|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1021 - ITAT BANGALORE
Whether the interst accured on NPA should be recognized as assessee’s income on accrual or on receipt basis - Held that:- If a particular income is due but is not possible to recover the same, then it cannot be said to have been accrued and the said amount cannot be brought to tax - the definition of NPA shows an asset becomes non performing when it ceases to yield income - when it is not yielding any revenue, the question of showing that revenue and paying tax would not arise - as per policy guidelines issued by the National Housing Bank, the income from NPA should be recognized only when it is actually received - the contention of the revenue that in respect of NPA even though it does not yield any income as the assessee has adopted a mercantile system of accounting, he has to pay tax on the revenue which has accrued notionally is without any basis - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1020 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Settlement Commission order eligibility - scope of judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India while examining the validity of an order of the Settlement Commission - Held that:- When the Settlement Commission examines an application in terms of statutory powers and finds that such application does not satisfy the legal requirements, as contained in section 245C(1) of the Act, in our view, unless such decision of the Commission is contrary to the statutory provisions contained in the Act, interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be warranted.
The petitioners, as recorded earlier, made strenuous efforts to convince us that the Commission ought not to have summarily dismissed the application. We are afraid this cannot be the ground on which we would reverse the Commission's order. If on the basis of material on record, the Commission could have come to the conclusion that application was not valid, it had every authority to reject the same even at the stage of first screening under section 245D(1) of the Act.
We are not convinced with the petitioners' contention that if such application was allowed to be proceeded, the petitioners would have produced additional materials in support of the requirement that the petitioner made true and full disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner of deriving the same. The petitioners were required to make an application and make such declarations as required under section 245C(1) of the Act. They could not have hoped for or insisted upon a second innings to do so beyond the stage of section 245D(1) of the Act - petition dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1019 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that is only when the Explanation of the assessee for not showing such income in the original income is not found bonafide. 4.2 In this case the explanation of the assessee is that it has been declaring income in the earlier years based on the receipt of occupation certificate which had been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessments made after scrutiny made u/s 143(3) and even after of search and seizure, in assessments u/s 153A for earlier years in which the same system followed by the assessee had been accepted by the Assessing Officer. Under the circumstances, the explanation of the assessee for not showing the income in the original income has to be considered as bonafide. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for coming to the conclusion that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 21st day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1018 - ITAT DELHI
Transfer pricing addition - comparable selection criteria - functional similarity - Held that:- The assessee is engaged in the business of provision of software development services. The assessee in the relevant previous year entered into the international transaction of rendering the software development services to its associated enterprise.
Unrelated enterprise having controlled transaction can not be considered as comparable to the assessee while applying TNMM. As a company having substantiated related party transaction, may influence the profits of the company - enterprise is to be considered as uncontrolled for the purpose of benchmarking analysis of the ratio of related party transaction to the relevant base i.e. sales or cost does not exceed the limit of 25%. The related party transaction referred here are those which have a bearing on the net profit of the enterprise.
Computation of deduction u/s. 10A. - Held that:- We hold that freight telecommunication or insurance charges during the year that are reduced from the export turnover, then such sum will also have to be reduced from the total turnover of the company for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 10A.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1017 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, it can be seen that barring a sum of ₹ 50,000/ , remaining portion of the addition was deleted on the ground that only ₹ 50,000/ were received in the year under consideration and balance was opening balance in the account of the assessee. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the amount of ₹ 9,61,000/ could not have been considered during the year under consideration. We see no error in Tribunal's view. 4. With respect to deletion of ₹ 50,000/ , the Tribunal, while upholding that the same was unaccounted credit, found that such sum was credited in the assessee's account which was not explained. However, by applying the principles of telescoping, deleted the addition on the ground that the Tribunal had independently confirmed the addition of ₹ 1.58 lakhs. Here, it may be possible for the Revenue to move appeal against, however, the amount being relatively small, we are not persuaded to dwell upon the issue. 5. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1016 - ITAT DELHI
Limitation imposed u/s 254(2) is not applicable because the Tribunal's order was not u/s 254(1) but under section 255(5) read with Rule 12 of ITAT Rules.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1015 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 02,819. 17. We have perused the assessment order and the order of the DRP. We find that the pursuant to the DRPs order, the AO has not allowed any adjustment towards STCG, business loss and carry forward of depreciation. We, therefore, direct the AO to verify the facts on each of the three impugned users and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 18. Grounds no. 8(a) & (b) are, therefore treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Grounds no. 9 & 10 are with respect to the direction to be given to the AO to allow refund along with the interest upto date. 20. As the issue does not emanate from the orders of the either authorities, we cannot take any decision on such an issue. We, therefore, refrain ourselves from taking any decision on the issues impugned before us. 21. In the result, the appeal as filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1014 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that:- The assessee had claimed to have developed housing project and claimed such deduction. Revenue however, held belief that assessee was not the owner of the land and had developed the housing project for and on behalf of some other person. Tribunal relied on its own previous decision in case of Radhe Developers v. ITO [2007 (6) TMI 316 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] and ruled in favour of the assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1013 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee. Therefore, in terms of stipulation as contained in Explanation 2 of section 80IB(2)(ii) of the Act, assessee was held to be not entitled to deduction whereas from the material on record, CIT(A) found such finding of Assessing Officer to be erroneous inasmuch as the value of machinery and plant transferred to the assessee does not exceed 20 of the total value of the machinery and plant used in the business of the assessee and moreover, the department has not been able to dislodge such claim of the assessee either by placing any contrary material on record or could be able to show it from the material available. Since, conditions as contained in relevant provisions has been fulfilled, therefore, CIT(A) has taken a correct view of the matter to decide the issue in favour of the assessee whose action being legally valid is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. As a result, appeal of the Revenue gets dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 17.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1012 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be said that the raw materials have been supplied by M/s. Neelkamal Limited or their authorised persons. Therefore, prima Facies, we are of the view that the appellant company are not covered by the definition of 'job worker' under Rule 10A and the provisions of this Rule would not be applicable. In similar circumstances, the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. M/s Innocorp Ltd. and M/s. Dart Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant have been able to make out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Hence the requirement of pre-deposit of demand of duty, interest thereon and penalty by the Appellant company and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by Shri Gopal Krishan Gupta, Director is waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof is stayed till disposal of the appeal. 7. The stay applications are allowed. 8. Appeals be listed in due course.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1011 - ITAT MUMBAI
Claim of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) - Held that:- Substantial part did not connote an idea of being a major part i.e. more than 50%, in which in the context of section 2(22)(e)(ii)) it was held that in case 40% of assets were deployed by way of loans and advances then the business of money lending has to be considered as substantial part of the business of the assessee.
