|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the revenue. 4. At the time of hearing before the CIT(A), the case before the ITAT was neither fixed nor there was the above decision. The department, therefore, against the decision of the CIT(A), in the instant year, is once again, before the ITAT. 5. At the time of hearing, the AR pointed out that the impugned issue is now covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, as reproduced in the above para. Since the issue has been decided by the coordinate Bench, in the assessee own case and other decisions, as pointed out therein, therefore, respectfully following the same, and since there is no deviation of the facts, we do not find any reason to deviate from the view taken by the coordinate Benches, in the assessee's own case and other decisions referred therein. 6. In the result the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 913 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... requires to be reconsidered by the 3rd respondent. 15. In the result, W.P. No. 25033 of 2003 is disposed of and W.P. No. 25032 of 2003 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order passed by the third respondent and the matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent, who, in turn, shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation along with all documents in support of their stand that the industry had become sick industrial company much prior to the cut off date i.e., 31-3-2002. On receipt of such documents, the 3rd respondent shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and take a decision on merits and in accordance with law. The petitioner shall submit such representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such representation, the 3rd respondent shall take a final decision as indicated above within a period of six months thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 912 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ural income from that land and also 7/12 record shows the nature of land in land revenue record as agriculture. The ld. CIT(A) had inspected the impugned survey nos. personally and found that the distance of both the lands from the Sanand Municipal limit is more than two kilometers. It means it is outside the purview of the Municipal limit. The method to be adopted for measurement is to approach road not straight line Crow’s flight method as held by the Hon’ble P&H High Court in case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh (supra) and ITAT, Mumbai decision in case of Laukik Developers vs. DCIT (supra). Therefore, we have considered view that sale proceeds on above two lands is not covered u/s. 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IT Act as capital assets. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is, thus, dismissed. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 24/01/2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 911 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s. The AO has recorded that the assessee is staying in posh bungalow at Satellite area and that the assessee has undertaken foreign visits to Switzerland, UK and USA in the past and that there was no withdrawal by the assessee during the period upto 11.6.2007 and for the period 01.01.2008 to 31.03.2008. The CIT(A) considering the facts of the case allowed motor and telephones upto ₹ 35,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- on account of low withdrawals, which we find to be reasonable and justifiable. However, looking to the submissions of the assessee that the assessee is staying all alone since last 10 years and his family is in abroad, to meet ends of justice, a further relief of ₹ 35,000/- is granted to the assessee on this count. Accordingly, we allow further relief of ₹ 35,000/- thus, restricting the disallowance to ₹ 50,000/-. 12. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (1) TMI 910 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... noted that the certain units exceeded 1500 sq.ft. and in this regard the Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled deduction under Section 80IB on a proportionate basis. Therefore, the CIT(A) directed to allow the deduction under Section 80IB(10) on a proportionate basis after excluding those units, which are exceeded the prescribed limit of 1500 sq.ft. 4. Learned DR placed reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer here before the Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, learned AR of the assessee has placed reliance on the order of the learned CIT(A). 6. After considering the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A), we found no infirmity in the finding of the learned CIT(A), who has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee in part following the order of the Tribunal on identical facts. Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is hereby confirmed. 7. Resultantly, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 2nd day of Jan.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 909 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... C/B ₹ 2,95,150.82) ₹ 10,628/- Less income already disclosed in the return ₹ 1,55,820/- ₹ 11,42,812/- Rounded off to ₹ 11,40,000/- For the sake of clarity, the above statement is explained herein below by way of fund flow statement - SOURCE OF FUNDS Amount (Rs.) APPLICATION OF FUNDS Amount (Rs.) Returned income 1,55,820 Peak credit (unexplained capital in business) 7,03,440 Accumulated profit brought forward (as explained hereinabove) 1,50,000 Payment to Bhagwati Caterers(personal expenses being drawings) 6,00,000 Erosion of capital (as worked out hereinabove) 10,628 Drawings & savings during the year 1,55,820 Undisclosed income (balance in figure) 11,42,812 Total 14,59,260 Total 14,59,260 Based on the above computation, we sustain the addition of ₹ 11,40,000/- as against ₹ 15,32,778/- confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 908 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D - The AO ascertained some interest being attributable to the earning of exempt income and disallowed the same u/s 14A. - HELD THAT: - The matter requires to go back to the file of the AO for deciding it in the light of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., CHEMINVEST & OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS ESCORTS FINANCE LTD [2011 (11) TMI 267 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2013 (1) TMI 907 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... confirmed the order of the AO with out following the said judgment. In this regard Ld Counsel mentioned that the issue may have to be sent back to the files of AO for fresh adjudication and deciding the issue afresh on the quantum of disallowance adopting the reasonable basis as held again by the same judgment for the assessment year prior to AY 2008-2009. