|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1741 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1726 - ITAT AHMADABAD
... ...
... ... ..... disallowance is restricted to ₹ 30,000/-. 12. Now assessee is before us. Ld. A.R. submitted that labourers had been employed at the remote site of contract. The labourers are mostly illiterate persons. Hence, it was necessary to prepare the self made cash vouchers. All the expenses had been incurred for business purposes. He prayed to allow full expenses. At the outset, ld. Sr. D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A). We have carefully considered the order of the lower authorites and arguments of the assessee. The total labour charges debited by the assessee more than ₹ 59 lacs and it is admitted fact that the cash payments were made to the labourers. The ld. CIT(A) was reasonable to restrict the disallowance at ₹ 30,000/-. Therefore, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 13. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 20/12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1725 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... trated that there was no full and true disclosure of the relevant facts by the assessee. Factually speaking, the position in the present case stands on a different footing and therefore the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. (supra) does not apply in the present case. Considering the factual position in the present case, the issue in the present case is liable to be decided having regard to the judgments of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Titanor Components Ltd. (supra) and Prashant Projects Ltd. (supra) in favour of the assessee. 16. In the result, we hold that the initiation of proceedings by the issuance of notice u/s 147/148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore, the consequential assessment made is hereby cancelled. Thus, assessee succeeds on this aspect. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1724 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Assessing Authority has not given proportionate adjustment either way, on the ground that writ petition challenging the notification No. 780 dated 31.03.1995 is still pending in the High Court. 6. Now since the question regarding adjustment of State Development Tax has been decided in favour of the assessee by the High Court in M/s. Harpreet Color Vision (supra), consequential orders are required to be passed by the Assessing Authority. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents, we dispose of the writ petition with directions that the Assessing Authority will pass appropriate orders for adjustment, for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, in accordance with law, after taking into account the decision of the High Court in M/s. Harpreet Color Vision (supra), expeditiously, and if possible within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is produced before him.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1723 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re he would be residing abroad prior to his departure; (d) He shall report to the aforesaid Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, BS&FC, Calcutta on a daily basis over telephone, the number whereof would also be furnished before hand; (e) He shall return to Calcutta on or before 14th January, 2014 and within 24 hours thereof hand over his passport to the aforesaid Superintendent of Police and would positively personally appear in the Trial Court on 20.01.2014; 15. Central Bureau of Investigation authorities shall satisfy itself as to whether the above mentioned conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) have been complied with and thereupon hand over the passport to the petitioner without unnecessary delay and also render all necessary assistance so that the petitioner may avail of this order. The instant revisional application is, accordingly, allowed. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as early as possible.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1722 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ce in the case of CIT vs. Raghuvir Synthetics Ltd. He also placed on record, the copy of the aforesaid decision of Hon. Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 829/AHD/2007. 29. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the addition has noted that the disallowance was made by the A.O. in a summary manner and he has not established the nexus between interest bearing loans with the advancing interest free advances. He has further noted that the Assessee explanation was rejected without any material on record. Before us, the D.R. could not controvert the findings of CIT(A), nor has he brought on record any contrary material in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) on this ground. Thus this ground of revenue is dismissed. 30. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13 -12 - 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1721 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... erused the material placed before us. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sadhu Forging Ltd. (supra), wherein their Lordships of Jurisdictional High Court held as under - “The receipts from sale of scrap being part and parcel of the activity and being proximate thereto would also be within the ambit of gains derived from the industrial undertaking for the purpose of computing deduction under section 80-IB.” 6. Respectfully following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under Section 80IB after taking into account the scrap sales. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 20th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1720 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been paid by the appellants/defendants to the respondents/plaintiffs, it is deemed proper to list the matter before the worthy Registrar General for determination on the said aspect. The parties to appear before the worthy Registrar General on 28th January, 2014. The appellants/defendants to at least one week before the said date, file with advance copy to the counsel for the respondents/plaintiff, a statement showing the payments if any made for the aforesaid period together the proof thereof. If the respondents/plaintiffs controvert the same, the worthy Registrar General shall adjudicate the said dispute and upon adjudication thereof, the amount if any found due to the respondents/plaintiffs as per decree of this Court shall be got paid to the respondents/plaintiffs out of the amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- deposited by the appellants/defendants in this Court and the balance amount if any together with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the appellants/defendants.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tegorical, in that he specifically avers wrongdoing on behalf of Mr. Mehra, a fact which, whether ultimately true or not, deserves to be tested during the ordinary course of trial. The fact that Mr. Nanda and his lawyers have allegations of forgery pending against them in unrelated trials, or that FIRs have been registered against them, does not allow this Court to reach the conclusion that its findings based on well-established jurisprudence surrounding decree on admissions are to be reviewed or set aside. Crucially, this Court, neither in its judgment of 10.04.2012 nor in the present review expresses any opinion on the merits of the claims advanced by either party, but only reiterates that these claims must be tested at trial. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Court finds no errors apparent or sufficient cause to recall its judgment and order dated 10.04.2012. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed along with pending application, but with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1718 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s of this year 2007-08. A copy of the Tribunal order dated 30.8.2009 has been placed before us for our perusal. 3. We have perused the Tribunal order and have considered the entire facts and evidence available before us. We are in agreement with the ld. CIT(A) that there is no change in the business of the assessee from earlier years and similar type of export is being done in this year too. Therefore, assessee becomes entitled to deduction u/s 10B under identical facts and circumstances. Therefore, by respectfully following the Tribunal order in question, we confirm the impugned finding and dismiss the grounds raised in this respect.” In view thereof, we follow the order of the ‘tribunal’ for previous assessment year and hold that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 8. The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Monday, the 30th of December, 2013, at Chennai
-
