|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 582 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 643
... ...
... ... ..... en notified and there was no further notification after the aforesaid notification dated 9.11.93. Foremost conditions for levy of capital gain tax is that an asset should be a capital asset as per provisions of Income tax Act which is not the case with this land or at least AO has not controverted the AR’s above submission in this regard with proper legal provisions of the Act and evidence. 16.6 In view of the above and also in view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Khazan Singh, Sangrur in ITA No. 53/Chd/2005, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid land cannot be termed as a capital asset6 and therefore cannot be subjected to capital gain tax even through as per provisions of section 54B its cost is taken at Nil. Accordingly addition of ₹ 18,03,522/- is deleted.” 4. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 are general in nature and do not need any specific adjudication. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced on 07 .03.2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 642
... ...
... ... ..... 23(1) as also the legal position, we are of the view that the ALV has to be determined as per Section 23(1)(a) for the reason that the flat being self-occupied there is no question of there being any actual rent received by the assessee from the tenant. In as much as no standard rent of the house property involved in this case stands determined, the sum for which this flat might reasonably be expected to let from year to year need appropriately be taken at a figure of municipal valuation as has been held by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in 73 Taxman 437 and as has been taken by assessee. We hold accordingly. This disposes of ground no. 1(a) in favour of assessee.” 7. Thus following the above decision, the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head income from house property is hereby deleted and the income declared by the appellant is accepted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Order pronounced on this 20th day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 641
Award of interest on interest from the date of award - The High Court considered the diverse provisions of the Act including Section 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act and few decisions of this Court and ultimately held that the Respondent was entitled to post- award interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of the actual payment. It is this order which is in appeal before us.
HELD THAT:- The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is modified and it is directed that the Appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the post-award period from the date of award until May 24, 2001. After May 24, 2001, the Appellants are not liable to pay any interest on the award amount under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. the amount as per the impugned order dated March 5, 2009 was deposited by the Appellants which has been withdrawn by the Respondent. In light of this, court observe that the High Court shall now re-determine the amount due and payable to the Respondent under the award and the post- award interest as indicated above. The excess amount, if withdrawn by the Respondent shall be refunded to the Appellants within two months of re-determination by the High Court.
-
2012 (3) TMI 640
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, states that the High Court has taken it’s view only on limitation and not on merits. In the circumstances, the assessee will not press those grounds in the special leave petition, which deal with merits. On the question of limitation, therefore, leave is granted.
-
2012 (3) TMI 639
... ...
... ... ..... sion of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. RR Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd. in ITA Nos. 1989, 1990 and 2145/Mds/2010 dated 14-10-2011. 19. We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue in the cross objections is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. RR Donnelley India outsource Pvt. Ltd., referred to supra, following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. RR Donnelley India Outsource Pvt. Ltd., the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. 20. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 425/Mds/2011 stands dismissed and the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 426/Mds/2011 stands allowed for statistical purposes. The cross objections filed by the assessee in CO Nos. 55 & 56/Mds/2011 stand dismissed. 21. The order was pronounced in the court on 31/01/2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 638
... ...
... ... ..... rpose of constructing a cinema or hotel or petrol pump. The Urban Improvement Trust vide its order dated 11-09-2008 turned down the assessee's application on the ground that said land is reserved for the purpose of park and open space. Subsequently in 2003, Urban Improvement Trust developed a park and installed the statute of late Shri Rajeev Gandhi. If in the Master Plan the land was reserved for park then no construction could have been possible unless the use of the land as shown in the master plan is changed. Hence, it was the land at which no construction was permissible. Hence, the CWT(A) was justified in holding that such land is not includible in the Wealth Tax Act.” 17. Since facts are similar as compared to earlier years, therefore, on the reasoning given by Tribunal for earlier years, we confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) on this issue also. 18. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed. 19. The order is pronounced in the open court on 07.3.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 637
... ...
