|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 858 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly observed that the assessee-company itself has apportioned interest and administrative expenses and depreciation on the basis of total expenses relatable to taxable activities and exempted 80-IB projects. If that apportionment is taken into consideration, the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) has rightly pointed out that the interest should have been adopted at ₹ 16.25 crores as against ₹ 20.56 crores adopted by the Assessing Officer. This mistake has been made good by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by giving a relief of ₹ 19,30,683/-. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is a well speaking order, based on facts and figures available from the records of the case. Therefore, we find no ground for the Revenue to agitate this issue before us. This ground is also rejected. 18. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Orders pronounced on Monday, the 18th of March, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 857 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as against ₹ 13,68,000/- actual consideration received by the appellant as per registered Sale Deed. 2) Land in question is owned jointly by (1) Keshavbhai Ratanji Patel and (2) Smt.Hansaben K.Patel and therefore alleged entire capital gain is wrongly levied in the case of appellant. 3) Lr.A.O. has erred in law and on facts to treat Agricultural land situated within the jurisdiction of Village - ‘Segvi Gram Panchayat’ and sold to Agriculturist who purchased the said land to carry out agricultural activity on this land as capital asset. 9. As far as Cross Objection of the assessee is concerned, since a view has already taken (in Revenue’s appeal-supra) that the agricultural land is not agricultural land and therefore not liable to capital gains, therefore, the objection raised in the Cross Objection of the assessee is hereby rejected being infructuous. 10. In the result, Revenue’s appeal and the cross objection of the Assessee both are dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 856 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted 29th December, 2010 passed under Section 143 (3) r/w Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act), was set aside. This was so, as the Assessment order dated 29th December, 2010 was passed in pursuance of an order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the said Act on 25th March, 2010. However, the above order dated 25th March, 2010 of the CIT was quashed by the Tribunal by its order dated 7th January, 2011. The Revenue's Appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 7th January, 2011, setting aside the order in revision of the CIT was also dismissed by this Court on 13th September, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.882 of 2011. In these circumstances, as the order of the Revision passed by CIT under Section 263 of the said Act has itself been set aside orders passed consequent thereto are also not sustainable. 3. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed questions of law. 4. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 855 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that any on money was paid by the appellant on the transaction. Ld. A.O. had not referred this land to the DVO for determining the market value on date of registration. The statement given by Vikas A. Shah was self service statement without any supporting evidence. There was no search carried out on the appellant. The seized papers were found in the possession of Shri Vikas A. Shah. The third person evidence cannot be base for addition on the basis of any entries therein. The ld. CIT(A) had also considered following decisions i. Prathana Construction Pvt. Ltd. 70 TTJ 122 (Ahmadabad) ii. Prabhat Oil Mills reported in 52 TTJ 533, (Ahmadabad) iii. Jaindal Stainless Ltd. 9 DTR 345 (ITAT, Delhi) After considering all the facts and legal position of this issue, we do not find any reason to intervene in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 08.03.2013
-
2013 (3) TMI 854 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that Explanation below proviso to Section 92C(2) relating to adjustment in respect of / 5% variation in ALP was applicable with effect from assessment year 200910 onwards and not to pending references as on 1st October 2009 ? c) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to additional depreciation on computers without appreciating that while additional depreciation is applicable only to plants and machineries, computers fall under a totally separate block of assets ? d) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the issue of depreciation of leasehold rights in land to the file of the AO by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Techno Shares & Stocks Limited V/s. Commissioner of Incometax, 327 ITR 323 (SC) which is not applicable ?”
