|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 978
... ...
... ... ..... the merits of the case.” 5 It is clear that the assessee has accepted that there was a mistake in the details and the quantitative figures of stock as given in the Schedule 17. Therefore, on principle we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned revision order passed by the CIT. However, since it was stated to be a mistake by applying wrong conversion factor by the assessee which has resulted the discrepancy in the quantitative stock of purchase; therefore, this aspect requires examination of the facts. The relevant record is not available before us and both the parties agreed that this issue may be examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify and examine this aspect after considering the relevant records and submissions of the assessee. 6 In the result, the appeal file by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronouncement in the Open Court on this 23rd, day of Jan 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... 5% could not be said to be excessive, considering the prevailing rate of interest during the relevant assessment year 2007-2008. Once it is found that the rate of interest paid to two coparceners at 15% is not excessive, no disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The loans raised from two coparceners could be safely relied upon by the assessee-HUF as the coparceners may not demand the amount of loan back in the near future and the level of confidentiality is obviously more with regard to these coparceners. In view of the fact that the interest paid to coparceners at the rate of 15% could not be said to be excessive, we hold that the provision of Section 40A(2)(b) was wrongly invoked in this case. Accordingly, the addition of ₹ 42,112/- is deleted and the ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (1) TMI 976
... ...
... ... ..... instance of revenue raising very questions. 5. This appeal had come to be allowed by this Court pointing out that reasoning of the Tribunal in taking the view that the burden was on the revenue was fallacious; that it was not the law laid down by the Apex Court and therefore allowed that appeal. 6. That view equally holds good is the submission of Sri. Bhaskar, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant. 7. The respondent though served is not represented. 8. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed. 9. The questions raised in this appeal are answered in favour of the appellant-revenue. The order of the Tribunal is set aside and the order passed by the original authority and the first appellate authority is restored. 10. It is also open to the appellant-revenue to recover the amount if any refund had already taken place in respect of the amount due by the assessee, but refunded on the basis of the order passed by the Tribunal.
-
2013 (1) TMI 975
... ...
... ... ..... thorough verification of the agreement entered by the NHAI with the collecting entities and other various provisions of the Rules made by the Government in regard to the management of toll plazas. Therefore, under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the learned CIT(A)’s orders in all these appeals are not at all infirm in any way requiring interference and hence, we uphold the same by finding the issues raised by the Department as devoid of merit and as such, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue in respect of both the assessees. 10. Now coming to the Cross objections filed by the assessees, it is seen that the assessees have supported the orders of the learned CIT(A). In view of our finding in the appeals filed by the Revenue, the Cross objections filed by the assessee are disposed of accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 974
... ...
... ... ..... t of Regulation of the Gujarat National Law University, was really suggested by the Academic Council in terms of Section 25 of the Gujarat National Law University Act, 2003 by taking a specific resolution on July 17, 2011 and the same was recommended to the Executive Council of the Gujarat National Law University which, in its turn, approved the said recommendation of the Academic Council by taking a specific resolution on July 22, 2011. 2. The University should annex the entire minutes of the resolution taken by both the Executive Council and Academic Council of the Gujarat National Law University. The University should also annex the minutes of the General Council of the University dated January 21, 2012 showing that the above resolution of the Executive Council was approved by the General Council on that day. 3. Let such affidavit be filed by tomorrow with a copy given to the learned advocate for the respondents and the matter may appear on January 23, 2013 at 11.00 a.m..
-
2013 (1) TMI 973
... ...
... ... ..... ar as catena of the judgments submitted by the AR of the assessee, we notice that they only pertain to section 80IA(4)(i)(b) i.e. regarding the issue of contractor viz-a-vis developer. Hence, we do not deem it appropriate to decide on the said issue since the assessee does not fulfill the condition enumerated in the first part of the statutory provision. We make it clear that although the issue adjudicated by us has not been looked into by the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), but in the larger interest of the justice and in view of the fact that before availing deduction under section 80IA, all the necessary conditions have to be satisfied we have proceeded to examine the applicability of the deduction provision contained in section 80IA(4)(i) of the “Act”. 10. Consequently, in the light of our above discussion, the assessee’s appeal fails. Accordingly it is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 15th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 972
... ...
