-
2012 (2) TMI 608
... ... ... ... ..... ds on interest to make investment in shares then also the dealing in shares is business transaction. Because of these reasons we are of the considered view that the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court pronounced in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the assessee is on different facts and, therefore, it would not apply on the facts of this appeal. Rather, the decision in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra) as pronounced by the Hon ble Bombay High Court has given certain guidelines to determine as to ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 607
Detention and seizure of betel nuts - the impugned order was shown to have been made on 07.06.2011 at 18.00 hrs. although the trucks and their drivers were detained on 06.06.2011 itself while the drivers had parked their trucks at the Petrol Pump for taking tea, but the said trucks and drivers were produced before the Magistrate on 09.06.2011 - Held that: - The documents on record clearly show that the petitioner was not only the consignor but also the transporter of articles in question arranging the trucks from Mandies for reaching betel nut....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 606
... ... ... ... ..... Sales tax under KVAT Act is payable only on the sales turnover after granting admissible deductions including eligible discount. (2) The difference between the stock transfer value and sales turnover cannot be assessed unless the same is found to be suppression of sales turnover. (3) The O.T.R. is allowed by vacating the orders of the Tribunal and by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the invoices and if required to conduct enquiry as to whether collections under any other head is made by the dealer. T....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 605
... ... ... ... ..... defendant. The Review Application was dismissed on May 15, 2003. 5. Challenge in RFA(OS) No.21/2010 is to the original decree dated May 17, 2000. Challenge in FAO(OS) No.257/2003 is to the order dismissing review sought by the defendant. 6. The two appeals are listed together for hearing and a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, terms whereof are recorded in the statement made in Court today by Sh.Om Prakash Garg, contents whereof have been accepted on behalf of the respondent by its Director Sh.Jagdish Moo....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 604
Deduction u/s 80IA - Company formed with the objective of dealing in finance and investment - Held that:- Absence of any nexus between the impugned interest income and the industrial undertaking, the claim for deduction under section 80IA of the Act is untenable. subsidy received being in the nature of capital receipt - disallowance of foreign travel expenses
-
2012 (2) TMI 603
... ... ... ... ..... ovisions of law. Since facts are identical for the year under consideration also, therefore, following the order of Tribunal as stated above, we allow the claim of the assessee. 4. Ground No. 1 in both the appeals is not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 5. Remaining issue is in respect to charging of interest under section234D and withdrawal of interest under section 244A. 6. Interest under section 234D is consequential. The AO is directed to allow consequential relief, if any. 7. No arguments were....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 602
... ... ... ... ..... er, we note that there could be bonafide belief for availability of Notification No. 74/93. In fact the decision relied upon by the ld. A.R. in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (supra) has itself held that there could be a bonafide belief and the intention to evade duty cannot be made out and extended period was not invokable. We also note that it is only subsequently with the declaration of law by the Larger Bench in the year 2008 in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil), the benefit of the notification....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 601
Levy of duty on the basis of shore tank quantity - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of CC & CE, VISAKHAPATNAM Versus RUCHI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [2007 (11) TMI 210 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that refund can’t be denied by stating that assessee hadn’t challenged assessment - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 600
... ... ... ... ..... he Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the ad-hoc disallowance made by the Assessing Officer out of housekeeping charges. 2.1 The ld. A.R. objected to the submissions of the ld. D.R. 3. On perusing the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2009, it appears that the contention of the Revenue is correct. Therefore, in order to adjudicate the ground no.3 raised by the Revenue, the order of the Tribunal is recalled to that extent. The Registry is directed to post the case for hearing in the normal course a....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 599
... ... ... ... ..... squo;ble Delhi High Court in the case of Parivar Seva Sansthan , 254 ITR 268(Del) is also to the same effect. The ld. DIT(E) does not question the payments made by the assessee to either CLEIS or CLIL as not being at arm s length and the only basis of attack is that the payments were made to the specified persons , which basis, as seen, is not available, much less sustainable. 33. Thus, considered from any angle, the action of the ld. DIT(E) in refusing grant of continuation of approval u/s 80 G of the Act to the assessee ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 598
Bogus purchases - Held that:- We have been informed that the malpractice of bogus purchase is mainly to save 10% sales tax etc. It has also been informed that in this industry about 2.5% is the profit margin. Therefore, we hereby direct that the disallowance is required to be sustained at 12.5% of the purchases from those parties. With these directions, we hereby decide. The grounds of the rival parties which are partly allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 597
... ... ... ... ..... uestion no.3 was not dealt with by this Court previously. Therefore, the appeal should at least be admitted on that ground. We set out this ground hereinbelow - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions of ₹ 13,22,883/- on account of guest house expenses? On careful perusal of the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal it appears that the learned Tribunal has dealt with this point in the manner as follows - On appeal the learned CIT (Appe....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 596
... ... ... ... ..... der section 263 dated 12.3.2010 is received by the assessee to attend the office on 18.3.2010. In this connection we have to submit that the notice is illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. .................... Even by the proviso added to Section 292BB of the Act, nothing contain in the Section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objections before the completion of such assessment or reassessment. In view of above, it can be said that Section 292BB of t....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 595
... ... ... ... ..... ., as also the customers of the respondent No.1 had been recorded. While recording the submissions made on behalf of the parties, in regard to the submission made on behalf of the customers, we had recorded that the customers were apprehensive of the burden of the Value Added Tax, imposed by the State of U.P. 2. Thereafter, we had indicated that this was a matter which would be decided by the High Court, where it is pending determination as to whether Value Added Tax was payable in respect of the goods being transported th....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 594
... ... ... ... ..... s for its client M/s Aquazur India Pvt. Ltd. on labour charges basis through the year and not on stary occasion. Under these circumstances, and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co. (Supra), we are of the view that ld CIT(A) has rightly held that A.O was not justified in rejecting assessee s claim that its case is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bangalore Clothing Co. and accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly allowed the ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 593
... ... ... ... ..... e authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs. Once the issue is decided by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee has....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 592
... ... ... ... ..... he payment is made in a village or town, which on the date of such payment is not served by any bank, to any person who ordinarily resides, or is carrying on any business, profession or vocation, in any such village or town; However, rule 6DD(g) will not come to the assesee s rescue as its place of business premises being Hubli which was adorned with a number of leading Banks. However, taking into account the peculiar circumstances under which the assessee was placed and also in conformity with the finding of the earlier B....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 591
... ... ... ... ..... tendance of the assessee or his counsel/A.R on the date of hearing. We, therefore, recall our order in ITA No. 1801/Mum/2010 dated 9th Aug 2011. 4. The appeal is fixed for hearing on merit on 22nd March 2012. Since the date of hearing was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties, therefore, no separate notices will be issued to the parties. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal accordingly for hearing. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order prono....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 590
Disallowance of interest expenditure - Held that:- Short mistake pointed out is that while disallowing the amount of Interest paid of ₹ 5,41,838/-, the Tribunal has not granted the netting of interest earned of ₹ 35,203/-, which was an alternate plea of the counsel of the assessee. In support , during the hearing, an assessment order for A.Y. 2009-10 is placed for due consideration. Admittedly this factual aspect remained for adjudication while deciding Ground No.1 of the above referred appeal, hence for this limited purpose we her....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 589
... ... ... ... ..... as the ld. CIT(A). Even if it is assumed for the arguments sake that the above only shows that assessee was trying to generate loss in the above transaction, there is nothing wrong with the same because it can be called as an instrument of tax planning. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in the case of Walfort Share Brokers P. Ltd. supra wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized with the question whether the transactions of purchase and sale of mutual funds were genuine wherein an advertisement w....... + More
............