... ... ..... or Respondent(s) ORDER Issue notice in the application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the special leave petition. Tag with C.A. No. 10612 of 2011.
-
2012 (3) TMI 636
... ...
... ... ..... disputed anywhere by the Ld. CIT (A) though the A.O. has not mention any thing on the source of the investment. In our opinion, temporary parking of the borrowed amount of the loan on which the interest is earned, the said interest cannot be treated as ‘income from other sources’. As per fact on record, the assessee has obtained the loan from Technology Development Board (TDB) constituted under the Technology Development Board Act, 1995 and as the amount was not utilised the same was temporarily parked and interest was earned. In our opinion, both the authorities below have erred in not treating the interest earned on the temporary parking of the loan amount as a business income. Accordingly, we allow the ground taken by the assessee and direct the A.O. to treat the ‘interest income’ as ‘business income’ of the assessee. 4. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 28th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 634
... ...
... ... ..... ground no. 2 in the appeal of the assessee is disposed of. 11.. Ground no.3 relates to levy of interest U/s 234B and 234D of the Act. The ld. AR on behalf of the assessee did not make any submissions on this ground. The levy of interest u/s 234B & 234D of the Act being mandatory Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs Anjum M. H. Ghaswala And Others,252 ITR 1(SC), affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers 2003 259 ITR 449(SC) and in the case of CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers 2003 264 ITR 564(SC) , this ground is dismissed. However, the AO shall allow consequential relief ,if any, while giving effect to our aforesaid directions. With these directions ,ground no.3 is disposed of. 12. No additional ground having been raised before us in term of residuary ground in the appeal , accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 13.. No other plea or argument was made before us. 14. In the result, appeal is partly allowed but for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (3) TMI 633
... ...
... ... ..... amation as annexed at Annexure 'C' to the petition is hereby sanctioned. It is however, observed that the transferor company will preserve its books, papers and records for a period of 8 years from the date of sanctioning of scheme of amalgamation and will not dispose of the records without the prior permission of Central Government u/s. 396A of the Companies Act, 1956. With these observations, the Company Petitions are accordingly allowed. 15. The cost of learned Central Government Standing Counsel is be quantified at ₹ 7,500/- per petition. Liberty is given to the transferee company to pay the amount of cost directly by drawing a cheque in favour of P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. The cost of the office of Official Liquidator is quantified at ₹ 7,500/- in respect of the transferor company. Liberty is given to the transferee company to pay the amount of cost directly by drawing a cheque in favour of the Official Liquidator.
-
2012 (3) TMI 632
... ...
... ... ..... ng income from excess provisions, sundry creditors written back and prior period expenses written back etc amounting to ₹ 85,73,41,219/under profit of the business as per provisions of section 28 to 43 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rather than assessing as income from business of operation of qualifying ships, fulfilling the conditions of sec.115VI of the Act as claimed by assessee. (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Tribunal is right in applying tonnage tax provisions in respect of miscellaneous interest income of ₹ 46,10,985/. 3 Respondent waives service. 4 To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.2653 of 2011.
-
2012 (3) TMI 631
... ...
... ... ..... creditor, but the notice u/s. 133(6) reproduced in the assessment order, reveals that the AO called for the information from the creditor regarding the amount received of ₹ 30,00,000/- on account of share application money. Further, the details were stated to be subjected to verification by the Delhi Police. These facts noted in the notice would prove that incorrect information was called for by the AO from the creditor. Since the averments contained in the notice were incorrect and no attempt has been made to verify the information by issuing notice at the correct address of the creditor, the AO was not justified in making addition against the assessee. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the finding of facts given by the ld. CIT(A), we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). We, therefore, confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 9. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 630
... ...