CIT(A) also relied on the judgment in the case of Indian Institute of Management (2010 (8) TMI 890 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), in which it was held that when 37.85% of total income was financed by Central Government it had to be considered as substantially financed by the government. In case of the assessee 57.46% of gross receipts is financed by the government. Further in the earlier orders similar financing by the government had been considered as substantially financed and exemption allowed to the assessee. We, therefore see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1010 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... se for 100 waiver. Accordingly, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and take up the appeal itself for disposal. 4. The issue has been settled by this Tribunal in the case of CCE v. DNH Spinners 2010 25 STT 295 (Ahd. - CESTAT) wherein the Tribunal has held that although the documents are not in the name of the assessee's factory but same are in the name of the head office of the assessee and there is no dispute about the input service received by the assessee. Therefore, substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural grounds. Same analogy applies to these facts. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1009 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... cts in that case are distinguishable for the reasons, the AO had added the difference in the opening stock and closing stock of the work in progress to the income of the assessee. In the present case, no opening stock and closing stock and work in progress is there and the AO in fact has not taken the opening stock. The reliance placed by the ld. DR in the case of CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC) is also not applicable since the facts in that case are quite distinguishable for the reasons that the assessee valued the goods in process. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the AO is not justified in making any addition. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is directed to reversed and all the grounds of the assessee i.e. 1 to 4 are allowed. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITA No.74(Asr)/2011 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1008 - ITAT BANGALORE
Reopening of assessment - non furnishing of reasons to believe - Held that:- Undisputable facts on record establish beyond doubt that the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act were never furnished to the assessee by the Assessing Officer before completion of the assessment proceedings on 29/12/2008, 33 months after the request was made by the assessee by letter dated 16/4/2007. The subsequent furnishing of the reasons recorded to the assessee by the learned CIT(A) by letter dated 28/1/2010 does not achieve any purpose or mitigate the illegality of the action of depriving the assessee its right to raise objections against the initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act.
In this view of the matter, we hold that the order of assessment passed under section 143(3) rws 148 of the Act dated 29/12/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 without the Assessing Officer furnishing the recorded reasons for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act to the assessee within reasonable time and prior to the completion of the assessment proceedings, renders this order of assessment invalid and unsustainable in law.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1007 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are electronic goods?" The question referred is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner Trade Tax versus Luminous Electronics Ltd. reported in 2010 NTN (Vol.44) 162 whereby this Court has held that the inverter is also covered in the entry relating to electronic component. In view of the above, the order of the tribunal is justified. No question of law arises. I see no reason to interfere with the order of the tribunal. The revision is dismissed as above. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1006 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... iscussed the assessee conduct of not borrowing any funds for the business purposes which is one of the criterion of the Circular which was relied upon by the CIT (A) in the case of JCIT vs. Dinesh Kumar Gupta 2005 2 SOT 126 (Del). It is a settled issue that the matters of this kind are mixed question of law and fact and the issue has to be decided based on the facts of each case. None of the lower authorities has gone into the relevant facts relating to the impugned issue involving many years and therefore we cannot give finding on the applicability of the rule of consistency to the instant case as held by the Apex court in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra). Therefore, we are of the opinion, the impugned order of the CIT(A) on this issue is proper and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly, relevant grounds of the revenue are dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1005 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The checked-in-baggage had already been handed over to the officials of the Airliner and even according to the prosecution, the checked- in- baggage was offloaded from the Aircraft and brought to place where the mahazer was being drawn.
whether the checked-in-baggage offloaded was locked and whether it was opened by the petitioner
-
2012 (12) TMI 1004 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the husband has proved his case of mental cruelty which was the foundation for seeking divorce?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1003 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
When the show cause notice contains detailed narration of events apparently leading to the conclusion of intention to evade payment of duty, whether mere non-invocation of specific/provision to Section 11A will vitiate the show cause notice for purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1002 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
............
|