2013 (12) TMI 1717 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll preference shares and for the very purpose allotting equity shares of an equal number in favour of only two of the preference shareholders and utilising the very amount for redeeming the shareholding of the petitioners, all necessarily leading to an inference that the transaction are being used as a device to throw out the appellants-petitioners from the membership of the company. To constitute an act of oppression, the question is not so much as to whether the affairs of the company, are being conducted in consonance with the provisions of the Act or not, but even while so doing, the power and advantage of holding majority shares in the company is used by the majority shareholders for the purpose of causing prejudice to the minority shareholders. 20. In the instant case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner holds only 244 shares, the said judgment has no application. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1716 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... d 43 of 2011 in the case of Agricultural Market Committee Tanuku and Others dated 30.03.2011. Hence, these grounds are dismissed. 23.3 Ground no.6 is on the issue of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. For the reasons stated in para-8 on first issue discussed above, the claim is restored to the file of the A.O. for fresh consideration. 23.4 Ground no.7 is on allowance of various expenditures paid on the directions of Director, Marketing not allowed. Issue was discussed in paras 9 & 10 above. For the reasons stated above, the matter is restored to AO and ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 23.5 Ground nos.8 & 9 are regarding levy of interest u/s 234A & B of the Act, which is consequential in nature. 23.6 AO is directed to consider the issues accordingly. 23.7 Appeals by assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 24. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 11th Dec’13
-
2013 (12) TMI 1715 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal below followed the well-accepted principle which are required to be followed in considering the effect of section 68 of the Act and we thus find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both authorities. 5. As the Hon'ble High Court laid down the principle that the AO should have verified the transactions in the hands of loan creditor particularly when the loan creditor is assessed to tax and complete details are with the AO. In the present case also the assessee has filed complete details i.e. confirmation of loan creditors, assessment details of loan creditors, PAN details and bank accounts of loan creditors etc., in such circumstances, respectfully following the principle laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 24th Dec., 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1714 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ts in the bank accounts, name and address of the immediate and ultimate beneficiaries and the name and address of the persons from whom cash and cheque were received by assessee. Because, if the assessee wants that assessment be framed on peak of the credits, the assessee has to explain how the transactions are carried out and whether the cash withdrawals are utilized for investments or not. The AO should have verified the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries and in term of this, we set aside this common issue to the file of AO for verification of the facts in entirety because even for assessing the peak credits, these are necessary ingredients. Hence, these two appeals of assessee are set aside to the file of AO for verification of facts and fresh adjudication according to law. Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013 Sd/- Sd/-
-
2013 (12) TMI 1713 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has not make out the case that the deposits kept with bank for setting up of a factory. In fact it was surplus fund which was kept with the bank on which the assessee earned interest. The ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. is squarely applicable and interest earned by the assessee during construction period on deposits kept with the nationalized bank is assessable as income from other sources as done by the Assessing Officer. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 315 (SC). Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings of CIT(A) who has rejected the appeal of assessee holding that interest earned on deposit kept with bank was taxable u/s.56 of I.T. Act. The same is upheld. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1712 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Income Tax versus M/s The Nainital Bank Limited, Nainital) today and following the ratio of the judgment rendered in connection therewith, we dismiss this appeal without any interference.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1711 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us M/s The Nainital Bank Limited, Nainital). For the reasons recorded in our judgment rendered today, we refuse to interfere with the judgment under appeal. For the selfsame reason, we also dismiss this appeal without any interference.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1710 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... blished fully, the object achieved. In such a situation, if the payment has been made, looking to necessity of settlement or difficulty of payee as the payee was in needy after bank hours, the same cannot be have to be made in violation of the objects of the rules. The unavoidable circumstances is a relative term and vary from transaction to transaction. In the present appeal also, since the accounts are tallying, genuineness of payment is not in doubt, the amount is actually deposited to the marketing staff of the company from Indore Branch of ICICI bank in core banking account of M/s. Altos Enterprises Ltd. and duly reflected in the statement of payee company, therefore, in view of these uncontroverted facts, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the ld. CIT(A). It is affirmed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the presence of ld. representatives of both sides in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing on 16.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1709 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... .R. could not contradict to this submission of the ld. Counsel of assessee. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal in the hands of the co-owner of the property had held that the lands in quest ion did not constitute ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act because Rajarhat Municipality was not one of the notified Municipality as per the Central Government’s Notification dated 28.12.1999. Hence, respectfully following the precedent, we hold that the land in question, which was transferred by the assessee, was an agricultural land and it did not fall within the ambit of ‘capital asset’ under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly we confirm the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). 8. In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1708 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... essee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07 (supra) wherein an identical circumstances that the disallowance was directed to be restricted 50% of the expenditure claimed. Following the aforesaid precedent, in this year also the Assessing Officer is directed to retain the disallowance accordingly. Thus, on this aspect, assessee partly succeeds. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. 20. In so far as the other two appeals relating to assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are concerned, the issues raised are similar to those adjudicated in the above paragraphs relating to the assessment year 2008-09. Our decision in the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the above two assessment years also with respect to the respective Grounds of Appeals. 21. Resultantly, the three captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1707 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vene in the present case. They will be shown as intervenor in the cause-title. Amended cause-title shall be filed within two weeks. 47. Pursuant to the order dated 21-10-20135, additional affidavit has been filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General submits that further additional affidavit needs to be filed by the Government of India to clarify certain position. Same may be done within three weeks. 48. Mr Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioners also prays for time as he would like to respond to the additional affidavit filed by the Government of India on 12-12-2013. Moreover, he submits that certain information is needed from the Government of India for which he submits that an appropriate request will be made to them. 49. In view of the above, we permit the petitioners to file response to the additional affidavit of the Government of India within two weeks therefrom. List both matters on 31-1-2014.
........
|
