|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1806 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1732
... ...
... ... ..... able on the borrowings taken against these FDRs. We direct accordingly. 6. The AO has also made addition of ₹ 12.00 lacs on account of interest earned on money lending business undertaken by the assessee which he accepted during the course of survey u/s 133A of the Act. From the record, we found that during the course survey, the assessee has accepted the fact of advancing the money on interest. In respect of the cash amount withdrawn from the bank, the AO computed the interest at 18% which comes to ₹ 12.00 lacs and added the same in assessee’s income. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case vis-à-vis prevailing market rate of interest, we direct the AO to restrict the addition on account of interest income by computing the same @ 12% instead of 18%. We direct accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1731
... ...
... ... ..... ssee but due to technical reasons in uploading the return electronically and due to delay of few hours in getting connectivety, the date has changed from 30-09-2009 to 01-10-2009. In view of mitigating circumstances, the delay can be condoned. Further, as rightly held by the learned CIT(A), the Courts have held that due date for furnishing return of income as per section 139(1) is subject to extended period provided u/s 139(4). In view of this reason also the order of CIT(A) is to be upheld. In Assessee’s units own case when it was a proprietary concern of Sri S. Venkataiah in earlier year, ITAT elaborately discussed the issue and upheld CIT(A)’s order dismissing Revenue’s appeal as devoid of any merit. Respectfully following the said order of coordinate bench, which the learned CIT(A) also followed, we dismiss the grounds raised by Revenue in this regard. 6. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1730
... ...
... ... ..... substantial amount of ₹ 6,50,000/- in cash with him for a period of over one year without depositing into the bank account. The assessee has also not shown any valid reason as to why he kept so much cash with him for over a period of one year when he was holding a bank account. In the absence of any cogent reason backed by sufficient evidence, the explanation of the assessee is only a make believe story and hence cannot be accepted. The decisions relied upon by the learned AR will also be of no help to the assessee as in the present case the assessee has failed to prove the source of deposit with valid reasons and proper evidence. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) in sustaining the addition of ₹ 6,50,000/-. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) by dismissing the ground raised by the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 22-11-2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1729
... ...
... ... ..... der dated 03.09.2013 passed herein is confirmed to enure to the benefit of the petitioners till the applications denoted in the prayer column of the instant petitions are considered and disposed of by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Debts Recovery Tribunal may fix its own time frame for disposal of the applications which shall be in a expeditious manner. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners relating to directions sought in IA. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2013 filed herein in such circumstance would not arise for consideration before this Court and if the grievance of the petitioners still survives to press the prayers in the said applications, it would be open for the petitioners to file such application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which would be considered on its merits and in accordance with law. In terms of the above, these petitions stand disposed of. In view of disposal of the petitions, application in IA.Nos.1 and 2/2013 also stands disposed of.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1728
... ...
... ... ..... tion is concerned, the Tribunal proceeded to opine in one line that the demand is not time barred as contended by the appellant. As a matter of fact, the appellant also raised a contention that no prima facie case as shown in the show cause notice was forthcoming. If once the Tribunal decides the limitation issue, even if the demand is in order, then the department may not be entitled to collect the amount of service tax and then further impose any penalty. Therefore, the issue of limitation as provided under Section 73 read with the proviso is very relevant and unfortunately, nothing is said about this aspect of the matter in the impugned order. 4. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 19.8.2013 directing the Tribunal to consider Section 73 of the Finance Act with reference to the date of demand and other relevant facts so far as the present case is concerned and then proceed with the conditional order of stay or otherwise. The Central Excise Appeal is allowed as above.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1727
... ...
... ... ..... has decided to undertake disciplinary proceedings. It had more than a year to do so, inasmuch as the newspaper report appeared on 30.10.2010, which was more than a year ago. Even the Minister's note is of 26.11.2010. There was no reason as to why the petitioners ought to have waited this long. Anyhow, now that the competent authority has decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings, we feel that although there is no reason to withhold the promotion of the respondent any further, it would be appropriate if the promotion is granted with immediate effect but on an ad hoc basis. In the event he is exonerated, he will be regularized as per rules. It is ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of.? 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the Original Application. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 16. No costs. C.M No.15201/2013 Dismissed as infructuous.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1726
... ...