... ... ..... s of ₹ 15,67,118 for acquisition of assets on behalf of WNS Global Services Pvt. Ltd. is in the nature of business income attributable to Service PE in India and accordingly, taxing 10% of ₹ 15,67,118, i.e. ₹ 1,56,712 as business income liable to tax in India.” 38. The grounds raised by the assessee are identical to the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No.628/Mum/10. For the reasons stated while deciding aforesaid appeal, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal for fresh consideration by the AO in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal referred to in ITA No.628/M/10. 39 In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed while appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 40. In the result, appeals by the revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 14th day of Mar.2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 629
... ...
... ... ..... he Company Law Board or the fact that it is preferable that highly disputed questions of fact such as those in the present case, ought to be decided by the Civil Court, the impugned judgment, therefore, dismissing the suit of the appellants/plaintiffs was not correct and is accordingly set aside. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted. Impugned judgment dated 4.4.2005 is set aside. It is held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and determine the disputes which were the subject matter of the suit. Let the parties appear before the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi on 1st May, 2012, and on which date the District & Sessions Judge, Delhi will mark the suit for disposal to a competent Court in accordance with law. The Court, to whom the suit will be marked, will issue notice to the defendants in the suit before proceeding ahead in the matter. Trial Court record be sent back so as to be available before the District & Sessions Judge on the date fixed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 628
... ...
... ... ..... ossible to work out the exact consumption of the raw material vis-a-vis production. It was also not possible to verify the expenditure incurred on taking the material. Hence, order passed by the assessing officer and the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeal) have been upheld by the Tribunal. 5. We find that merely on the ground of audit report or certificate of chartered accountant in favour of appellant, no dent was caused in the findings, which have been recorded by assessing officer, Commissioner (Appeal) as well as Tribunal, as there were serious discrepancies in the books of accounts, which were maintained by the assessee-appellant. Consequently, we find that findings recorded by the assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner (Appeal) and Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse. 6. Resultantly, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and the same is, hereby, dismissed in limine.
-
2012 (3) TMI 627
... ...
... ... ..... nty period continues beyond an year which fact was rightly considered by the ld. CIT(A) confining to the various decisions such as IBM India Ltd. (Supra) reported in 290 ITR (AT) 183 (2007-TIOL-22-ITAT-Bang). Similar view has been taken by other coordinate Benches of the Tribunal therefore requires no further deliberation. In the light of the above, we hold the view that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) requires no further interference on the issue. The revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.’ 11.5 In view of the above facts and the decision referred above, we hold that disallowance of provision of warranty is to be deleted and it is ordered accordingly.” Following the above decisions, we hold that the CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the disallowance of provision for warranty and accordingly allow the ground of appeal of the assessee on this issue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 626
... ...
... ... ..... t prays for some time to verify the details on the outcome of earlier orders passed by the Tribunal and whether Revenue has preferred appeals. List on 1st May, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 625
... ...
... ... ..... incurred and revenue in nature relating to the business is allowable. Any expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business or profession should be allowed. Hence, we are of the view that the actual expenditure incurred has to be allowed notwithstanding the method of accounting the assessee followed.” 5.1 In view of the foregoing and in the light of aforesaid decision, the assessee is entitled to claim this amount as a legitimate deduction in the year of account in question and consequently, in the assessment for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Thus , ground no. 1 in the appeal is dismissed. 6. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no.2, accordingly this ground is also dismissed. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2012 (3) TMI 624
... ...
... ... ..... the same building in which the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is situated. In the ordinary course, the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise ought to have forwarded the appeal paper book to the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) immediately. The delay on the part of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to forward the appeal paperbook to the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) cannot be attributed to the assessee so as to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as time barred. 8. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 7th May 2010 and the order passed by the CESTAT dated 16th September 2011 are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for decision on merits and in accordance with law. 9. The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 623
... ...
... ... ..... m of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry.” 9. The Administrative Commissioner has directed the assessing officer to redo the assessment after examining the materials on record. This direction of the Administrative Commissioner is in no way prejudice the interest of the assessee. We make it clear that the assessing officer shall examine the material on record independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Administrative Commissioner in the impugned order or by this Tribunal in this order and shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 10. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of March, 2012.
........
|
