|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of G E India Technology Centre P. Ltd. 327 ITR 456 (SC) and IDBI V/s. ITO 107 ITD 45 (Mum) which are not relevant to the issue under consideration ignoring that as per Explanation (iv) to Section 194H, where any income is credited to any account, whether called 'suspense account' or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee ? (viii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in directing the A.O. to allow weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) in respect of Nashik Unit even though the prescribed authority has not submitted the report in Form 3CL to the DGIT (Exemption) and in respect of Kandivli unit, the Tribunal directed to allow the deduction as and when approval from prescribed authority is received even though the conditions laid down in Rule 6 which are mandatory have not been fulfilled ?
-
2013 (3) TMI 837 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeal has already been preferred by the Revenue which is pending and according to the learned counsel for the Revenue, the appellant has also filed cross-objection in that appeal. 5. Since, the matter is sub judice before the appellate authority even in the cross-objection, then it will be appropriate that delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 6. In view of the above, orders dated 12-4-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata are set aside and applications for condonation of delay are allowed. The Appellate Court may now proceed. 7. The stay petitions I.A. No. 2801 of 2012 and I.A. No. 2802 of 2012 (filed in both the appeals) stand disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 836 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e are serious issues arising from the report of the VIMHANS which makes it necessary for us to issue interim directions forthwith, which are as under i) No communication addressed by the petitioner qua any issue should be given any cognizance or be taken into consideration. ii) The petitioner should not be entrusted with any work in the Department as it may affect the public at large, an aspect we have emphasized to the learned counsel for UOI. This would necessitate making alternative arrangements as the appellate proceedings would be required to be completed before the end of the financial year. The report be put in a sealed cover and be kept in the custody of the concerned Deputy Registrar to be sent to the Court on the next date of hearing. List on 18.03.2013. Interim orders dated 16.01.2013 shall continue to operate till the next date of hearing. Dasti under the signatures of Court Master to learned counsel for the respondents and UOI as also to the clerk of the VIMHANS.
-
2013 (3) TMI 835 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ith the Government/Government body.” Since, the said agreement was not filed before the Tribunal; the assessee was directed to furnish the same before the Assessing Officer in the set aside proceedings. Accordingly, the assessee is entitled to furnish all relevant information and explanation before the assessing officer, who shall also consider them while examining the issue afresh. Accordingly, in our view, there is no factual error as contended by the assessee. However, in order to clarify the matter further, we hereby add the following sentence to the end of paragraph 6 of the order (referred supra), which shall be read as part of the said order. “The assessing officer shall examine the matter afresh after considering all the materials and explanations that is available on record and that may be furnished before him by the assessee.” 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 28-03-2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 834 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... olding that the income (royalty) of the assessee was taxable under the tax treaty between India and Federal Republic of Germany only on receipt basis? 2) So far as question (a) is concerned, the Tribunal in the impugned order has restored the issue for fresh adjudication to the file of the Assessing officer. In that view of the matter, this question does not require consideration at this stage. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain question (a). 3) So far as question (b) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that an identical issue was raised by the revenue in respect of the same respondentassessee before this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.124 of 2010 and by order dated 22/10/2012 the revenue's appeal was dismissed. In the above view of the matter, for the reasons mentioned in our order dated 22/10/2012 in Income Tax Appeal No.124 of 2010, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 4) Accordingly, all the seven appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 833 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of the appellant. Therefore, the addition made by the AO amounting to ₹ 24,69,889/- is directed to be deleted. The ground no.1 is allowed.” 4. From the above order of CIT(A) it is clear that the assessment order does not contain any material which establishes that the liability has ceased during the relevant year under dispute. Even the liabilities of earlier years are not related to the relevant year and the liabilities are not written back in the books of account. The liabilities are outstanding as on date i.e. during the relevant assessment year. Once the liabilities are outstanding, even though the credits have become time bassed by limitation, the same cannot be assessed by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. In such circumstances, we have no alternative except to confirm the findings of CIT(A) and appeal of revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 832 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tral corpus/ pool, which shall be utilized for the welfare, healthcare and treatment of the poorer sections of the society in government hospitals. It is quite clear from perusal of the said paragraph that the obligation to repay to the authorities and the society in respect of unwarranted profits made by such hospitals by not adhering to the stipulation for providing free medical treatment to the poor patients arises with effect from two years from the date on which they took possession of the plots of land allotted to them. Therefore, there seems to be no need of any clarification as far as the above referred direction is concerned. The accounts of such hospital need to be scrutinized with effect from two years from the date they took possession of the land on which the hospital is constructed. Of course, it is for the official respondent ascertain on which date the possession of the allotted land was taken by these hospitals. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (3) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pear before the assessing authority and adduce necessary evidence within a period of six weeks from today and the assessing officer shall complete the assessment after hearing the petitioner on such date as may be notified. iv) Exts.P8 and P10 are quashed. (v) The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation to the Government for waiver of royalty under the Mines and Minerals Concession Rules in respect of the demand made towards royalty for granite quarrying from private property within a period of one month from today and the Government shall dispose of the said representation within a further period of three months. Until disposal of the said representation, any recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. vi) Ext.P16 is quashed, without prejudice to the right of the revenue authorities to initiate further proceedings after completing the assessments with respect to the sales tax dues and after the Government passing order as far as the claim for royalty is concerned.
