... ..... Rules 53 and 173Q(b) and (d) of the Rules?” 2. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the similar question in the case of Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 320 (S.C.), where it has been held thus “…...There being no finding that the appellant intended to take the scrap outside the factory premises, the confiscation of the scrap which, according to the appellant, was to be recycled, cannot be held to be justified and consequently, the confiscation of scrap as well as penalty levied cannot be sustained.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, in this case also, the scrap was not taken outside the premises and it was meant for recycling. As such, confiscation of the scrap and imposition of penalty was illegal. However, ₹ 25,000-00 penalty which is levied is not challenged by the assessee. In that view of the matter, the reference is answered accordingly.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1315
... ...
... ... ..... is one on the date of passing of the judgment. Various reasons have been given by the Supreme Court for taking the conversion rate of the foreign currency on the date of judgment and various alternative positions were examined by the Supreme Court such as the date of the arising of the claim, date of filing of the suit, date of passing of the judgment, the date of filing of the execution and the ultimate date of payment, however ultimately Supreme Court after weighing all the imponderables ultimately laid down the ratio that the amount which is payable for foreign currency will be converted to Indian rupees as on the date of passing of the judgment. I therefore also reject this argument on behalf of the Appellant. 8. In view of the above, the appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The bank guarantee given by the Respondent for releasing the amount in its favour stands discharged. 9. No other issue is urged before me.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1314
... ...
... ... ..... n award was only a ruse to avoid payment of stamp duty and registration with respect to a sale deed and declare a title in persons who did not have title earlier, then the entire proceedings is sham and bogus. In fact, C.B. Sharma was not really an arbitrator, nor the proceedings before him were arbitration proceedings and the awards were not really arbitration awards. If all these facts which have a bearing on the making of the award and the validity of the award are suppressed before the court and the court was misled into making decrees in terms of the awards, necessarily the proceedings are fraudulent and amounted to committing fraud on the court. In these circumstances the decree in CS Nos.366 and 367 of 1992 on the file of the Sr. Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra were invalid. Conclusion 42. We, therefore allow these appeals, set aside the judgments of the first appellate court and High Court and restore the decrees of the trial court decreeing the suits filed by the appellants.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1313
... ...
... ... ..... vity of a co-operative society, it means the corporate activity of the society, that is to say, the combination of operations undertaken by the co-operative society whether or not they amount to a business, trade or profession in the ordinary sense. Clause(c) of Section 80P(2) is intended to cover receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of the business but attributable to an activity which results in profits or gains. Letting out of surplus space in the building owned and used by the assessee is not such an activity falling under clause (c). The rent thus received by the society is not eligible for the exemption provided under section 80P(2)(c). 5. Considering the covered nature of the issue, we find that the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80P in respect of the rental receipts received by the assessee3. Accordingly, the grounds raised are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 26 -8-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1312
... ...
... ... ..... e perused the records and considered the matter carefully. The dispute is regarding allowability of ₹ 5.00 lacs paid to ex-employee as pension. We find that ex-employee Shri Kshirsagar had been sanctioned pension of ₹ 4.00 lacs w.e.f. 1.4.2004 which had been increased to ₹ 5.00 lacs during the year. The sum of ₹ 4.00 lacs has already been allowed as deduction in Assessment Year 2005- 06. Therefore, allowability of claim is not in dispute. The CIT(A) disallowed the claim on the ground that there was no evidence of agreement of partners to pay increased amount. In our view the claim should not be disallowed on such ground. No amount can be paid to employee or ex-partner without the consent of the partners. The claim is otherwise allowable and there is no dispute on the amount paid. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1311
... ...
... ... ..... ime of assessment and the explanation given by the Assessee was accepted by the assessing officer. The Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that nothing has been brought on record by the CIT to show as to how the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous. 4. The Tribunal has held that when the Assessing Officer has taken a possible view on the material facts, the CIT cannot invoke his Jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act merely with a view to take a different view in the matter. As the CIT has passed the order under Section 263 of the Act on the basis of mere change of opinion, the decision of the ITAT to quash the said order cannot be faulted. 5. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1310
... ...
