|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1501 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elevant documents which prove the bonafide transportation of the case was available at the time of inspection. He says that it is admitted case of Assessing Authority that the goods were not for sale. The Assessing Authority has confused the sale of material in question with subsequent use of the same. He has used his imagination to come to the conclusion that there is an intention to evade the tax. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that subsequently after erection of tower when it will be shared with other service providers, the benefit will be subject of realization of tax and the benefit will be provided to the opposite parties . The order of tribunal has also missed the point. As such the order is bad. Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit will be filed in a week. List thereafter. Meanwhile, the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 20.9.2013 shall remain stayed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1500 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... d application praying for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that Mr Madan Mohan Swain, Chairman of the Trust, who looks after the legal and income tax matters of the trust was seriously ill and medically unfit. Therefore, he could not file this cross objection and, therefore, there was delay of 60 days. In view of this, prayer was made to condone the delay. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that assessee did not present at the time of hearing of this cross objection and appeal filed by the revenue. We also find that cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of the order of ld CIT(A). We have already dismissed the appeal of the revenue and, therefore, there is no necessity to condone the delay. Therefore, cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal filed by revenue and cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 4th October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1499 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rection to dispose off the ground No.5 raised in the appeal before him after examination and verification of the claim of the assessee in respect of adoption of the correct figure of income as returned in the return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10. It is ordered accordingly. 9. Charging of Interest under section 234B of the Act ₹ 2,20,341. 9.1 In the Ground at S.No.7, the assessee challenges the action of the Assessing Officer in charging him interest under section 234B of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In this view of the matter, we uphold the Assessing Officer's action in charging the aforesaid interest in the case on hand. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under section 234B of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 10. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1498 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... by the department that Education Cess and SHE Cess are not payable on Sugar cess is correct, he submits that credit cannot be denied to the appellant since the appellant is entitled for Cenvat credit of duty paid by the supplier. He relies upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2007 (218) E.L.T. 488 (S.C.) and C.C.E. vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. 2008 (229) E.L.T. 485 (S.C.) and submits that there cannot be any assessment at the buyers end. 3. I find that the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by learned counsel are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Therefore, the appellant has not only made out prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit but also a case for final decision in its favour. Accordingly, the appeal itself is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. 4. Stay application and appeal get disposed of as above. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1497 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 163/183 Taxman 53 (Punj. & Har.), where the transactions are between two sister concerns, both within the family, and the fund transfers were for the purposes of business, with the transactions accounted for in the books, the requirement of reasonable cause is to be considered as satisfied in such circumstances. On the same footing is the decision in the case of CIT v. Maheshwari Nirman Udyog 2008 302 ITR 201/170 Taxman 502 (Raj.) and CIT v. Lakshmi Trust Co. 2008 303 ITR 99 (Mad). 4. In view of the foregoing, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the number and volume of transactions, in our view the assessee has been able to exclude its case on the ground of reasonable cause, so that the penalty in the instant case is saved by section 273B of the Act, as well as on the ground of applicability of the un-amended provision of s. 269T of the Act. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1496 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... A) and bringing to tax the 3% grant allotted to the assessee towards administrative expenses . Facts and circumstances of the case relating to this issue, are identical to the corresponding ground raised in assessee's appeal for assessment year 2008-09. Hence, for the detailed reasons discussed in the context of the assessee's appeal for that year in relation to this issue in para 22, hereinabove, we remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify and decide the issue afresh keeping in view our directions as contained in paragraph 22 of this order hereinabove, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee's grounds on this issue are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 29. In the result, assessee's appeal for assessment year 2009-10, being ITA No.139/Hyd/2013 is also partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1495 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as been considered. We have already held that law with regard to payments made under certain categories and their disallowability was on statute when the return was filed by the assessee. Disregarding the unambiguous and un-debatable provisions of law, assessee had claimed the payments that were included in the prohibited category. Tribunal had given partial relief to the assessee, but that does not mean that assessee cannot be visited by penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Act. Therefore, confirming the order of the FAA, we decide the effective ground of appeal against the assessee. ITA No.4501-02/Mum/2012. AYs.-2002-03, 2003-04. 7. As the facts and circumstances of the appeals filed for the AYs.2002-03 and 2003-04 are similar to the facts for the AY.1998-99, therefore, following the order for that year, we reject the appeals filed by the assessee for both the year. As a result, appeals (ITA Nos.4500-02/Mum/2012) filed by the assessee stand dismissed for all the three AY.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1494 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see and directed the AO to delete the addition made at ₹ 88.39 lacs. The order passed by the CIT(A) was challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, maintained the order of CIT(A). Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is before this Court. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and after going through the orders of the AO CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we arc of the view that the AO has committed error in treating the amount waived by the bank to be the amount earned by the assessee. The principal amount of loan being never claimed by the assessee as its expenditure, its waiver will not amount to income of the assessee and as such, in our considered view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by Tribunal affirming the order of CIT(A). 7. No question of law arises in the matter. As a result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1493 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Registered Valuer’s report a copy of which is at page 67 of the paper book, the Registered Valuer has also not cited any comparable cases to justify the rate determined by him. In the report, he only mentioned vaguely that on local enquiry, he found that the market rate as on 1.4.1981 in the locality was ranging between ₹ 900 and ₹ 1100 per sq. yard. In such view of the matter, we do not find any apparent error on the part of the CIT(A) in adopting the Fair Market Value of the land at ₹ 900 per sq. yard as on 1.4.1981. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the grounds of the assessee as well in its cross objection, and consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A), even in the context of the assessee’s cross objections, is upheld. 14. In the result, assessee’s cross-objection is dismissed. 15. To sum up, Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 25.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1492 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ny provides the benefit or amenity to its employees through intermediary institution, it is not necessary to that such intermediary institute should operate solely for the similar company. What is important is that the value of benefit has been conferred to the employees irrespective of the manner in which or through whom they obtain the benefit as long as the source of the benefit is the employer of the benefit get taxed in the hands of the employees. We agree with the observations of the CIT(Appeals). 