|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 582 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 663
... ...
... ... ..... es for the school, which is a part of fulfilling the object of the trust, also remains unchallenged. 29. Here also, we find the order of the ld. CIT(A) to be just and proper. In “Span Foundation” (supra), it has been held that repayment of the loan taken for construction of building is a valid application. Moreover, section 11(1)(a) of the Act lays emphasis on spending of income and it does not confine the source of the amount spent, but income earned during the year. Besides, in the present case, the depreciation is of ₹ 1.36 crores and the income is ₹ 55 lakhs. As such, even if the claim of the assessee is disallowed, as has been done, it would have no effect. 30. Therefore, the grievance of the Department in this regard is rejected and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. 31. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated and the appeal of the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 662
... ...
... ... ..... , the I.T.A.T., Mumbai Benches in the case of Brahman Sabha Trust (Supra) has held that the order of CIT is without jurisdiction. We respectfully follow the above order of I.T.A.T. Mumbai Benches. In the light of the facts, we uphold the preliminary objection raised by the Ld. Authorised Representative and annul the impugned order which is passed without jurisdiction. Since the issue is decided in favour of the assessee on preliminary objection, therefore, we are not expressing any opinion in respect of merit and other aspects of the matter. However, the CIT is at liberty to take action in accordance with law, if suggested so.” 6. Since the facts are identical, and to maintain consistency, we follow the above order of I.T.A.T. in ITA No.447/Agr/2011 in the case of Agra Development Authority and the issue is decided accordingly with identical directions. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as above. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.03.2012)
-
2012 (3) TMI 661
... ...
... ... ..... poses. Section 145A of the Act begins with a non obstante clause, and therefore, to give effect to section 145A of the Act, if there is a change in the closing stock as on March 31,1999, there must necessarily be a corresponding adjustment made in the opening stock as on April 1, 1998.” 6.1 This judgment has been further followed and applied by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (supra). We, therefore, respectfully following the above judgement direct the Assessing Officer to make similar corresponding adjustment for the opening stock as on 01.04.2006, as well. We also uphold the direction given by the CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer to verify that the sum of ₹ 5,45,189/- if pertains to the capital goods, then the same should be excluded after verification being done by the Assessing Officer. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 20th day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 660
... ...
... ... ..... ty of the dispute. 3. That the parties would be free to urge their respective contentions on the said question before the Arbitral Tribunal 4. The Arbitral Tribunal would be obligated to decide the same in terms of the law applicable to the Agreement. 5. That the Suit filed by the Petitioner joining the Defendant No. 2 (DHL) is not bonafide and has been filed only with a view to frustrate the Arbitration Clause, the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd (Supra) would therefore have no application. 37. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the parties at length and having perused the impugned judgment and order dated 13 October 2011 allowing the Application under Section 45 of the said Act, in my view, there is no error of jurisdiction or any illegality or infirmity committed by the Court below for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 659
... ...
... ... ..... .50 lakhs in A.Y.1995-96 and ₹ 11.77 lakhs in A.Y.1996-97. Since similar addition in A.Y.1997-98 is restored back by us to the file of the AO for fresh decision, we feel that in these two years also this issue should go back to the file of AO for fresh decision. Hence, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) in both these years also on this issue and restore this matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision as per the direction given by us for A.Y.1997-98 (supra). 10. Remaining grounds were not pressed by the learned counsel of the assessee in both the years and hence the same are dismissed as not pressed. 11. In the result, both the quantum appeals for A.Y.1995-96 and 1996- 97 are partly allowed for statistical purpose. 12. In the combined result, the quantum appeal for A.Y.1995-96, 1996- 97 and 1997-98 are partly allowed for statistical purpose and penalty appeal for A.Y.1997-98 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (3) TMI 658
... ...
... ... ..... d as not pressed. 171. Ground No. 2 is as follows “The ld CIT(A) has further erred in upholding disallowance of ₹ 1,87,67,367/- being the amount of irrecoverable advance written off in the accounts.” This Ground is connected with Ground No. 5 of assessee’s appeal in ITA No 961/PN/02, wherein we have discussed the issue in detail and held the issue in favour of the assessee. Following the parity of reasoning given therein, we hereby set-aside the order of the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition. The assessee succeeds on this Ground of appeal. 172. Ground No. 3 relating to levy of interest under section 234B(3) of the Act was not pressed by the learned Counsel at the time of hearing and, therefore, the same stands dismissed as not pressed. 173. In the result, assessee’s appeal, vide ITA No 1421/PN/05 is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 06th Day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 657
... ...