... ... ..... d by any other authority. Once Notification is issued donor is qualified for weighted deduction referred in Sec.35 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no violation of Rule 46A since the relevant CBDT’s Notification dated.12.04.2007 was produced before the Assessing Officer as recorded in Point No.9 of the Assessee’s letter dated.22.07.2009 written to the AO and which has also been available in assessee’s Paper Book. Since CBDT’s Notification dated.12.04.2007, which approves donee i.e. Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 35(1) of the Act and same was furnished by assessee during assessment proceedings, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance as made by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, this ground of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 31. In the result, all the appeals as well as Cross Objection are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 32. Order pronounced in open court on 30.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1309
... ...
... ... ..... as been disallowed only on the basis of ownership. It has been held by the Apex Court in Mysore Minerals v CIT, 239 ITR 775(SC), that depr4eciation is admissible in case the assessee is beneficial owner of the asset. Even otherwise the appellant has initiated action to transfer the asset in its name and the vehicles are already shown in its books. Ground No.4 is allowed.” 9. Having heard the submission of Learned Departmental Representative, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue specially when the facts as well as the evidences have established that the vehicles in question were used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and the same were duly reflected in the books of account of the assesseecompany. We find no fallacy in the view taken by the Learned CIT(Appeals), hence, affirm the same. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 12/ 08 /2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1308
... ...
... ... ..... ile of the AO with similar directions. ITA No.2701/Ahd/2004 A.Y. 2000-2001 8. In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the action of the AO in imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). 9. Since we have set aside the assessment orders of the AO in ITANo.868 and 2699/Ahd/2004 and restored the matter back to the file of the AO with direction to assess the assessee’s income from finance business under the head “Income from business” in accordance with law. Consequentially, the penalty based on such assessment cannot survive, accordingly, we delete the impugned penalty. However, the AO is at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceedings after determination of the income in set aside proceedings, if so warrants. 10. In result, appeals of the assessee being ITA No.868 and 2699/Ahd/2004 are deemed to be allowed for statistical purpose while ITA No.2701/Ahd/2004 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 5th August, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1307
... ...
... ... ..... turn around and challenge the said order. We, however, make it clear that in so far as the eligibility of the dealers are concerned, the direction of the learned single Judge dated 14 September, 2006 is quite clear and specific since His Lordship has directed the authorities concerned to consider the cases of all the applicants on the basis of the particulars, materials, information etc., mentioned in their respective application submitted on or before 1 June, 2005. The learned single Judge has also said that nothing subsequent to the date if produced or submitted by any candidate would be considered in favour of the candidate concerned while taking the final decision in the matter meaning thereby the documents that are required to be submitted should be as of 1 June, 2005. In view of the aforesaid we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 15 June, 2009 as corrected by an order dated 25 June, 2009. The appeal is dismissed, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1305
... ...
... ... ..... gned judgment, however, rejected the assessee's case placing reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals, (2010) 328 ITR 451 (Bom.). The assessee is therefore in appeal before us. In a detailed judgment passed by us today in Tax Appeal No.978 of 2008 and other connected appeals, we have taken the same view as that of the Bombay High Court in Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (supra), wherein it has been held that not only difference in sale consideration, but the entire sale consideration upon transfer of DEPB credit would be covered under section 28 (iiid) of the Act. We have also granted certificate under Article 133 and 134 of the Constitution in those cases. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed without giving separate reasons. At the request of the counsel for the appellant, in this case also we find that same issue arises and the provisions made in the group of appeal will apply in the present case as well.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1303
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1302
... ...