... ... ..... ears from relevant assessment years the assessment was reopened on the ground that excessive relief was granted to assessee on the basis of TDS certificates. The Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold that since order allowing credit of TDS was traceable to section 155(14) read with section 154 and by claming credit for TDS could not be said to have furnished untrue or incorrect particulars of income nor could not be said to have furnished untrue or incorrect particulars of its income nor could it be said by allowing credit for TDS the AO has given excessive relief, in such circumstances, assessment proceedings could not be reopened in terms of clause (b) of Explanation 2 to section 147. 14. In view of above cited decisions we are of the view that there was no infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected. 15. Consequently appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1725
... ...
... ... ..... ded by s. 12AA(2) of the Act. We accordingly direct the respondents, subject to any order which may be passed under s. 12AA(3), to treat the petitioner society as an institution duly approved and registered under s. 12AA and to recomputed its income by applying the provision of s.11 of the Act. Accordingly, a formal certificate of approval will be issued forthwith to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2." 4.1 Applying the principle so laid down, where Commissioner does not pass any orders even after six months from receipt of Tribunal's order remitting the matter to him, the registration will be deemed to have been granted. Of course, this is subject to exercise of Commissioner's power u/s.12AA(3) in appropriate cases, but the registration will be deemed to have been granted. Accordingly, the CIT is directed to grant the registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 12/11/2013)
-
2013 (11) TMI 1724
... ...
... ... ..... he above cited decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court hold that the action of the AO in initiation of reopening proceedings based on the above stated reasons recorded merely relying on the information received from the investigation wing of the department was not justified, hence it is held as invalid and in consequence the assessment made in furtherance to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is also held void ab initio. The ground No. 1 is accordingly allowed. 8. On the merits of the additions questioned in ground No. 2 & 3 Ld. DR has tried to justify orders of the authorities below. We however find that these grounds have become infructuous in view of our decision on the issue raised in ground No. 1 hereinabove whereby the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and assessment made in furtherance to has been held void. These grounds are disposed off accordingly. 9. In the result appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th November, 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1723
... ...
... ... ..... n in respect of such expenditure is claimed by the assessee. In this case, admittedly, the assessee has not claimed the expenditure on purchase of land by debiting the same to the profit & loss account but the expenditure for purchase of land has been debited to work-in-progress. The CIT(A) has already directed that the work-in-progress is to be reduced by the disallowance required to be made under Section 40A(3). In our opinion, the direction of the CIT(A) is fully justified. We, therefore, do not find any justification to interfere with the same. The order of learned CIT(A) is sustained. 5. In the case of Ajay Aggarwal Projects Pvt.Ltd. also, the facts and the order of the CIT(A) are identical. For the detailed discussion in paragraph 4 above, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) in this case. Accordingly, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1722
... ...
... ... ..... d by the learned CIT(A) at 22 per cent as against 18 per cent declared by the assessee, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A) neither considered the past history of the assessee nor the GP rate declared by any other comparable case. It is not brought on record that how and in what manner GP rate declared by the assessee was on lower side. We are of the opinion that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) by applying the GP rate at 22 per cent was not justified. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, are of the view that the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) on account of estimation of bricks and applying the GP rate @ 22 per cent was not justified, accordingly, the same is deleted. For the aforesaid view, we are also fortified by the decision dt. 30th Aug., 2013 of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case Prince Udhyog (supra). 11. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1721
... ...