... ... ..... was made by the assessee for deduction after duly disclosing all particulars. In the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd 2010 322 ITR 158/189 Taxman 322 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that mere rejection of a claim for deduction made by the assessee will not give rise to imposition of penalty for concealment. 38. We are thus of the view that none of the additions in respect of which penalty was imposed by the AO calls for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) has accepted the plea of the assessee and has deleted the penalty imposed by the AO. We are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) on this issue does not call for any interference. Consequently, the same is confirmed and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. In the result, ITA No. 7019/Mum/2006 by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA No. 1999/Mum/2007 by the Revenue is dismissed and ITA No. 1198/Mum./2007 by the Revenue is also dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 656
... ...
... ... ..... ional High Court has also clarified this position in the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. (supra). 15. With regard to the merit of the levy of fringe benefit tax on the calibration expenditure, the Additional Commissioner in the remand report before the CIT(A) admitted as under - “However, considering the merits of the submission with regard to claim for non inclusion of calibration expenditure incurred on Air Craft owned by AAI included in the levy of FBT; it is seen that FBT is not attracted on the expenditure under reference.” 16. Thus, the Additional Commissioner himself has admitted that FBT is not attracted on the calibration expenditure incurred on aircrafts owned by the AAI. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Revenue’s appeal. The same is dismissed. 17. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.3841/Del/2011 is partly allowed while in ITA No.3842/Del/2011 is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 16th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 655
... ...
... ... ..... nder section 139(1). The provision contained in section 139(3) makes it clear that all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such a return as if it were a return under section 139(1). In vie3w of such a specified provision, there is no reason to exclude the applicability of section 139(5) to a return filed under section 139(3).” A similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the Case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd (supra). By respectfully following the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd (supra) and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd (supra) we set aside the order of authorities below and direct the assessing officer to process the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) and quantify the losses in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 654
... ...
... ... ..... on 05.04.2010 seeking renewal of certificate issued u/s 80G of the Act. In this connection, it is brought to your notice that an amendment was made to section 80G (5) (vi) through Finance Act (No.2) 2009. In view of above amendment, the certificate issued earlier in your case for exemption u/s 80G vide this office Order No. DIT (E) 2006-2007/c-649/3379 dated 07.03.2007 which was valid upto 31.03.2010 is also valid from 01.04.2010 onwards till it is rescinded and subject to the same conditions and also subject to the condition that your case should not be hit by the newly inserted proviso to Section 2 (15) of the Act. This issues with the prior approval of Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Delhi. (SATENDRA KUMAR) Income Tax Officer (Hqrs.) (E), Delhi.” 4. In view of the above position, we find merit in the claim of the assessee and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 653
... ...
... ... ..... It was agreed by the petitioner through their learned Counsel that they will deposit ₹ 12 lakhs by eight weeks from date. On deposit of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12 lakhs, the Tribunal is directed to hear out the matter within eight weeks from the date of the said deposit. In case the deposit is not made within the aforesaid time, then the Tribunal will take appropriate steps in that regard. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (3) TMI 652
... ...
... ... ..... ke apparent from record. 4. In the rebuttal the ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the AO has not properly implemented the orders of Tribunal as though specific ground has been raised by assessee in this appeal. Therefore he requested to hear the ground under consideration afresh and give directions accordingly. 5. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of material available on record though we have set aside the entire issue to the file of AO there is no specific instructions as regarding ground no. as raised by the ld. Counsel for assessee. Therefore in the interest of justice we recall our order dated 11.03.2011 to the effect of dealing with Ground No.4 only. We fix the case for hearing on merit on 13.07.2012. Since the said date has been pronounced in the open court no fresh notice of hearing will be served on either parties. 6. In the result the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 16.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 651
... ...
... ... ..... is otherwise found to be not valid, can still be validated in the name of local needs as sought to be made out by the appellants. Needless to say that these are our prima facie observations. These questions are to be decided by the learned single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. The learned single Judge will not be in any manner influenced by our prima facie observations. For the reasons aforesaid we are of the view that the present appeals are devoid of merits. The contentions raised by the interveners are also likewise rejected. We hold that the interim order granted is just and proper calling for no interference by us at this stage. Thus, all the appeals are dismissed. With the dismissal of the appeals the connected applications for stay have become infructuous and they are also accordingly dismissed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all requisite formalities. I agree.
-
2012 (3) TMI 650
... ...
