|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 380 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 286 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal did not take into account the finding of the Nair Committee. This was done in the subsequent order. Therefore, we are of the view that the subsequent decision should be followed in this case. Accordingly, following this decision, the matter is decided in favour of the revenue. Thus, ground no. 1 is dismissed. 5. In so far as charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C is concerned, the ld. CIT, DR relied on the decision in the case of JCIT Vs. Rolta India Ltd, (2011) 330 ITR 470 (SC). It has been decided that for the purpose of levy of interest u/s 234B “assessed tax” means the tax assessed on regular assessment. It has been further held that what applicable in respect of section 234B is also applicable in respect of section 234C even when assessment is made u/s 115JA. This clearly leads to an inference that interest under sections 234B and 234C are chargeable. Accordingly, these grounds are also dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 285 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Member. The Hon’ble Third Member vide his order dt. 26th May, 2010 has given his finding as under a) In respect of Question No.1, the Hon’ble Third Member has agreed with the view taken by Ld. Accountant Member of the Division Bench. The Ld. Accountant Member has held that project has to be taken as complete and concluded on signing of the consent terms on 5th August, 2003 i.e. during the assessment year 2004-05. b) In respect of Question No. 2, the Hon’ble Third Member has agreed with the view taken by Ld. Judicial Member of Division Bench. The Ld. Judicial Member has held that the amount of ₹ 13.31 crores received by assessee during the year from MHADA cannot be assessed as its income for assessment year 2004-05. 3. Therefore, in accordance with the majority view, appeal of assessee as well as appeal of department, both are dismissed. 4. The above order is pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of Representatives of both parties on 13.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 284 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s pertinent to note that the assessee has filed only confirmation letter from this donor. From the above said discussions, we are of the view that the said donor did not have credit worthiness to make the impugned gift. 12. From the foregoing discussions, we feel that the assessee has failed to prove the credit worthiness of Shri Chetankumar Arvindrai Patel. Accordingly, order of Ld CIT(A) in respect of the gift received from ChetanKumar Arvindrai Patel is confirmed. In respect of other two gifts, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the same to the file of the AO with a direction to provide necessary opportunity to the assessee to submit evidences in support of credit worthiness. The order of Ld CIT(A) in respect of disallowance of labour charges stands modified. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed and the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned herein above.
-
2012 (1) TMI 283 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... carried out any exercise in order to prove that excessive rate of interest has been paid by the assessee to family members. Moreover, the lenders have admitted the interest amount in their returns of income. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessing officer was not justified to disallow interest u/s 40A(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition on account of excess payment of interest. 12. The next ground relates to violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules on the ground that the learned CIT(A) has admitted fresh evidence. During the course of hearing, the learned Sr. DR could not point out as to which fresh evidence was admitted without affording the opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 20th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 282 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ssment in the light of provisions u/s. 153A of the Act. The requirement of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) as per the law laid down in the case of apex court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (supra) is to be considered in the light of return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. The assessment was made by the AO on the basis of admission of assessee and not on basis of any material found during the course of search. Therefore, the case under consideration, is not the case that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars or concealed any particulars of income in the return of income filed u/s. 153A of the Act. When there is no such finding in respect of return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 153A we find that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. We therefore, cancel the penalty of ₹ 78,750/- levied u/s./ 271(1)(c). 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 281 - SC ORDER
Demand of duty - assessee had willfully suppressed and mis-stated the facts to the Department - there was a bona fide doubt on the payment of duty - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-II Versus ITC LIMITED [2010 (7) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that it cannot be said that there was suppression of facts or any wilful intention to evade duty - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 280 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Incentive scheme - Eligibility Certificate - substantial expansion - Commercial Production - ineligible investment - Held that: - when the unit had started production within the stipulated time period and when there is no doubt with regard to making of investment merely on technical grounds, the denial on the part of the respondent to treat such investment as ineligible for the purpose of tax benefit requires reconsideration. This of course is not to suggest that those investments which are not falling within the stipulations made under the scheme or which are considered ineligible specifically by virtue of government resolution are not to be treated as eligible. However, on technical ground or on nonproduction of the document when eligibility is denied that requires the direction of reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (1) TMI 279 - ITAT JAIPUR
Disallowing development expenses - Held that:- It is useful to note that the assessee has used the percentage completion method. When an assessee follows the percentage completion method then at the completion of the project, the assessee has to make up the accounts. At that relevant time, the assessee can offer surpluses from the provisions or may claim the deficit in case the actual expenditure is more than the provisions. Hence, the revenue is not without any remedy in case the provision is excessive.
-
2012 (1) TMI 278 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition of proportionate interest being interest free loan to its subsidiary concern - commercial expediency for assessee to advance such loan - Held that:- Since the ld. CIT(A) while deleting the disallowance has followed the order of his predecessor for A.Y. 2004-05 and since the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication, therefore, we deem it proper to restore this issue to the file of the A.O. with a direction to adjudicate the same in the light of the direction of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2004-05 and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground raised by the Revenue is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
Addition of expenditure on corporate club membership fees - Held that:- Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our noticeby the ld. D.R. we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete the disallowance.
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- We restore the issue back to the file of the A.O. with a direction to adjudicate the same afresh in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej Boye Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly.