... ... ..... 1, it would be entitled to sell/transfer or assign the same in the manner provided in two agreements and after adjustment of its debt, the remaining amount shall be returned to the co-owners. c) In so far as 500426 shares sold by the defendant No.1 on 18th and 19th July, 2011 and on 03.08.2011 and 04.08.2011 are concerned, the pawnor is entitled to take appropriate action under the law of tort and conversion. 83. For the reasons stated above, no further orders are called for nor the plaintiff is entitled to any relief. In view of the circumstances explained IA No. 11586/2011 is disposed of with the aforesaid terms. The findings given by this order are tentative which shall have no bearing at the final stage of the suit. CS (OS) No.1771/2011 Let the written statement be filed within four weeks. Replication be filed within four weeks thereafter. Original documents be filed by the parties within six weeks. List the matter before the Joint Registrar on 02.12.2011 for directions.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... 12 of the assessee is that the AO has passed the order u/s 153A read with Section 144 of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not annulling the assessment order. 14.2 We have heard both the parties. The powers of the ld. CIT(A) are coterminous with the powers of the AO and the assessee has been provided adequate opportunity before the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not annulling the assessment order. Thus Ground No. 12 of the assessee is dismissed. 15.1 The Ground No. 7th of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to give set off for the unaccounted/ suppressed sale consideration as such suppressed sale consideration is available for making the unexplained expenses or consideration. 15.2 No specific case has been pointed out by the revenue. Hence, this ground of appeal is academic. 16 In the result, the appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are partly allowed The order is pronounced in the open Court on 12-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1299
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 2,64,862/- as claimed by assessee and also considering the nature of business of assessee, we are of the considered view that it will be reasonable to restrict the disallowance to approximately 15% of the claim of assessee, which comes to ₹ 39,700/- (approx.). Hence, we restrict the disallowance to ₹ 40,000/- as against ₹ 75,000/- sustained by ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence, Ground No. 6 of the appeal is allowed in part by restricting the disallowance to ₹ 40,000/-. 23. Ground No. 7 of the appeal is as under - “That the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in confirming charging of interest under section. 234B although the assessee was not liable to advance tax under section 208 & 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 24. Since the said ground is consequential in nature, it does not require any specific adjudication. 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1298
... ...
... ... ..... nding of fact that the assessee in fact carried on agricultural operations and that the orders passed to that effect in assessment years 1990-91 to 1992-93 have been accepted by the revenue. For earning agricultural income, it is not necessary that the assessee must own the land and it is enough if it is established that the agricultural operations have been actually carried on by the assessee. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the ITAT that even in the past the assessee has been carrying agricultural operations, in the absence of any material to the contrary, the decision of the ITAT cannot be faulted. 4. In the result, we see no merit in all these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1297
... ...
... ... ..... statement given by the respondents' counsel and pleading on record, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to represent his cause to the competent authority, who shall look into the matter and take a decision with regard to the disputed articles and passed a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and preferably say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. While deciding the representation, the respondents shall take into account the order dated 06.03.1978 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Lucknow. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1296
... ...
... ... ..... age 11 of paper book, Shri Anant Himatsingka received ₹ 1,00,000/- from Shri Vinay Gupta and not from assessee. Hence, considering the documentary evidence placed on record, in the light of deposition of assessee and subsequent letters placed on record (supra), we are of the considered view that the addition on the basis of said seized receipts aggregating ₹ 3,00,000/- in the hands of assessee for assessment year 2004-05 is not justified and if any addition is made, it could have been considered in the hands of Shri Ajay Gupta and Shri Vinay Gupta respectively and not in the hands of assessee. Therefore, we delete the said addition of ₹ 3,00,000/- made in assessment year 2004-05 by allowing Ground No. 2 of the appeal for assessment year 2004-05. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2003-04 is dismissed and whereas appeal for assessment year 2004-05 of the assessee is allowed in part. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/08/2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1295
... ...
... ... ..... before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that no question of law arises where the genuineness of the payment has not been doubted. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur v. Vijay Kumar Goyal3 , relying on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Achal Alloys Pvt. Ltd.1 took the similar view and held that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arose for adjudication of the appeal. 8. Subsequently, this Court, in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur v. M/s. Bukhari Enterprises4 also took the same view and held that the Tribunal has categorically held that the AO has not doubted the genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the question of law, as raised therein, was answered accordingly and as such, the question of law referred in this reference petition, has already been settled. 9. In view of the above, question of law raised herein is well settled and is answered the in affirmative.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1294
... ...
... ... ..... er for the development of the housing project, the assessee should not be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB (10). The case of M/s. Radhe Developers & Other (includes the case of the appellant) vide order in ITA No.2482/AHD/2006 dated 29-06-2007. The facts and circumstances of the assessee are identical to the cases decided by Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad. Also all the pleas raised by the Assessing Officer have been effectively dealt with and discussed in the said order and thereafter Hon’ble ITAT has allowed the deduction under section 80IB (10). Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, the deduction under section 80 IB(10) was rightly allowed by CIT (A). 8. As the facts and circumstances during both the years under consideration are pari-materia, we respectfully follow the decision of the coordinate Bench and confirm the order of CIT (A). 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 26 - 08 - 2011.
........
|