-
2013 (3) TMI 853 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1. 3. The very same issue has been considered by the Tribunal in their order of even date passed in ITA No.1093(Mds)/2011 filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2008-09. After examining the issue in detail, the Tribunal has agreed with the finding of the Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not lawful. In the light of the said order of the Tribunal passed for the assessment year 2008-09, we hold for the impugned assessment year as well that the issue raised by the Revenue is to be decided against it. 4. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 18th of March, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 852 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the project is completed satisfactorily. Usually, projects will be completed satisfactorily. Here also there is no different case. The retention money withheld by the assessee is in fact the part of the contract amount agreed by the assessee-company to pay to the contractor. It cannot be characterized as a contingent liability. That amount was already agreed to be paid to the contractor. The only thing is that the actual payment was different. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that it is in the nature of a contingent liability. Therefore, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has rightly deleted the said addition. 27. We find that the Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has adjudicated all the issues in accordance with law and his findings are just and fair. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 28. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Orders pronounced on Monday, the 18th of March, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 851 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to tax by the assessee and therefore, as per these two judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited by Ld. AR of the assessee, the assessee is eligible for deduction on account of bad debts, as claimed by the assessee because the interest income offered to tax by the assessee out of lease rental income is a part of the debt and therefore, a part of the debt has been taken into account in the computation of income and as a result, the conditions stipulated in sub-section-2 of Section 36 of the Act stand satisfied in the present case. Respectfully following these two judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we delete the disallowance of part of bad debt made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (3) TMI 850 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before us is that the said notice was served on the petitioner by E-mail in contravention of Rule 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules'). 2. On a perusal of the said Rule 64 of the Rules, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Rule 64(1)(b) of the Rules, it should be personally served on the nominated person or it should be left at the registered office of the person or it is sent by registered post to any office or place of business of that person. Therefore, apparently, the service of assessment order by E-mail to the petitioner is in violation of the statutory rules. 3. Hence, the notice dated 29.01.2013 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondent to serve the assessment order in accordance with the provisions of the statutory rules. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 849 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... h had been duly quoted by the assessee before the Tribunal. On perusal of record, we find that the claim of the assessee is correct as the decision of the Tribunal for assessment year 2005-06 is still lying in the file. In that year also the expenses incurred had exceeded the income and the assessee had claimed accumulation of 25% before set off of expenses which had been allowed by CIT(A) and order of CIT(A) had been confirmed by the Tribunal. The said decision in assessment year 2005-06 was followed by the Tribunal in assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 in ITA Nos.345 & 346/Mum/2011. Non-consideration of decision of co-ordinate bench does constitute a mistake apparent from record. We therefore recall the order dated 17.4.2008 of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after considering the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra). 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8.3.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 848 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s pointed out that in paragraph 2 - fourth line thereof the word “Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961” has been typed by mistake. The same be replaced/substituted by “Section 271(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 2 Office is directed to modify the order dated 6th February, 2013 3 Precipe to the Speaking to the Minutes is disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 847 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... order for assessment year 1998-99 as no appeal therefrom has been preferred by the Revenue. The Revenue has not made out any case warranting a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal in the respondent - assessee's case for the assessment year 1998-99. 3. The Tribunal on facts reiterated the finding rendered by it for the assessment year 1998-99 that the assessee company was formed not only for the purposes of procuring advertisement from India but also from other countries. Hence, there was no motive of tax benefits on the part of the respondent - assessee. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the independent existence of the respondent - assessee could not be denied. 4. In view of the above and particularly when the Revenue has accepted the order passed for assessment year 1998-99 in respect of the respondent - assessee, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.ai
-
2013 (3) TMI 846 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ompetent authority was consistent with the object underlying the amendment made by Parliament in the Code of Civil Procedure i.e expeditious disposal of the civil cases without interference by the higher/superior courts at interlocutory stages of the cases. 9. We are further of the view that while examining the correctness of the order passed by the competent authority, the learned Single Judge could not have gone into the issue of maintainability of the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Act and dismissed the same. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside with the direction that the competent authority shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the matter within a period of one year. It is needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application filed by the appellant under Section 24 of the Act and the question relating to jurisdiction of the competent authority to deal with the same.
