|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 865 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 770 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... out for our interference. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 769 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Prasad, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 768 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of CIT vs. Trishul Investments Ltd. 305 ITR 434 held that the interest paid on the money borrowed for acquiring the shares on which the assessee paid the interest which partakes the character of the cost of the shares. We, therefore, hold that the interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for IPO application is part of cost of acquisition and the same is to be allowed. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to allow the interest paid by the assessee as the cost of acquisition in computing the short-term-capital-gain. If the assessee has been paid any interest by the company on amount of Share Application money then same should be reduced from the interest paid and net amount only is to be considered. 7. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the coordinate Bench of ITAT, the grounds of appeal raised by the department stands dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of bail - Held that:- The irresistible conclusion is that the impugned orders directing enlargement of bail of the accused persons, namely, Uttam Das, Abhimanyu Das and Murlidhar Patra by the Magistrate on their surrendering are wholly unsustainable and bound to founder and accordingly the said directions are set aside. Consequently the bail bonds of the aforenamed accused persons are cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith. It needs no special emphasis to state that they are entitled to move applications for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code which shall be considered on their own merits.
-
2012 (5) TMI 766 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e order of the assessing officer on assumption of jurisdiction. 6. From the order of the CIT(A) we find that he has observed that the discussion on merits of addition was only of academic importance. The learned CIT(A) has again allowed the appeal in respect of addition of ₹ 3,300/- being difference in the outstanding liability in the case of SS Steels. This addition has been deleted by him that by observing that the AO had disallowed the amount without further query or verification. 7. Since we have restored the order of the Assessing Officer on assumption of jurisdiction and since the CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits, we set aside the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to decide the appeal on merits. The learned CIT(A) will provide necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee as also to the Assessing Officer. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. 9. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 11th May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 765 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... M/s Devi Ispat Limited's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the action of a public authority in discharging public functions is shown to be arbitrary and discriminatory, unfair and unreasonable, the same would be violative of Article 14 and open to judicial review by the High Court. Those were not the cases relating to de-panelment and the Apex Court was dealing with the factual matrix therein and, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner by relying upon those judgments. In the present circumstances, the absence of any prior notice before taking action by the respondents in de-paneling the petitioner cannot be held to be bad in law. 9. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. It is, however, observed that in case the petitioner has any claim in respect of outstanding dues on account of fees, it shall be open to the petitioner to take recourse to remedy of recovery in accordance with law.
-
2012 (5) TMI 764 - SUPREME COURT
Notice inviting tenders (NIT) - challenge to the eligibility of respondent no 2 and allotment of the project work -
(1) that respondent No.2 had not filed the requisite certified balance-sheets for five years immediately preceding the issue of tender notice,
(2) that respondent No.2 did not have the requisite experience of executing a single integrated water supply scheme of the required value.
HELD THAT:- No legal flaw in the finding or the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court. It is true that the date of submission of tender was initially fixed but the same was extended. That being so, 5 years immediately preceding the issue of the tender notice would have included the year 2010- 2011 also for which financial year, audit of the company’s books, accounts and documents had not been completed. Such being the case, respondent No.2 could not possibly comply with the requirement of the tender notice or produce certified copy of the audited balance-sheet for the said year. All that it could possibly do was to obtain a certificate based on the relevant books, registers, records accounts etc., of the company, which certificate was indeed produced by the said respondent. The High Court has rightly observed that the appellant had not disputed the correctness of the turnover certified by the Chartered Accountant for the year 2010-2011 nor was it disputed that the same satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. therefore, fail and is accordingly rejected.
The High Court has, while examining the question of eligibility of respondent No.2 by reference to the execution of the single integrated water supply scheme, recorded a finding that the nature of the work executed by respondent No.2 for Upleta satisfied the requirement of the tender notice. That finding, in our view, is in no way irrational or absurd. We say so because the certificate relied upon by respondent No.2 sufficiently demonstrates that respondent No.2 had designed, and executed an integrated water supply scheme for Upleta which included raw water transmission from intake wells and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying of pipelines, construction of E.S.R.s, Sumps, Pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery.
In the absence of any mala fide or arbitrariness in the process of evaluation of bids and the determination of the eligibility of the bidders, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for interference of this Court. This appeal accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed with cost assessed at ₹ 25,000/- .
-
2012 (5) TMI 763 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Disallowance of salary expenses - Held that:- Salaries were reasonable and commensurate with the qualifications and work done by each employee.
