|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1232 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1165 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... it was not made in the return of income or by filing the revised return of income. However, Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the claim by referring the Hon’ble Apex Court decision on merits without considering the Assessing Officer’s objection in this regard. However, in our considered opinion, the tribunal is empowered to consider this issue. Accordingly, we allow the assessee to raise this issue. We, therefore, remit this issue to the files of the Assessing Officer to consider the same afresh in light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2000) 245 ITR 428.” 7. Respectfully following the decision of Tribunal (Supra), we restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (2000) 245 ITR 428. In the result the Department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14/09/ 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd of Excise and Customs which was placed before the Court, directed payment of 12% interest in the cases before it. The direction of the Tribunal to pay 12% interest on the amount of refund is, therefore, in consonance with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court. 12. For the foregoing reasons, there being no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.” The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that amount recovered from the appellants by adjustment against the refunds has to be considered as pre-deposit made during the pendency of appeal. Deposit of duty, interest and penalty pending appeal is a statutory obligation. There is no question of Commissioner (Appeals) or Tribunal directing person to make pre-deposit. There is no question of filing refund claim, letter being already submitted.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1163 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... hould not be jeopardised, consequently, in the fitness of facts, it is appropriate that the assessee as well as the revenue both should get the opportunity. We are satisfied that keeping in view the documents, the length of time and the huge documents which were to be collected from different persons, the time provided to the assessee was not sufficient, therefore, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remand these files to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of the claims of the respective assessees for which due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessees, consequently, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. Finally, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 27th August, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1161 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t proper and expedient to dispose of these petitions with a direction to the Appellate Deputy Commissioners at Panjagutta, Hyderabad and (CT), Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad, where Petitioner’s Appeal Nos. A.R.SL. No. B/29/2010 and G.I. No. A/252/2008 respectively pertaining to the years 2006-07 and 2004-05 are stated to have been filed, to revive the same and dispose them of on merits, after due notice to the parties. We, however, make it clear that we have not evaluated the merits of the grounds urged in the present special leave petitions. The special leave petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1160 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ounsel for the petitioner. 2. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1159 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... atter. If the AO is misguided by the assessee, the period of limitation cannot be extended under such circumstances because there is no provision in law to take care of such situation. The authorities below, therefore, wrongly computed the period of limitation from the date of the order received on passing the order on miscellaneous application. Considering the above discussion, we are of the view that the penalty order dated 28.08.2007 is clearly passed after the period of limitation as against the provisions of section 158BFA(3)(c) of the IT Act. We accordingly hold the penalty order so passed is time barred. Resultantly, no penalty could be levied against the assessee. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the levy of penalty on merits. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below levying and confirming the penalty, and allow the appeal of the assessee. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1158 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... e Tribunal has no power to rehear the entire appeal, he accordingly suggested that the Tribunal may pass the order as per opinion of majority of members as provided in Sub-section (4) of Section 255 of the Income-tax Act. 5. We agree with the ld. DR As per majority view, the appeal of the assessee is decided as under (a) Ground No.1 is general in nature, therefore, needs no adjudication. (b) Ground No. 2 is rejected. (c) The addition made by the AO in respect in-house hold expenses of ₹ 40,400/- is reduced to ₹ 30,000/-. (d) The addition of ₹ 2,60,000/- being alleged investment in proprietary business is deleted. (e) The estimated value of goods imported of ₹ 4,75,000/- and estimated profit from Value of goods amounting to ₹ 1,26,900/- is deleted by allowing the benefit of telescoping. (f) Ground No. 4 is decided against the assessee, therefore, dismissed. (g) Ground No. 5 is dismissed; To summarise, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1157 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n factor was 75 gms. per cake for Dettol Soap Fresh. By mistake, in the Assessment Year 2000-2001, the assessee applied the conversion factor of 250 gms. per cake, which was wrongly taken from liquid soap and applied it as a conversion factor for Dettol Soap Fresh. In our view, this question needs to be reexamined. Learned counsel for the Department submits that this aspect was not communicated to the Assessing Officer. We need not go into this controversy of non-communication to the Assessing Officer for the simple reason that we want Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘ITAT’, for short to re-examine this aspect of conversion factor applicable to soap in the present case. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, impugned Orders passed by the High Court and ITAT are set aside and the matter is remitted to ITAT for de novo consideration of the above aspect. The civil appeal filed by the Department is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1156 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the mechanism through which the subsidy is given is irrelevant.” 17. Applying the above ratio and the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the subsidy received by the assessee under the new package scheme incentive of 1993, was solely for the purpose of setting up of SSI unit in the backward area for which it has received special capital incentive computed on the basis of fixed capital investment actually made by the assessee and, therefore, the same is capital in nature and hence, not taxable. Thus, the finding and conclusion given by the Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld and, accordingly, ground no.1, raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 18. As regards ground no.2, this issue is neither arising out of the assessment order nor from the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, hence, the same is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. 19. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st September 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1155 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... hs 14 & 15 “14. After hearing both sides, this Tribunal finds that deduction u/s 80IB was subject matter of assessment in the original assessment even before the search. Therefore, the concluded assessment cannot be reopened u/s 153A of the Act. Once the assessment is completed, search u/s 153A will not extend the period limitation in section 263 to revise the order of original assessment. Therefore, the original assessment completed on 27- 02-2006 becomes final which cannot be revised after the expiry of two years. Therefore, as found by this Tribunal for the assessment year 2002-03, the Commissioner’s interference u/s 263 is not sustainable in law. 15. In the result, taxpayer’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 in ITA No.223/Coch/2009 is allowed.” The order of the Tribunal is rectified accordingly. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1154 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income on sale and purchase of shares - income assessable under the head income from other sources OR long term capital gain - Held that:- No reason or logic in treating the purchase of 11,500 shares as bogus. The Lower Authorities could have directly verified the transaction from the company itself, whose shares were questioned to be bogus but both the Lower Authorities did not do this exercise. The Remand Report of the AO itself show that the transactions have been treated as genuine subsequently by the AO himself while sending the Remand Report to the CIT(A). We find that the sale transaction of 11,500 shares of M/s. Robinson Impex (India) Ltd (Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd.,) has not been doubted or questioned by the Lower Authorities. A simple logical question arises if the shares were never purchased, how can they be sold subsequently?