6. The CIT(Appeals) has remitted the file back to Assessing Officer with a direction to proportionately disallow the expenditure if shares have been allotted to the employees of other group companies. However, the disallowance so made shall be allowed in the hands of the respective group companies. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of CIT(Appeals). The findings of the CIT(Appeals) are confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1491 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rence is called for in CIT(A)'s order. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the entire material available on record. In our considered view no change has been brought by the Finance Act, 2001 as alleged by Assessing Officer vis a vis the scope of the ALV as it existed prior to amendment. The scope of ALV i.e. the annual letting value before and after amendment does not include value of other amenities provided as per separate agreements of the tenants and the owner for providing extra facilities like watchman, sweeper, mali etc. The assessee as in past has prepared P&L a/c by reflecting separate charges received for these facilities and actual expenditure incurred for tenants has been duly accounted for. The remainder has been returned in accordance with law. As we have held that there is no change by way of amendment in the scope of ALV, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1490 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Ramsukh Properties (supra), Rahul Construction Co. (supra), Satish Bohra & Associates (supra). Accordingly, we hold that assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction u/s.80IB (10) in respect of all buildings except building H-4. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.” 9. Following the aforesaid precedent, which has been rendered in the assessee’s own case on an identical issue, we hereby hold that assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act in relation to the profits derived from its housing project ‘Harsh Paradise’ are eligible for deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) of the Act in the manner as adjudicated by the Tribunal in the assessment year 2008-09 (supra). Thus, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 80-IB (10) of the Act. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1489 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as convinced about the reasonable cause, he had to follow the procedure contemplated under rule 46A(3) by providing sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence or document or to cross-examine the witnesses, as the case may be. .” We are aware that the powers of the FAA are co-terminus with that of the AO and he can admit additional evidences at any stage of hearing before him,but principles of natural justice demand that decision should not be taken without hearing the other party.In the case under consideration FAA had relied upon the documents that were not made available to the AO.Therefore,in the interest of justice, we remand back the matter to the file of the FAA.He is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the AO before passing fresh order. Effective ground of appeal filed by the AO is allowed in part. As a result, appeal filed by the AO stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th October,2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1488 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... tsourcing Services P Ltd v ITO, Delhi Tribunal ITA No.1204/Del/11 dtd. 27.5.2011. - ITO v Accuram India P Ltd 2010 126 lTD 69 (Chennai Tribunal) 32. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by him that alternatively the issue should be sent back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration for affording due opportunity to the assessee. 33. We have considered the rival submissions. In our view, the order of the CIT(A) does not give any basis for coming to the conclusion that the assessee was in the business of manpower deployment. It is not understandable as to how such conclusion can be arrived at on the basis of perusal of P&L account and the composition of personnel cost found in the P&L account. The conclusions are without any basis and in our view cannot be sustained. We therefore allow ground No.5 raised by the assessee. 34. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1487 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... than Financial advisory services ” No incriminating document on data in respect of these four companies is brought by Ld DR to our notice to controvert the above finding of the CIT(A). Considering the same, we are of the opinion, the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue do not call for any interference. Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the ground of the appeal fo the revenue. 40. Finally, we direct the AO/TPO to consider our finding above and work out the operating margin in relation to the total cost, the PLI the criterion accepted by the assessee and apply the provisions of the proviso to section 92C(2) of the Act in accordance with the law only in case the final assessee‟s margin is not at arm‟s length. They shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. 41. In the result, both the cross appeals are partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1486 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tedly adjourned on the above grounds. 2. On matter being called today for ascertaining compliance with the above order, we find that the appeal filed before the Hon’ble High Court stands dismissed vide their order dated 22.2.13. Neither the appellant has caused appearance today nor is there any compliance report on record. Accordingly, we dismiss both the appeals for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act read with the stay order referred (supra), as confirmed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. (dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1485 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31/12/2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the stipulation in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case. Hence, it is held that in all cases where the judgment is rendered after 31/12/2009, appeal lies to the Court made mention of under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Registry will return the records to the respective parties to enable them to prefer appeals before the appropriate forum. If they so choose to file appeals within a month from the date of this order before the competent forum, the time during which the matter was pending before this Court will be taken note of in applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These matters are disposed of as above.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1484 - KERLA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31-12-2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the stipulation in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case. Hence, it is held that in all cases where the judgment is rendered after 31-12-2009, appeal lies to the court made mention of under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Registry will return the records to the respective parties to enable them to prefer appeals before the appropriate forum. If they so choose to file appeals within a month from the date of this order before the competent forum, the time during which the matter was pending before this Court will be taken note of in applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These matters are disposed of as above.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1483 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - group insurance premium - rent-a-cab services - denial on account of nexus - Held that:- The issue is no longer res integra and has been settled in favour of the appellants in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of KPMG v. CCE, New Delhi [2013 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where credit on these services are allowed - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1482 - INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... an asset is treated as application of funds for charitable purposes. In fact the question of application considered in the second segment is entirely different. In fact, there is no question of double benefit. An assessee is getting the benefit of application of funds for charitable purposes from the income computed according to normal accounting practices. Accordingly, it is to be seen that there is no clash between providing depreciation allowance and recognising the application of funds for charitable purposes. 13. In these circumstances, we find that the lower authorities have erred in deciding the issue. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute income of the assessee after providing for depreciation and from the resultant income, treat the money spent in acquisition of asset as application of funds. 14. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 15. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed.
........
|