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused the records and the cited judgment in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd (supra). Considering the factual matrix of the case as well as the prayer of the Ld Counsel for remanding, we proceed to set aside the ground 2 raised by the assessee for fresh adjudication considering the said judgment. AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, ground 7 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 906 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng place under the Act. o p /o p The Apex court held that in terms of the Act that the words 'Extinguishment of any right' in Section 2(47) of the Act, does not include an extinguishment of right on account of destruction. o p /o p It has to be an extinguishment of right on account of transfer. Thus, a destruction of assets when not on account of any transfer would not be hit by Section 54F (3) of the Act. o p /o p 5 Counsel for the revenue seeks to distinguish the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. (Supra) that the destruction in that case took place because of fire and hence it was involuntary. This distinction is of no consequence. In our view of the decision of the Apex Court in Vania Silk Mills (Supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. o p /o p 6. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. o p /o p Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 905 - ITAT MUMBAI
Whether assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 54F - Sale proceeds of the property and investment of the consideration in a new residential building - whether assessees purchased a residential building or not - Held that:- Assessee claimed that since it was residential bungalow at the time of purchase he is entitled to claim deduction - Merely because it was demolished at a later stage it cannot alter the character of purchase of residential house - demolition of an asset does not amount to transfer since there is no transferee and there is no consideration
Held that:- Any extinguishment on account of act of the assessee would amount transfer and the only exception provided therein was the extinguishment on account of act of God - since this aspect was not considered the matter is directed to be reconsidered - Matter remanded back
-
2013 (1) TMI 904 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... dged, I take up the appeal itself for disposal. 7. In this matter the show cause notice alleges that the appellant has taken credit for providing the output service of renting of immovable property therefore, they are not entitled for input service credit. In fact, the appellant is engaged in the business of renting out immovable property service. Therefore, as per Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant is entitled for input service credit. The other objection raised by the learned AR that proper documents were not filed by the appellant. Therefore the matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for examination of the documents on which the credit was taken by the appellant. Accordingly, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents on which the appellant has taken the credit. 8. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of in the above term. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (1) TMI 903 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... y to pay Service Tax under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 under Reverse Charge Mechanism does not arise and accordingly, granted relief, either interim or finally. 5.2 In any case, as contended by the appellant, even on the discharge of Service Tax liability under Reverse Charge Mechanism, they would be eligible for availing input service credit on such taxes paid under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Thus, the situation would be revenue neutral. In the similar case involving a revenue neutral situation, this Tribunal in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. (supra) waived the requirement of pre-deposit and granted stay. In the light of these decisions, we are prima facie of the view that the appellant is not liable to pay Service Tax in respect of services rendered abroad. 6. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during pendency of the appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 7-1-2013)
-
2013 (1) TMI 902 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner within a time frame of three months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that respondent No.5/Appellate Authority has heard the matter and reserved for pronouncement of Orders. In view of these developments, the writ petition is hereby disposed of directing the respondents No.1 and 2 not to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner till respondent No.5/Appellate Authority pronounce the Orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner. 4. It is made clear that the Appellate Authority to comply the directions given by this Court in its earlier order dated 09.10.2012 wherein three months time was granted
-
2013 (1) TMI 901 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... affidavit of valuation, seeks more time. I am not inclined to grant further time, since last chance has already been granted. List the matter before the Hon'ble Judge in Chambers for appropriate orders for non prosecution.