After considering all the facts and submissions, we find that both the Lower Authorities have grossly erred in treating the sale consideration as ‘Income from un-disclosed sources’.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1153 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in ITA No.1026(Mad)/2005 for A.Y. 2001-02 and according to which the deduction u/s.80IA (4) is not allowable to the assessee for generating power for captive consumption.” 59. Before us at the outset the Ld. A.R. and D.R. submitted that the facts in the present case are similar to that of A.Y. 2006-07 and therefore had same submissions to be made in their support. 60. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the facts in the preset case are similar to that of Assessment Year 2006-07 and since there are no new facts respectfully following the decision given in paragraph 44, we dismiss this ground of the Revenue. Accordingly this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 61. In the result appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed whereas the appeals of the revenue for both the assessment years are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21 - 9 - 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1152 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... interest, etc. In respect of which allowances are provided for u/s 30 to 37. For attracting section 14A, there has to be an approximate cause for disallowance which is its relationship with tax exempt income. Therefore, for making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, it requires a finding of incurring of expenditure and where it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred disallowance u/s 14A cannot stand. In the present appeal, on the basis of record, there is categorical uncontroverted finding that the assessee has earned interest on amounts given to the companies as well as on FDRs and the Assessing Officer did not consider the earnings by way of interest which were more than what was paid to the banks, therefore, no disallowance was called for, consequently, we find no infirmity in the stand of the learned CIT(A). It is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 4th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1151 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was of the view that foreign award shall be enforceable as if it were a decree of the Court, no amendment was brought either in the definition of award or in the Schedule relating to payment of stamp duty on award. Since the definition of award given at Sr. No. 11 of the Schedule of the Indian Stamp Act does not cover the foreign award and one of the object to enforce the new Act was to enforce final award as if it was a decree and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of M/s. Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under the new Act the foreign award is already stamped as decree, this Court is of the view that the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and deserves to be dismissed. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of holding that foreign award is already stamped and is enforceable as decree. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1150 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... th due diligence another civil proceeding then the period spent on such proceedings should be excluded, provided proceedings are based on the same cause of action and it is prosecuted in good faith in such a Court on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that right of one appeal is recognized in all jurisdictions and the matter ought to have been decided by the Tribunal on merits. Accordingly, we are of the view, that the application seeking condonation of delay of 890 days is liable to be accepted. 5. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant appeal is allowed and the order dt. 9th July, 2012 is set aside. The delay of 890 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal is restored on the board of the Tribunal at its original number and the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal within one month.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1149 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Eon Technology P. Ltd. (supra) hold that the assessee has no liability to deduct TDS. 13. Insofar as the concurrence from the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) and 195(3) is concerned, in view of the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Indopel Garments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (supra), payment to non-resident, where there is no chargeable income it is not necessary for an assessee to get concurrence of Assessing Officer under section 195(2) of the Act. We therefore hold that when there is no business connection established, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS. It is not necessary for the concurrence of the Assessing Officer u/s 195(2) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 27th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1148 - TELECOM DISPUTES SETTLEMENT AND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cannot have any legal sanction unless ratified by the delegator. Having regard to the manner in which the Government of India functions, it is difficult to say that the signatory to the demand notice was to hear this petition. He is only authorized to sign on behalf of the President of India. 43. Yet recently, in Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement reported in (2010) 13 SCC 255, it was held that adverse materials should be supplied to the affected party. 44. In a case of this nature, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner has been prejudiced by reason of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. 45. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if the Petitioners are allowed an opportunity of being heard. These Petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside with the aforementioned observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1147 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t to deposit 50% of the service tax confirmed. The appellant has not complied with the conditions of the stay order, therefore the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (9) TMI 1146 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... paid to all the employees was also allowed. 14. From the evidence produced it is clear that the employees in question were their permanent employees and retrenching them was not an easy option. 15. The assessee has produced a detailed note on the justification of salary and wages paid, details of employees, copies of the ledger account of wages, salary, workers welfare, leave encashment, attendance and other expenses incurred on employees and workers. The expenditure cannot be disallowed on the ground of prudence. It is well settled that the AO cannot sit in the arm chair of the businessman and substitute his views for that of the businessman. The CIT(A) has recorded a finding of fact that salaries and wages were paid and this fact remains undisputed and unequivocally established. We find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and we uphold the same. 16. In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1145 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ication to rectify an order, which is the opinion of the Third Member, to which the matter was referred by the bench of Tribunal of two Members , would not fall within the meaning of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, in appeal. It is an opinion, and not a final order of the Tribunal, which was required to be framed on such opinion. 8. Since the final order of the Tribunal dated 31.5.2005, is under challenge in which the department may take the grounds, which have been taken in this appeal. This appeal as against the order dated 7.4.2000, rejecting the rectification application of the department is held to be not maintainable. 9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with observations that in case the department has not taken the grounds, urged in this appeal, in the appeal filed against the order dated 31.05.2005, in Lucknow Bench of the Court. It will be open to the appellant to make an application to the Court hearing the appeal, to consider the appeal on such grounds.
........
|