... ... ..... uo; 25. The Assessing Officer has made the addition consequence upon the profit calculated in the case of M/s Umiya Investment. However, when the matter was carried before Ld. CIT(A), the same was deleted following the view taken by Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s Umiya Investment. We are also of the view that while dealing with these issues hereinabove, we have noted that the alleged profit was ACIT Cir-6 A’bd v. M/S Umiya Investment & Sh. Prahladbhai R Patel Page 15 duly disclosed by the said concerned in the regular course for A.Y. 2003-04 and thereupon we have decided to affirm the deletion consequent thereupon according to us there was no occasion on the part of the Assessing Officer to assess the profit in the hands of the assessee. We hold accordingly and confirm the deletion. Resultantly, these grounds of the Revenue are also dismissed. 26. In the combine result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 26/03/2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 649
... ...
... ... ..... o unravel the truth. It is also pertinent to note here that the High Court had itself, by order dated 18th July, 2005 directed the completion of inquiry within a set time-frame of twelve weeks, which was subsequently interjected by an interim order and finally the entire investigation/inquiry came to be quashed by the impugned judgment. It seems incongruous that in the first instance the court set into motion the process of law only to ultimately quash it on the specious plea that it would cause unnecessary embarrassment to the respondent. 14. For all these reasons, in our opinion, High Court's interference with the investigation was totally unwarranted and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, quash and set aside the impugned judgment and restore the investigation initiated against the respondent and direct the Vigilance Cell of the State to proceed with and complete the investigation expeditiously, in accordance with law.
-
2012 (3) TMI 648
... ...
... ... ..... planation offered by the assessee. Determination of undisclosed income will not automatically result in imposition of penalty under section 158BFA (2) of the Act. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Satyendrakumar Dosi (315 ITR 172) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dodsal Limited (312 ITR 112) (Bom) have also decided the law as such. Therefore, considering the fact that the undisclosed income has been determined purely on estimate basis and keeping in mind the order passed by the Jaipur Bench of ITAT, and the law laid down by the Bombay High Court and Rajasthan High Courts discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty can be imposed under section 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the appellant. In view of the above, we delete the penalty imposed and allow the claim of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 14 -03-2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 647
... ...
... ... ..... the amount allegedly received by the assessee as gift having been disclosed by him and the same having come through banking channels and the identity of the donor having been established, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposable even though the genuineness of gift was not accepted and the amount of gift was added to the total income of the assessee u/s 68. 6. Keeping in view the legal position emanating from the judicial pronouncements discussed above and having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the present case is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition made to the total income of the assessee on account of alleged bogus gifts treating the same as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. In that view of the matter, we cancel the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(Appeals) and allow this appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 16th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 646
... ...
... ... ..... cantly indicate that the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date on which the cheque or instrument was drawn. The words “from‟ and “to‟ employed in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act are evidently clear that in cases where there is an ambiguity or suspicion with reference to the date of commencement of period of limitation in any Act or special enactment, the words “from‟ and “to‟ employed in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act can be pressed into service." (See also K.C. Nanu v. N. Vijayan, (2007) 1 KLJ 326). We are in agreement with the aforementioned view." 11. In view of the legal position that the notice of demand has to be issued within 30 days period, I am of the opinion that the complaint of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner is not maintainable. Thus, the impugned order of summoning and the proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. 12. Petition and application are disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (3) TMI 645
... ...
... ... ..... reasonableness, equality and fairness. Though, the initial lease was granted to Gopaldas Mohta before coming into force of the Constitution, while considering the issue of renewal of lease the Corporation was duty bound to take action and decision strictly in consonance with the constitutional principles and decision to renew the lease in favour of Parmanand Mundhada could not have been taken except after following a procedure consistent with the equality clause, which was not done. 22. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The appellant shall hand over possession of the plot to the Corporation within a period of three months. After taking possession of the plot, the Corporation shall alienate the same by sale, lease, or otherwise by auction or by inviting tenders and after following a procedure consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Corporation shall pay market value of the structure, as obtaining on the date of the order of the High Court to the appellant.
-
2012 (3) TMI 644
... ...
... ... ..... e penalty order where some of these facts are mentioned, we noted that on the given set of facts of the present case, penalty cannot be levied. Assessee has filed confirmations of all the creditors. Respective loan was returned to the respective persons along with interest amount and they have confirmed also. Merely non-production of cash creditors cannot be said that this is a concealed income of the assessee. No enquiry whatsoever has been made on the address given by the assessee in the confirmatory letters. Explanation offered by the assessee was not found incorrect or false. Therefore, it cannot be said that assessee has not filed any explanation. This is a case of non-substantiating explanation by producing those persons from whom the loans were taken, otherwise assessee has filed all other details, which in our considered view proved that this is not a case of concealed income. Accordingly we cancel the levy of penalty. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