-
2013 (3) TMI 830 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rued but not fallen due or received ? ” 2. Counsel for the parties state that the issue is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the respondent-assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.1621 of 2011 rendered on 12th February, 2013. In view of the reasons stated in our order dated 12th February, 20111 in Income Tax Appeal No.1621 of 2011, we see no reason to entertain the present appeal. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 829 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... in support of their explanations which enables them to explain away unaccounted cash or unaccounted deposit these provisions have been enacted. But the A.O. has accepted this transaction as genuine. No tax planning or tax evasion has been alleged by the A.O. Thus, in our considered opinion, this cash is neither a ‘loan’ nor a ‘deposit’, so the condition of accepting this amount either through account payee cheque or account payee demand draft is not applicable and thus there is no breach or violation of the provisions of section 269SS which can be said to have been committed by the assessee company. Accordingly, in view of our foregoing discussion ‘on any count’ penalty u/ 271D cannot be imposed on the assessee-company. As a result, we delete the entire penalty of ₹ 3.25 crores and allow the appeal of the assessee-company. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 828 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ject completion method was applicable on account receipts of ₹ 5 crores even though the assessee had not accounted the receipts in the regular books of accounts ? (c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the addition of ₹ 5 crores itself had failed to follow the norms of accounting standards regarding disclosure of receipts as per the AS-7 and as per section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 ? 2. Counsel for the parties state that the income which is disputed in the present proceedings has been offered to tax on the basis of the project completion methiod during the assessment year 2009-10 and the same has been accepted by the revenue. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law as the entire exericse would be acadamic. In the above view, the questions (a) to (c) as proposed cannot be entertained. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 827 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... est because all personal effects need not be used daily. So long as they are meant for personal use, they will have to be considered as personal effects. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the sale of old paintings, inherited by assessee, does not fall in the mischief of section 2(14)(ii) of the Act i.e. in the definition of capital asset and does not attract capital gains tax prior to amendment brought by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.4.2008. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. Taking a consistent view and respectfully following the Coordinate bench decision in the case of Borendra Nath Mookerjee (supra), we uphold the order of CIT(A) and this issue of revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. The Cross Objection of assessee is supportive in nature and hence, dismissed being infructuous. 7. In the result, both appeal of revenue as well as Cross Objetion of assessee are dismissed. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 826 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966. In similar way, the Government Resolution dated 12th August, 2010 also supports the contention of Respondent No. 1 original claimant. This Resolution shows that the Government has accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge and has authorised CIDCO to represent the Government in the References under section 18 and 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the view taken by the Single Judge is correct. The authorities cited by the Appellant CIDCO and the Respondents, except the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Authority, have been considered by the learned Single judge and found the same not applicable to the facts of the present case. As we respectfully concur with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge, it is not necessary for us to dilate on the same. Consequently, we find that the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs no interference. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 825 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Tribunal erred in holding that the rental income of ₹ 29,16,242/ was assessable in the hands of the Appellant, when the Appellant is not the owner of the Property?
-
2013 (3) TMI 824 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is likely to succeed in a civil court, that would constitute sufficient reasons for the court to reject the petition, relegation the parties to the civil court. If there is any bona fide dispute, it is to be resolved by approaching the civil court, as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 4175 (Mediqup Systems P. Ltd. v. Proxima Medical System GmbH). It is held by the Division Bench of this Court in (2010) 153 Comp. Cas 64 (Sampat Trading & Co. v. Talayar Tea Co. Ltd) that a winding up petition is not an appropriate mode enforcing bona fide disputed debts and it is nothing but misuse and abuse of the process of the court. 14.That being the legal position as discussed above, this court by exercising discretionary power, is of the view that it is a fit case wherein the parties can be relegated to civil court for adjudication of their dispute and the petitioner is dis-entitled to get any relief in this Company Petition. 15.In the result, the company petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 823 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... and identifiable by some quality of public or personal nature. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hiralal Bhagwati v. CIT (246 ITR 188) held a Gujarat Law Society to be entitled for registration under Section 12A(a) of the Act, despite its object being only to grant financial aid to employees in the event of their death during employment, illness or permanent disability. Proviso to Section 2(15) which place fetters on an association, having an object of general public utility, was not at all there in the impugned assessment years. 25. We are, therefore, of the view that assessee was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act and could not have been denied such exemption for the impugned assessment years. For the same reasons, assessee could not be subjected to levy of wealth-tax also. 26. In the result, appeals of the Revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Monday, the 25th of March, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 822 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ession was omitted due to typographical error “was applicable”. Under the circumstances, question(A) shall read as under “Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law and in facts in not appreciating that the extended period of limitation was not applicable?”
-
2013 (3) TMI 821 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has already heard the matter and orders are reserved. Renotify for directions on 30.07.2013. Interim order to continue.
-
2013 (3) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rned senior Advocate appearing for the Revenue. 7. In so far as questions (vi), (vii) and (viii) are concerned, they deal with the purchases (both local as well as import) made by the respondent - assessee. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) and on examination of record has held that these were contracts of purchases which are distinguishable from contract which are in the nature of works contract. In respect of these purchases, the Tribunal recorded a finding that all statutory levies on purchase of the goods were paid by the respondent - assessee to its seller. In the present case, when there was purchase of goods, no occasion to deduct tax at source would arise as the transaction was on principal to principal basis. Since the decision of the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain questions (vi) to (viii). 8. Appeal is admitted on questions (iii) and (iv).
-
2013 (3) TMI 819 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... examining the return of assessee. If there are any violations in section 11 as prescribed under the provisions, then AO is within his rights to deny exemption. No such exercise was undertaken by AO. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the grounds of the Revenue and its contentions. 8. Since the learned CIT (A) also examined the facts of assessee’s objects and upheld the claim under section 11, we do not intend to discuss various case law relied upon by assessee Counsel in support of their contentions. Suffice to say, both on principles of law and on facts, AO cannot examine the objects of the Society so long as there is a valid registration under section 12A granted to assessee, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Surat City Gymkhana 300 ITR 214 (SC). In view of this, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 9. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd March, 2013.
........
|