Bogus share application money - Held that:- Assessing Officer who did not conduct any further investigation/verification or record statements. In the remand report, it was stated that the assessment order was passed on the basis of the information received from the investigation unit/wing. No further material or evidence to controvert the assessee was placed on record. The assessee had filed an affidavit of one Tarun Goel stating that the respondent/assessee had not arranged for bogus/accommodation entries as stated by the Assessing Officer.
-
2012 (5) TMI 762 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ightly been treated as income from other sources. 19. As regards other receipts amounting to ₹ 6,69,340/- which are fully reflected in the books of account. Once having applied a net profit rate, then no addition can be made on account of creditors declared by the assessee. The same is directed to be deleted. Thus, grounds No. 2 & 3 of the assessee are partly allowed. Grounds No. 4 & 5 of the assessee are dismissed. Ground No.6 of the assessee is allowed. The appeal of the Revenue is also partly allowed. Thus, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.495(Asr)/2010 and appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.382(Asr)/2010 are partly allowed. 20. Thus, the appeals of i) Assessee in ITA No. 493(Asr)/2010 is allowed. ii) Assessee in ITA No.494(Asr)/2010 is partly allowed. iii) Revenue in ITA No.381(Asr)/2010 is dismissed iv) Assessee in ITA No.495(Asr)/2010 is partly allowed v) Revenue in ITA No.382(Asr)/2010 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 761 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nd was applicable to taxing proceedings. 11. In view of the legal and factual discussion, the ‘burden of proof’ squarely lies on the assessee and the assessee has failed to file any evidence to discharge, even the initial onus, cast on him. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of decisions has held that the revenue cannot make additions, purely on surmises, guess-work or conjectures. The reverse of the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is equally true in case of an assessee, that no claim of expenses can be allowed, merely on the basis of surmises, guess-work and conjectures, in the absence of corroborative and cogent evidence. 13. In view of the fact-situation of the present case, the findings of the CIT(A) are purely based on surmises and conjectures and hence, the same are reversed and consequently, the findings of the AO are restored. 14. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10th May,2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 760 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition made under section 36(1)(iii) - Held that:- AO noted that the assessee had shown capital work-in-progress in its Balance Sheet and consequently computed disallowance in view of the provisions of proviso to section 36(1)(iii). The CIT (Appeals) has given the finding that no loan had been raised by the assessee company for the purchase of furnace or for the construction of building. The said finding of the CIT (Appeals) had not been controverted by the learned D.R. for the Revenue. Further the CIT (Appeals) has also noted that the total investment made by the assessee during the year on capital work-in-progress was ₹ 42.46 lacs spent on furnace and ₹ 33.23 lacs on the building as against the net profit of the assessee for the year at ₹ 1.97 crores. We find no merit in the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Uploading the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss ground No.1 raised by the Revenue.
TDS u/s 194A - addition made by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The payment of interest being made to a bank is outside the purview of deduction of tax under section 194A of the Act. Thus, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on such payment of interest on the installment due to M/s UTI Bank Ltd. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss ground No.2 raised by the Revenue.
-
2012 (5) TMI 759 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... while exercising the power under Section 21 of the Act neither acts as a court of appeal or as a reviewing authority. The incorrect order can not be re-opened or revised under Section 21 of the Act in the absence of any fresh material. Sri Rahul Agrawal, learned counsel for the assessee opposite party has placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s Aryavertha Chawal Udyog and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2008 UPTC 881. Their Lordships of this Court observed therein that if the initial order of the assessment passed is found to be incorrect, it would not be a case covered under Section 21 of the Act. It would amount to a case of change of opinion, particularly when there is no fresh material. In view of the above, in my opinion the present case is also that of change of opinion and therefore the first appellate authority and the tribunal have not erred in setting aside the re-assessment order. Revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 758 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... assessee company is that no interest bearing fund was applied in earning of exempt. It is evident from a bare reading of Rule 8 D of the Income Tax Rules that AO has to apply the formula prescribed under the said Rule for the purpose of computation of expenditure incurred on earning of exempt income. In view of this matter it would serve the interest of justice if this issue is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh decision. Accordingly, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and matter is remitted to the file to Assessing Officer to decide this issue afresh accordingly. The Assessee is directed to establish before the Assessing Officer that there is no nexus between the exempt income and the interest expenditure incurred and the Assessing Officer is directed to apply Rule 8D accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (5) TMI 757 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ding the order of the C.I.T.(A) who has allowed the deduction of payment of cess on green leaves in computing the composite income from tea business of the assessee under rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. We may further mention that identical issue was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.1600 (Kol)/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 has allowed the claim of the assessee. 