-
2013 (1) TMI 900 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... use notice, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representations of the two concerns to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of account and the appropriate amount of Central Excise Duty had been paid. The logic of such request was thus clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter. 32. Thus, in the above case, the reply to the show cause notice had already been filed by the assessee, and in the said reply, prayer was made for being permitted to cross-examine. 33. The facts of the above case were thus different from those of the present case. In the present case, the final reply to the show cause notice has not so far been submitted by the petitioner. 34. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 35. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 899 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clarified that though this Court does not express any opinion on the legal issues raised in this petition, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise the same contentions in appropriate proceedings in future. It is made clear that there is no direction against the respondent authorities from restraining any gutkha and pan masala being brought into the State of Maharashtra for any purpose whatsoever, including for the purpose of export as and when any party challenges such action, the issue will be decided in accordance with law. 11. It is clarified that the above direction permitting the petitioners to export the goods is given in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the goods have been lying in the customs warehouse for the last two months. 12. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 13. The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 898 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... educted or after deduction has not been paid on or before the due date then, such sum is required to be disallowed while computing total income. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT vs. Chandrabhoy & Jassobhoy, have taken a view that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) can be made only when tax had not been deducted at all but in case some tax has been deducted disallowance can not be made and instead in respect of shortfall action under section 201(1) could be taken. The view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of S.K. Tekriwal (supra). Following the said decisions, no disallowance is called for in case of the assessee as the assessee had deducted tax though at lower rate. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the disallowance made. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 897 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Furnished inaccurate particulars of income - penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that:- Transaction in respect of the share trading was duly disclosed at the time of filing of the return - Income was shown as longtern capital gain and part of the income was also shown as speculative business - assessee disclosed the names of the companies, description of the shares, date of transfer of shares, sale consideration, cost of acquisition and the index cost and considered the gain as long-term capital - thus there is no allegation of concealment of facts - the addition was made merely because of change in the head of income - Therefore in absence of any inaccuracy in the particulars of income or concealment of facts the penalty must not be levied - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 896 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pugned issue in the assessee's own case, we sustain the decision of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the department. Grounds no. 1, 2 & 3 are therefore, rejected. 9. Ground no. 4 is with regard to CIT(A) admitting new evidence in contravention of Rule 46 of the IT Rules. 10. We have observed that the issue in dispute has been travelling from the preceding year and the coordinate Bench has already given a precise finding on facts. Moreover, the DR has not been able to pin point as to what new evidence was considered by the CIT(A), while 4 Ms. Asha K. Ringshia ITA No. 6566/Mum/2011 deciding the instant impugned order of the CIT(A), which contravened Rule 46A and not 46 (as mentioned in the grounds of appeal). 11. In these circumstances, we reject the grounds, as raised by the department. 12. Grounds no. 5 & 6 are general in nature. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 895 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... additional income of ₹ 1,16,31,103/- (unexplained investment) on account of unexplained jewellery, house hold expenditure etc. in assessment year 2009-10. In assessment year 2009-10, ₹ 1.00 crore has been shown as additional income as misc. provisions, utilized for jewellery, house hold expenses etc. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly held that considering the facts, it will be unjustified to make addition of ₹ 20,43,220/- when the assessee has already surrendered / offered ₹ 1.00 crore inter alia including jewellery of the items otherwise it will lead to double taxation on the same issue. 5.8 In view of the above findings of the ld. CIT(A), we hold that there is no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Hence, we uphold his order and reject ground of appeal taken by the Department. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and s C.O. of the assessee is allowed in part. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23-01-2013.
............
|