-
2013 (3) TMI 845 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cheme, 2002 as laying down the condition that the construction of the minimum no. of units should be completed before deduction could be claimed under section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act, when no such condition exists in the said section? (c) Whether the notification by the Central Board of Direct Taxes notifying the Appellant's industrial park vide notification dated July 03, 2007 relates back to the date on which the Appellant filed the application on January 31, 2003 or in the least from February 17, 2003 i. e. the date on which the project was approved by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Government of India?
-
2013 (3) TMI 844 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ort to the CLB with a copy to the parties within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The R-1-company is required to pay to Hitesh Buch & Associates ₹ 50,000 for each year besides their traveling and other expenses relating to this assignment. 27. Though the company petition was mentioned on 20th September, 2012, the pleadings in this matter have not been completed as yet. Considering the fact that Form 2 for further alleged allotment of 3,12,96,228 equity shares has been filed with the RoC on 17th September, 2012 subsequent to the mentioning of this Company Petition, the petitioner is given liberty to move a company application for amendment of the company petition incorporating all subsequent events. 28. BO to serve this order on the special officer-cum-observer, the firms of chartered accountants and company secretaries in addition to the parties in the CP. CP No. 65/2012 is Adjourned to 14th May, 2013 at 10.30 AM for further hearing in the matter.
-
2013 (3) TMI 843 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... triction on the buyer debarring him from using technical know how in India at any point of time, in our considered opinion, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 80-O on account of this receipt because in that situation, it cannot be said that the receipt in question is a consideration for user of technical know how outside India. Hence, we set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to his file for afresh decision. He should pass necessary order as per law as per above discussion after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the sides. Ground No.3 stands allowed for statistical purposes. 4.3 In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the combined result, appeal of the assessee and C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed whereas the appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (3) TMI 842 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... e question of its audit does not arise. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the books of account was not maintained and the penalty levied u/s 271A was deleted, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no justification for levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books of account audited. 8. After analysing the provisions of section 44AA of the Act and Rule 6F of I.T. Rules, this Tribunal find that the omission to include civil contract and other business in Rule 6F is only an unintended omission. Therefore, it is open to the department to bring it to the notice of the concerned executive authority (CBDT) about the lacunae / omission in Rule 6F if the department is so advised. 9. With the above observations, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the penalty levied u/s 271B is deleted. 10. In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 841 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e. Taking over all situation under consideration and to encourage the storage of food grains at doorsteps of farmers. The storage of food grains in warehousing at door steps will certainly improve the economic conditions of farmers by ensuring them proper cost at proper time and they will also be saved perpetual exploitation of middle men. Such beneficial provisions should not be sacrificed for technical narrow interpretation of relevant provisions. Even minor transportation facility should help assessee for claiming benefit of provisions of section 80IB(11A) of the Act. In the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same as per above legal discussion. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 7. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 840 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ff the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses ?" 4. Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the issue raised in the present appeal is concluded in favour of the assessee by the order of this Court dated 25th February, 2013, in Income-tax Appeal (L) No.2083 of 2012 passed in respect of the same respondent - assessee for assessment year 2006-07. 5. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 839 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he objects for the last 42 years. Assessee has computed income of rent received of ₹ 14,72,376 and ₹ 60,000/- respectively, and as per the provisions of Chapter IV-C of the Income tax Act, i.e. under the income from house property claimed deduction u/s.24 @ 30%. We observe that there is no provision in Income tax Act that if the property of the assessee trust is held for charitable purposes, no deduction u/s.24 would be available. Section 24 itself allows deduction of 30% of rental income. Hence, we are of the considered view that ld CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to allow the claim of the assessee. Ld D.R. has not pointed out any decision or made submissions contrary to the observation made by ld CIT(A). We therefore, reject the grounds of appeal taken by department and uphold the order of ld CIT(A). 7. In the result, appeal filed by department and also the cross objection filed by assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th March, 2013
........
|