... ... ..... TPO shall follow the same pattern and parameters adopted for the subsequent assessment year 2008-09, as accepted by TPO and DRP. 39. When we have finally zeroed down to the DCF method, our observation and discussion on other arguments advanced by the assessee may look academic. For that inherent reason, we leave all those issues raised by the learned senior counsel, open. 40. We accept the contention of the assessee on the question of levy of interest under Section 234B in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jacabs Civil Incorporated (supra). Accordingly, the assessing authority is directed to delete the levy of interest under Section 234B. 41. In the result, as far as the TPO matter is concerned, it is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for further transmission to the TPO and thereafter for the purpose of finally concluding the assessment in accordance with law. 42. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1720
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee as per ratio of the judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (supra). Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 14A r/w Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules but the disallowance has not been made as per ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment (supra). Therefore, we find it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that the Assessing Officer shall examine the issue by considering detailed synopsis of the submission of the assessee de novo after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of above, the grounds of the assessee are disposed of and may be treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1719
... ...
... ... ..... rthcoming he treated 5 per cent of the turnover of ₹ 8,00,990 as undisclosed profit thereby making an addition of ₹ 40,050. Such addition made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that no unaccounted sale was found during the survey and thus the addition on account of undisclosed profit was wrong. However, in the absence of books of account or the details of stock, the CIT(A) worked out the excess stock as on the date of survey at ₹ 20,742 and directed the AO to retain such an addition. Against the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before us. 136. After considering the rival pleas, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is on justifiable grounds. 137. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 138. Resultantly, whereas the appeals of the respective assessees except ITA No. 376/Pn/2012 in the case of M/s National Auto Works (which is dismissed) are partly allowed, those of the Revenue are dismissed, as above.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1718
... ...
... ... ..... e trust. Though this letter has been acknowledged by the DIT(Exemption) in his order but even then, he has rejected the application of the assessee. He therefore prayed that assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. DIT(Exemption). Ld. DR did not object to this prayer of the learned counsel of the assessee. Therefore, the matter is being restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 2. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court
-
2013 (11) TMI 1717
... ...
... ... ..... der - "2. The revenue has taken following effective ground of appeal - "That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance on account of depreciation on plant and machinery purchased out of withdrawal from NABARD". 3. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in fvour of the assessee by the ITAT Kolkata Bench’s order in the case of ACIT -vs.- M/s. Goodricke Group Ltd. in ITA No. 2557/Kol/2004 dated 10th June, 2005. The ld. D.R. has not disputed the above submission of the ld. AR of the assessee. In view of the above, ground no. 1 taken by the revenue is rejected". Respectfully following the decision, we dismiss ground no. 5 of the Revenue. 18. Ground No. 6 is general in nature and need for adjudication. 19. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1716
... ...
... ... ..... y the AO on account of capital gain. Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 15. As regards ground No. 2, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to assessee's claim for deduction on account of security charges of ₹ 1,03,000 as business expenditure is consequential to the main issueraised in ground No. 1. As the main issue involved in ground No. 1 has already been decided by us in favour of the assessee holding that the income from the activity of plotting and selling of plots of land constituted business income of the assessee and not capital gain, the security charges of ₹ 1,03,000 paid by the assessee is liable to be allowed as deduction as the expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of said business. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) allowing the said deduction and dismiss ground No. 2 of Revenue's appeal. 16. In the result, all appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1715
... ...
... ... ..... r side. Therefore, prayer made is granted. Accordingly, the S.L.P. is dismissed qua respondent No. 1.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1714
... ...
... ... ..... ranting relief under said section, even if such independent units are situated side by side, on different floors or are purchased under separate sale deeds. The High Court of Andra Pradesh in the said case has agreed with the findings of the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. D. Anand Basappa (Supra). Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the light of consistent view of different High Courts, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has correctly decided that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54 of the Act as regards the investments/cost of construction claimed by the assessee in respect of all the flats. In view of that matter, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count and the same is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1713
... ...
... ... ..... of investigation carried out so far, orders passed by the authorities of provisional attachment, which came to be confirmed by the adjudicating authroity and availability of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. So far as other submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the answer is that the above aspects are considered and dealt with in detail by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of B.Rama Raju supra and I am in complete agreement with the conclusions drawn in the said judgement. 12 Considering the sum and substance of the case, I am of the view that no interference is called for by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage as it would be tantamount to usurping the statutory mandate under the Act. Notice discharged.
........
|
