|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1380 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... orities. So, the averment of Mr. Nair, appears to be contrary to fact. In any event, a Senior Manager cannot discharge his duty by shifting the responsibility to his assistant and particularly, when he appeared in hearing in this matter. It is also noticed that the averments of Mrs. Sarika B. Nikam in the affidavits are contradictory. The Tribunal in the case of Rajlaxmi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that negligence of an employee is not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. It is well settled that if the conduct of the party is not transparent and incorrect submission is given in condonation application, the same is sufficient reason to reject the application. 5. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in these applications and accordingly all the applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals are rejected. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1379 - ITAT COCHIN
Appeal of the taxpayer is dismissed for non prosecution as no one appeared for the assessee even though the case was posted at the request of the assessee on 22-10-2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1378 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... (105) (zzzz) subject to the condition that the amount of service tax along with interest is paid in full within a period of six months from the date on which the Finance Bill is effective; i.e., within six months from 28.05.2013. Since the entirety of the service tax and the interest thereon, as assessed by the adjudicating authority has been remitted in 2011 itself, in terms of the legislative mandate of Section 80(2) of the Act, the penal liability of the assessees/appellants under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, is eclipsed. 5.For the aforesaid reasons, the common order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.03.2013 confirming the three orders passed by the adjudicating authority, in respect of each appellant to the extent of assessment and confirmation of the penalty imposed under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act as the case may be, is declared as unsustainable. The appeals are allowed. The stay petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs however.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1377 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... debtors to pay this amount which was to be paid by 11.11.92. However, before that the judgment debtor filed another revision petition. This revision petition is decided by the impugned order passed on 8.6.2004. No doubt, the amount calculated is found to be correct but the High Court chose to give one opportunity to the judgment debtor to deposit the amount as upto that stage the controversy regarding actual payment had not been settled. 8. In these circumstances, exercise of discretion in the aforesaid manner cannot be found to be erroneous and contrary to law which warrants interference of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Further, we do not find any substantial question of law. It is also to be kept in mind that immediately after the impugned order of the High Court the judgment debtors had deposited the amount. There should not be made to lose the property, in the aforesaid circumstances. 9. We thus, dismiss the Special Leave Petition in limine.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1376 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Depreciation at the rate of 60% on those items as is applicable to ‘computer’ allowed. Depreciation claimed at 60% on printers, scanners, modems, switches, hubs, cables/cards and software etc., should not be disallowed as these devices are used along with the computer and their functions are integrated with the computer.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1375 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - includibility - whether the value of free supply of materials given by the recipient needs to be included in the value for discharge of service tax or not? - Held that:- The value of goods and materials supplied free of cost by a service recipient to the provider of taxable construction service, being neither monetary or non-monetary consideration paid by or flowing from the service recipient, accruing to the benefit of service provider, would be outside the taxable value of the gross amount charged, within the meaning of the later expression in Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1374 - ITAT MUMBAI
Exemption u/s 11 - Held that:- Since the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature, and, hence, the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 11 of the Act and accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow exemption under section 11 of the Act.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1373 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of Fringe Benefit Tax - Held that:- We find that the Assessing Officer has estimated Fringe Benefit amount at 20% of the expenditure He has not brought any material on record to show that the above expenditure gave any benefit to the employees of the assessee company. In absence of any such nexus being proved by the Assessing Officer, in our considered opinion, levy of Fringe Benefit Tax on the expenditure is not warranted.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1372 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... at this stage of the proceedings. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application for receipt of additional evidence which will be considered at hearing of the appeal. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate, on a balance, of undue hardship to the appellant vis-a-vis the interests of Revenue, to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay all further proceedings for realisation of the adjudicated liability, on condition that the petitioner remits ₹ 12,50,000/- plus proportionate interest thereon (excluding the components of interest and penalties) within eight weeks from today and reports compliance by 7.1.2014. In the default of deposit within the time stipulated the appeal shall stand rejected for failure of pre-deposit. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is present in the Court, has noted this order and this constitutes sufficient intimation to the petitioner of its obligation under this order. Stay application is accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1371 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ed. 4. That you will arrange to deliver the materials promptly to JSL works, Hisar in good condition within 25 (twenty-five) days from the date of containers loaded at our works, Kothavalasa.” 2. He submits that the above shows clearly that the appellant is not engaged in loading or unloading, packing or any such activity but is engaged exclusively in transportation of containers by road up to the railway terminal and from railway terminal up to the factory. Therefore he cannot be made liable to pay Service Tax treating the service as Cargo Handling Service. We find prima facie strong case in favour of the appellant in view of the extracts of the agreement reproduced above. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery during the pendency of appeal. It is made clear that the amount of ₹ 8 lakhs deposited by appellant shall not be claimed as refund till the appeal is disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1370 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 271(l)(c) - Held that:- This is a fit case wherein the explanation offered by the assessee establishes and proves his bona fides. The same should be accepted especially when he had filed a detailed note and had also paid tax and had asked for refund of tax. The question of law is accordingly, answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is directed to deleted.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1369 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
whether an importer, while availing of the BCD exemption @ 0% under FTA (notification No. 46/2011-Customs), can simultaneously avail of the concessional CVD @ 2% as per Notification No. 12/2012-Customs, or he has to pay the CVD
-
2013 (10) TMI 1368 - ITAT CHENNAI
Expenditure towards programme, production expenses, amortization of film and serial broadcasting rights, cost of programme content (rights) and expenditure towards consumables and media - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- After first telecast, the assessee does not discard the films but carefully store the same in digital library for airing the same again. Therefore, the assessee gets enduring benefit from the rights acquired in films and serials and they do not expire on the date of first telecast as contemplated by the assessee. The rights are intangible assets within the meaning of Explanation (iii) to Section 32 and do not fall within the purview of Section 37(1). The assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on same.
Write-off of advances given for production of films - Held that:- In the course of purchasing movie/serial rights, advances are given to the producers/production houses of the serials and the movies. In some of the cases, the amounts given as advance become bad-debt and hence become ir-recoverable. The assessee has no other option but to write-off the same. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee is not in the business of purchase and sale of movies. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) reversed the findings of Assessing Officer by following the judgment in the case of Turner Morrison & Co., Ltd., Vs. CIT, (2000 (3) TMI 34 - CALCUTTA High Court) and CIT Vs. Bhagwarprasad (1999 (9) TMI 5 - GUJARAT High Court ). We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue.
Deferred income - assessment year - Held that:- It is not disputed that the income generated by selling the time-slot is offered as income in the year of broadcasting/airing the programme. The monies received are shown as deferred revenue in the year of receipt and are offered as income in the year when programme is aired. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in methodology adopted by assessee in registering the revenue in the year of telecast of programme. There is no merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue
-
2013 (10) TMI 1367 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Allowability of expenditure - revenue expenses - Held that:- As in the case of Commissioner of Income TaxI vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals Limited rendered [2013 (6) TMI 776 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that once the expenditure is held to be in revenue in nature incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, it can be allowed in its entirety in the year in which it is incurred. In view of the above direct decision of this Court, question no.1 in respective appeals is required to be held in favour of assessee and against the revenue by holding that the respective Corporate Debt Restructuring expenses was revenue expenditure and the same was required to be allowed in the respective assessment years.
Lease rent was deductible as revenue expenditure.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1366 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment envisaged u/s 153A - Held that:- An assessment u/s 153A(1)(b) for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07 would be based on incriminating material, books of accounts, other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment or any undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for assessee fairly conceded the position that impugned claim relating to exclusion of income on account of retention money does not fall in the aforesaid category and thus, it is beyond the scope and ambit of an assessment envisaged u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act for assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07. Therefore, on this point itself, we uphold the stand of the Revenue for assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07 in denying assessee’s claim for excluding income on account of retention money.
We find no justification for the Revenue to reject assessee’s impugned claim for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the ground that the claim was made by way of a letter during the course of assessments and not in the return of income.