... ... ..... benefit of section 11 to the assessee- trust. Concomitantly, we do not find any violation by the trust of any provisions of section 11 and/or of section 13 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption as provided u/s 11 of the Act. Having held so, interest levied u/s 234A and 234B will also not survive. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.” Since the facts of the case for the 2003-04 are identical to the facts for the Asst. Year 2005-06, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal (supra) in assessee’s own case for the Asst. Year 2005-06, we hold that the assessee is entitled to exemption under sec.11 of the I.T. Act for the Asst. Year 2003-04 also. Thus, the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced on Friday, the 11th January 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... zance of Section 50, which is a special provision for computation of capital gains in case of depreciable assets, which mandates that capital gains arising on the transfer of depreciable assets of a block shall be deemed to be capital gains arising from the transfer of short term capital assets and thus excludes available of exemption u/s.54EC which is applicable only in regard to long term capital gains ? 2. The Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. M/s. ACE Builders Pv.t. Ltd. reported in 281 I.T.R 201 (Bom) and the same covers the issue raised in the present appeal. Hence we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 969
... ...
... ... ..... at they have discharged the service tax liability correctly. The appellant is directed to cooperate with the department and produce all the documentary evidences by way of sales invoices, contracts/ agreements entered into with the clients and other necessary documents, and payment of service tax made in respect of the services rendered by them etc. The learned counsel has sought two months time for a compilation of all the documents and submission of the same before the adjudicating authority. 5. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority on or before 31/03/2013 and submit all the documentary evidences mentioned above in support of their claim and thereafter, the adjudicating authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to make their submissions. 6. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of. (Operative part Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (1) TMI 968
Excise Duty written off - Deduction u/s 37 - AO noted that some amount was written off by debiting the P&L account pertaining to Excise Duty. According to govt scheme, assessee opted to avail a route of exemption of excise duty. AO was not convinced and said that the impugned deduction is allowable against the future expenses, thus assessee was not entitled to write off the such amount in the year under consideration. - HELD THAT :- It is evident that the assessee has opted for the exemption route without availing excise duty as per the scheme of govt., therefore, unutilized excise duty as availed on the inputs, was written off in the regular books of accounts fully satisfying the conditions as laid down in s 37. Also, assessee has already surrendered its license under the Excise Act and opted for the exemption route and hence, there is no question of setting off the said expenditure in future. Thus, claim is allowed.
Decision in the cases of GIRDHAR FIBRES PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1 SURAT [2012 (11) TMI 161 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] and MOHAN SPG. MILLS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-I, LUDHIANA [2013 (11) TMI 113 - ITAT CHANDIGARH], relied upon.
-
2013 (1) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Poonawala Finvest & Agro P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Trumac Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) and the Ahamedabad Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT(OSD) Vs. Parry Engineering & Electronics P. Ltd. (supra), we hold that the power evacuation infrastructure facility is part and parcel of the windmill though partly owned by the assessee on which the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation at the same rate on which depreciation was allowed on the windmill. Further the assessee is also entitled to the claim of depreciation at higher rate on the transmission lines which again are part and parcel of the windmill. Upholding the order of the CIT (Appeals) we dismiss ground No.3 raised by the Revenue. 34. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 966
Quashing of FIR filled under sec 482 of crpc-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-CBI Manual 2005 - The Appellant registered a case against the Respondent (Revenue officer) U/s 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent had challenged the said FIR registered against him and sought for quashing of the same. - HC quashed the FIR.
HELD THAT Not complying with the mandatory procedure Under Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR the clarification made by this Court regarding the provisions of Section 154, 156 and 157, Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi [1963 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] upon which rightly placed reliance in justification of the procedure followed by CBI regarding the registration of FIR the same is traceable to the procedure laid down in the Crime Manual 2005, which has been prepared by the CBI for registration of cases under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Therefore, non compliance of the mandatory provisions Under Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure if the case is registered on the basis of the information received suo-motu after specifying that the information reveals prima facie cognizable offence against the Respondent herein and found that the matter is fit for investigation to be taken by the Appellant herein, in not following the provisions of Section 154 does not vitiate the registration of FIR and further proceedings in the matter of registration. further there is no need for this Court to await the larger Bench decision on the issue in the case in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is hereby set aside. It is open for the CBI to proceed further in the matter to conduct investigation and proceed in accordance with law against the Respondent.
-
2013 (1) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax (A) both have rejected some of figures of the accounts regarding his undisclosed account and accepted some part of it. Moreover, we find note that assessee has submitted some additional fresh evidence which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rejected for admission. We further note that it was assessee’s submissions before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) that Assessing Officer has provided very short time to comply with the requirements. Against this background, in our considered opinion, the matter should be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh in light of the additional evidences and submissions furnished by the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/1/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 964
... ...