13.1. The fact that the SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in respect of AFT Industries Ltd. vs CIT (270 ITR 167) will not have any effect since the Hon’ble Apex Court has neither set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court nor granted any stay. 14. In the result ground no.2 raised by the revenue in this appeal is dismissed. 15. In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 11.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 756 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Estimate of net profit above 5% of the purchases made by the assessee is to be adopted, we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. The order of the CIT(A), to this extent, is modified accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 755 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... after completion of the assessment. Further, the assessee had failed to furnish the date of receipt of such amounts, to establish genuineness of such transaction, hence, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Thus, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground No. 3 is regarding disallowance of depreciation of ₹ 11,003/-. 13. The assessee had come up before the CIT(A) regarding 1/3rd of depreciation claimed on swift car. The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/3rd on the ground that there is ought to be some personal use. The CIT(A) had held that it would be fair and reasonable to make such disallowance at 1/4th of the claim. On further appeal before us, we are of the view that relief given by CIT(A) is sufficient as certain amount of personal element in the usage of car cannot be ruled out. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 18/05/2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 754 - ITAT KOLKATA
Process of selection of cases for scrutiny for corporate assessee - issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) - Held that:- The selection of scrutiny in this case is also completed beyond the prescribed period as prescribed in Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny first time on 18.10.2004, as per copy of order sheet entry, and notice was issued fixing the hearing on 18.10.2004 itself. As per Instruction No. 9/2004 dated 20.09.2004, the process of selection of cases for scrutiny for returns filed up to 31.03.2004, in the present case assessee filed its return of income on 01.12.2003 must be completed by 15.10.2004.
The factual position as noted by CIT(A) in his appellate order that notice u/s. 143(2) is dated 10.10.2004, is not supported by Ld. Sr. DR at the time of hearing rather assessee contested that this finding of fact is erroneous and actual case was selected by issuing notice as on 18.10.2004. Even the basis of recording this fact is only from the assessment order wherein it is mentioned that notice u/s. 143(2) is dated 10.10.2004 and the same was served on the assessee on 19.10.2004 fixing the date of hearing on 16.12.2004. When going through the order sheet entry, which is taken by assessee from the assessment records clearly reveals that factually notice u/s. 143(2) was first time issued on 18.10.2004 and not on 10.10./2004. Thus we quash the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and subsequent assessment framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Appeal of assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 753 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - Held that:- The assessment order could not have been taken up for modification in the name of rectification u/s 154 of the Act. There was no occasion for applying Section 154 of the Act in the present case as allowing of set off in the original assessment could not have been considered to be that of any mistake apparent from the record.
-
2012 (5) TMI 752 - ITAT AGRA
Rejection of books of accounts - N.P. determination - Held that:- We confirm the order of CIT(A) in rejecting the books of account of the assessee. After rejecting the books of accounts, the next step to be taken is estimation of profit for the year. The CIT(A) after considering the provisions of section 44AD and past history of the assessee found that the net profit rate of 7% will be reasonable rate. We notice that the assessee himself has shown the different net profit rates in different years i.e. 6.88% in A.Y. 2002-03 & 3.2% in A.Y. 2003-04. The calculation of net profit rate for the year under consideration comes to 5.1%. We find that the CIT(A) has rightly applied the net profit rate of 7% and contrary to that there is no material on record neither the same has been pointed out by any of the parties. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) on the issue is confirmed.
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Both the creditors have confirmed balance against their names. In respect of Shri Vijay Singh, it was informed and noted by the CIT(A) that he has died but the ld. Representative of the assessee produced the photocopy of accounts before the Assessing Officer and transaction was found genuine. In respect of Shri Jawahar Mishra & Shri Ashutosh Tripathi, the amount was through banking channel and the Assessing Officer did not dispute this fact. Thus, in the light of detailed discussions made by the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. Order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on the issue.
Addition on account of refund of security - Held that:- CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition as the said amount was security deposit and not against the payment of contract work. There is no error in the order of CIT(A). Therefore, order of the CIT(A) is confirmed on the issue. Thus, ground raised by the Revenue in its appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 751 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... formula evolved after consultation with the technical authorities. Thus there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we sent the appeal back to the ld. Commissioner for re-determination of total capacity of the furnace after giving the appellants an opportunity of being heard in person and presenting their evidence.” 16. There being no dispute with regard to verification of dimensions and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants or the formula applied by the Commissioner for determination of production capacity, we find no merits in the appeal. The questions raised in the appeal are answered by providing that relied upon the document is not manufacturer’s certificate, therefore, Rule 3(1) will not apply. Before us, no argument was advanced with regard to Question Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and as such the questions are left and are treated as not pressed. 17. There is no merits in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
............
|