At the time of hearing, the appellant has preferred Additional Grounds of Appeal re-quantifying the claim for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 in the event of similar claims not being found exigible for assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07. In order to enable the Assessing Officer to verify the workings of the claim for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, we restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assess1in3g Officer shall examine the working of the claim made by the assessee, including the revised workings consequent to non-admission of similar claim for assessment years 2003-04 and 2006-07, and thereafter allow the appropriate claim as per law. Needless to say, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of furnishing appropriate details in support of the claim and only thereafter the Assessing Officer shall adjudicate it as per law and re-compute the total income accordingly for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1365 - ITAT AGRA
TDS u/s 194C - non deduction of tds - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Provisions of section 194C(3) are not applicable in the case of assessee and as such, the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS. Therefore, the addition is wholly unjustified.
Disallowance of truck freight expenses - Held that:- The authorities below have correctly made disallowance out of the aforesaid expenses. The Explanation to section 37 of the IT Act provides that any expense incurred by the assessee for the purpose which is an offence or prohibited in law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction shall be made in respect of such expenditure. The reimbursement of the amount paid for violation of traffic rules is not proper because the challans amount is paid for violation of law and offence committed relating to Motor Vehicle Act. Similarly, payments made to bribing police, Inams is not the expenditure permissible under the law of land. Therefore, disallowance is justified.
Disallowance of repairs and maintenance - Held that:- The addition is adhoc in nature without pointing out any specific vouchers not produced before the AO. The assessee maintained books of account, which are audited and were produced before the AO. The AO made disallowance without pointing out any specific inadmissible expenditure and in order to cover up possible leakages of income, which would suggest that the addition is adhoc in nature. Therefore, the addition is wholly unjustified.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1364 - ITAT MUMBAI
Market to market loss arising on valuation of forward exchange contracts on the closing date of accounting year - Hedl that:- Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ONGC vs. CIT (2010 (3) TMI 81 - SUPREME COURT ), following the earlier decision in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ), have held that the Assessee having maintained account on mercantile system of accounting, loss claimed by the Assessee on account fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet in respect of loans taken for Revenue purpose is allowable as expenditure u/s. 37(1) notwithstanding the fact that liability has not been actually discharged in the year in which the fluctuation rate of foreign exchange is accrued. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) holding that Market to market loss of ₹ 1,06,47,416/- arising on valuation of forward exchange contracts on the closing date of accounting year is not a notional loss and, therefore, allowable - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (10) TMI 1363 - ITAT MUMBAI
Set off of unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to assessment years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 against business income of the assessment years under consideration allowed
-
2013 (10) TMI 1362 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Miscellaneous income derived from penal interest and pre-closure charges can also be treated as eligible profit for the purpose of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act when receiving income from providing long term finance being the eligible business. - See Weizmann Homes Ltd. case [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ]
Appellate Authorities were correct in holding that when computing the Book Profit u/s.115JB of the Act the assessee need not add back lease equalization reserve (reserve for doubtful income) and provisions for contingencies (unascertained liability) - See Weizmann Homes Ltd. case [2013 (5) TMI 123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ]
-
2013 (10) TMI 1361 - ITAT CHENNAI
Exemption u/s 11 - Held that:- In the present case, there is no dispute on the fact that the assessee is carrying on the business of running an International Guest House (IGH) and Working Women's Hostel (WWH). Assessee is maintaining separate accounts for the above business activities. But, the crucial question is whether running of IGH and WWH is a business incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or not. By any stretch of imagination, it is not possible to hold that the business of running IGH and WWH are incidental to the above stated objectives of the assessee-Trust. "Incidental" means offshoot of the main activities; inherent by-product of principal activities. Activities to compliment and support the main objectives are not in the nature of incidental to the business. They are supporting activities, at the maximum. The genesis of incidental activities must be from the principal activities themselves. There cannot be one source for the principal activities and another source for incidental activities.
In the present case, even if the activities of the assessee are stated to be relief of the poor, medical relief and education, it is not at all possible to hold that running of the business in the form of IGH and WWH are business incidental to the carrying on of main objective of the assessee-Trust. Therefore, the assessee is not protected by the provision stated in Section 11(4A), either.
............
|