... ... ..... ome was earned on FDR, therefore, the AO treated the same as income from other sources. The CIT(A) has confirmed the same. 7. After considering the order of the AO and CIT(A), I found that this issue also needs reverification. It was pleaded by the learned AR of the assessee that the assessee had paid interest of ₹ 1.5 lakh and has earned only 1.20 lakhs, therefore, netting of both he interest has to be allowed which has not been considered by the learned AO or by the learned CIT(A). The AO also looked into the matter that there is no independent source of interest and learned AR’s contention that this should also go to the head of WIP. Looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, I restore this issue to the file of the AO. 8. Ground No.5 was not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of Jan.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... nds on this issue are accordingly rejected.” 8. Therefore, the sub-brokerage paid is in relation to units of Mutual Funds. From the details placed on record, we are convinced that the sub-brokerage paid is connected with the services rendered by the sub-broker to the assessee in the course of buying and selling of units of Mutual Funds or in relation to transactions pertaining to Mutual Funds and accordingly, as per the provisions of section 194H Explanation (i), impugned payments are not covered by the provision. Revenue has not filed any other decision contrary to the above decision of the Tribunal before us. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the issue raised by the Revenue is decided in favour of the assessee and the order of the CIT (A) does not call any interference. Accordingly, ground 3 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... issue dealt with by the Assessing Officer for making the adjustments is in the nature of debatable issues, and it cannot be dealt with by the Assessing Officer under S.143(1) of the Act. Being so, the CIT(A) observed that as seen from the provisions of S.115JB(2) with particular reference to Explanation (1) to S.115JB(2), the assessee being a sick company in the year under consideration and the net worth having become negative, the provisions of S.115JB are not applicable, and accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in this behalf, and in any event, the Assessing Officer cannot take up the issues which are debatable while dealing with the returns in terms of S.143(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal, which are accordingly rejected. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 23.01.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 960
... ...
... ... ..... nd not under the relevant section i.e. 54F of the Act, the assessment was completed after making an addition of ₹ 9,36,768/-. In the above said facts and circumstances, where the assessee had acted bonafidely and declared all particulars of its income in the return of income filed by the assessee, mere claim of deduction in a section other than the relevant section does not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, even though there was default in declaration of the total income for the year under consideration. In view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we find that the assessee had reasonable cause and the assessee is not exigible to levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 31st of January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 959
... ...
... ... ..... ppellant on payment of requisite fee in 04 weeks time. 3. The appellant also submits that if copies of documents had been supplied to him earlier, he would not have been compelled to file this appeal before this Commission and undertake road journey all the way from Nainital to Delhi at considerable personal cost. He, therefore, requests for adequate compensation under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. After hearing the parties, it is ordered that compensation of ₹ 800/- may be paid to the appellant by the Managing Director through Demand Draft in 04 weeks time.
-
2013 (1) TMI 957
... ...
... ... ..... ly, we set aside the penalty of ₹ 1 lakh imposed on Shri Sanjay Agarwal, proprietor of the CHA firm, M/s. International Cargo Clearing. 6. To sum up, we uphold the determination of the value of the impugned goods at ₹ 2,42,742/-, confiscation under Section 113(d) and 113(i) of the Customs Act and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act. We reduce the penalty on Shri Rakesh Naik and Shri Anil Arya to ₹ 2,42,742/- each and set aside the penalty on the proprietorship firm M/s. Shubham Impex. We reduce the penalty on Shri P.K. Sharma from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 50,000/-. We also reduce penalty on Shri R.A. Zaidi, Inspector and Shri M.S. Jeph, Superintendent from ₹ 50,000/- each to ₹ 10,000/- each. We set aside the penalty imposed on Shri Sanjay Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. International Cargo Clearing. 7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Pronounced in Court on 16-1-2013)
-
2013 (1) TMI 956
... ...
... ... ..... in addition to the procedure prescribed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act provides for deposit of 75 of the amount of the award as a condition precedent for entertaining the application for setting aside the award. 8. A conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it clear that an appeal or an application for setting aside the award made by the Industry Facilitation Council can only be entertained if the applicant deposits 75 of the amount awarded. This condition of deposit is in addition to the conditions or procedure laid down under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. 9. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner for setting aside the award cannot be entertained unless 75 of the amount awarded is deposited. The court below is, therefore, not justified in permitting any lesser amount to be deposited. The writ petition is dismissed with the direction to the court below to proceed with the decision of the application only on deposit of 75 of the decreed amount by the petitioner.
........
|