-
2012 (1) TMI 277 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Order in invoking the Section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and treating the cash deposit into the payee’s bank account as direct cash payment to the payee and failed to consider the object and purpose of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?” o p /o p Mr. Chatterjee waives service of notice of appeal. o p /o p The appellant shall file requisite number of paper book within four weeks from date. o p /o p Liberty to mention. o p /o p We are told that the attached amount has been taken away by the department from the bank concerned. We, therefore, direct the department to keep this amount separately and it would be abide by the result of this appeal. The stay application is, therefore, disposed of. o p /o p Since no affidavit-in-opposition to the application has been filed by the respondent, allegations contained therein are not admitted by them. o p /o p All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. o p /o p
-
2012 (1) TMI 276 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... appeal. 4. In reply, the ld. DR supported the order passed by the ld. CIT. 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered their submissions. As rightly observed by the ld. CIT, the assessee follows mercantile system of accounting. However the fact remains that the insurance premium fell due in the year under appeal and was therefore paid by the assessee. In the mercantile system of accounting, the expenses are liable to be allowed on accrual basis. The expenditure is said to arise as soon as it is incurred, i.e., liability to pay arises and is recognized in the books of account. In the present case, the liability to pay insurance premium arose in the year under appeal. It was also paid in the year under appeal. The expenses were also recognized in the books of account. In this view of the matter, the order of the ld. CIT in disallowing the insurance premium is vacated. Appeal filed by he assessee to the aforesaid extent is allowed. Order pronounced on 11.01.2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 275 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exemption u/s 54 - utilization of capital gains proceeds in the residential house only within the time provided u/s 139 - Held that:- The exemption should be forfeited for a technical breach does not appear to be the correct proposition particularly since the appellant pleads that he was not aware of the requirement ot invest in the capital gains account scheme and also states that his objective was to invest in a residential house which is apparent from the fact that he has purchased a land and also constructed a house thereon. It is also seen that section 54E (since deleted) and sections 54EC and 54ED which require investment of the proceeds in specified assets, specifically provides that the exemption would be forfeited if the specified asset is given as a security for taking loan. In section 54, we do not find any such provision and therefore in our considered view the purpose of section 54(2) is not to deprive the assessee of an exemption but only to avoid rectification. The ultimate object of the section having been satisfied namely to encourage construction of houses, we are convinced that the utilization of the funds in constructing a residential house should be treated as sufficient compliance of section 54 and therefore hold that the appellant is entitled to the exemption u/s 54 even in respect of the amount invested by way of construction of the residential house - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 274 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e has been issued by order dated 29.11.2010 we have not examined the question whether or not the said amount should be disallowed under Section 40A (2) of the Act. 4. On the question of deduction of tax at source, the contention of the Revenue is that tax at source should have been deducted under Section 194H at the rate of 5 (it appears that w.e.f. 1.6.2007 the rate of tax has been increased to 10 ). The respondent company had deducted TDS on the commission under the head salaries under Section 192 of the Act. The TDS deducted under Section 192 is at the normal rate which is much higher than either 5 or 10 . In these circumstances, we feel that the contention of the Revenue is hypertechnical. TDS has been deducted at a higher rate under Section 192 on the footing that the commission is part of salaries . Thus the contention of the Revenue that Section 40(a)(ia) should have been applied does not have any merit and has to be rejected. 5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 273 - SUPREME COURT
Whether on a particular event a particular person has shown any kind of disrespect to the National Flag?
-
2012 (1) TMI 272 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the parties to an agreement can contract in violation of Sections 23 and 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
Whether the parties to an agreement can confer jurisdiction on a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain a matter?
-
2012 (1) TMI 271 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Government of NCT of Delhi could have invoked Section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and dispensed with the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5A(2) thereof for the purpose of acquiring land measuring 80 bighas 15 biswas including 21 bighas 3 biswas belonging to the appellants for a public purpose, namely, establishment of electric sub-station by Delhi Transco Limited (for short, `DTL') at village Mandoli ?
Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had rightly negatived the appellants' challenge to the acquisition of their land?
-
2012 (1) TMI 270 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reover, once the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner and her husband was sustained, there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone other than the petitioner and her husband had committed the offences in respect of the deceased persons Aarushi and/or Hemraj. As has been held by this Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 , once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190 Cr.P.C., he cannot order of his own further investigation in the case under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. but if subsequently the Sessions Court passes an order discharging the accused persons, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which may also result in submission of fresh charge-sheet. 11. For these reasons, I agree with my learned brother Khehar, J. that this Review Petition has no merit and should be dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - In the scrutiny of the documents of the above shipping bills, it was revealed that there was gross misdeclaration with respect to quantity, quality and valuation of the declared export goods viz.”Dupattas” and “Sarong”, besides claiming disproportionately higher amount of drawback
-
2012 (1) TMI 268 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... de by the AO, the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 90,000/-.” 20. After considering the submissions and perusing the material on record, again we find no infirmity in the finding of ld. CIT (A) as ld. CIT (A) has ascertained the factual aspects that the payments were on account of reimbursement of expenses, therefore, provisions of section 194C were not applicable and accordingly there was no liability to deduct tax under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, to which the additions were made by AO were reduced. The ld. CIT (A) has reduced the addition to ₹ 90,000/- on which the TDS was liable to be deducted. Accordingly, to this extent we hold that ld. CIT (A) was justified and about remaining disallowance deleted by ld. CIT (A), we confirm his order as finding of ld. CIT (A) remained uncontroverted. 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part and the appeal of the department is dismissed. 22. The order is pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 267 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nternet charges of the communication expenses is attributable to the export of software outside India. 8.2 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in making the adjustment of communication expenses, viz., link charges of ₹ 24,06,287 and Insurance expense of ₹ 3,32,329 attributable to delivery of computer software outside India from “the export turnover” in terms of clause (iv) of Explanation 2 of section 10A of the Act without making the similar adjustment from “the total turnover” resulting into absurd and unintended results.” 2. In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, we find that the aforementioned grounds have not been adjudicated. Therefore, we allow the Misc. Application filed by the assessee for the limited purpose of adjudication of aforementioned grounds. 3. The Misc. Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner aforesaid. 4. Pronounced in the Open Court on 6th January, 2012.
............
|
