|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 818 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... n'ble Bombay High Court that the expression “worker” is not defined in the Act, means any person employed by the assessee directly or by or through any agency including a contractor. Thus the finding of the Assessing Officer in this regard is also incorrect. 7. Coming to the observation that the assessee has shown excess profits, the first appellate authority has rightly pointed out that the assessee is maintaining separate books of account for each unit. The Assessing Officer has examined the bills and vouchers and not pointed out any defect nor he has made any adverse comment. The first appellate authority has rightly held that the Assessing Officer has not brought out any concrete evidence in support of his conclusion on the inflation of profit of the Pondicherry Unit. 8. In the result, we uphold the findings of the first appellate authority at para 4.1.3 of his order and dismiss the appeal of the Department. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.3.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 817 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rescribed form. We, therefore, hold that the requirement of filing the audit report for claiming the deduction under sec. 80-IB has been satisfied by the assessee, and therefore, on this reason alone, the assessee?s claim of deduction under sec. 80-IB is not disallowable. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of assessee?s claim made under sec. 80-IB of the Act as the assessee has satisfied the condition of filing audit report during assessment proceedings initiated under sec. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall modify the assessment order accordingly.? The Tribunal had arrived at the aforesaid conclusion after following decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P.) Ltd., (2009) 317 ITR 249 (Delhi). Though that decision was in respect of original assessment, its ratio equally applies to reassessment. Consequently, there is no merit in these appeals and no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iyar,Adv For the Respondent Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv ORDER Heard Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Question of law is kept open.
-
2013 (3) TMI 815 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the orders of authorities below. We have gone through the decisions relied on by the Counsel for the Assessee. In both these decisions, the Tribunal held that when an assessment has been made under sec.143(3) and not under sec.144 of the I.T. Act, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, there is no case for levy of penalty under sec.271(1)(b) of the Act. In the present case, the assessee seems to have co-operated with the assessment proceedings by responding to the notices and filing information called for and the assessment was completed under sec.143(3) and not sec.144 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for levy of penalty under sec.271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act the assessee’s case. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Order pronounced on Friday, the 8th day of March 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 814 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... risdiction to reassess the issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated and those ceased to survive. Here in the present case also, AO recorded the reason for disallowance of expenses by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the Act but made addition entirely on new issue i.e. disallowance of interest on borrowed funds. As cited by Ld. counsel for the assessee the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratory Ltd. (supra) as well as the case law of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways India Ltd. (supra). Respectfully following the same, we allow the appeal of assessee on jurisdictional issue. Once we have allowed the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee, there is no need to adjudicate the remaining issues on merits. Appeal of assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 813 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... puting the book profit under Section 115JB. This view is well supported by the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench, in the case of Quippo Telecom Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT (supra), wherein various other decision of Tribunal has been followed. Accordingly, we hold that no disallowance under Section 14A can be imported while computing the book profit under Section 115JB because once, the assessee has not debited any such expenses for earning of exempt income in the profit and loss account, the Assessing Officer has no power to tinker with such accounts which has been approved by the Board of Directors and filed before the Registrar of Companies. Accordingly, ground no. 2 stands allowed. Ground no. 1 is treated as dismissed as same has become purely academic, as submitted by the learned counsel. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed. 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 812 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the appellants in the temple and taking away of certain Puja articles by them which made it impossible for the appellants to proceed with the Puja. In our opinion the decision of the controversies raised in the suit do not at all require adjudication of any such matter which may have to be done by the Assistant Charity Commissioner while exercising his power under Section 19 of the Act on the application which was pending before him for registration of the temple and its property as public trust. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous in law and the judgment and decree passed by it must be set aside. 13. In the result, the appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated July 24, 1992 passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded for a fresh decision of Second Appeals No. 708 and 709 of 1990 expeditiously and in accordance with law. The appellants will be entitled to their costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 811 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of Western States Trading Co. (P) Ltd. (supra) has also approved the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court cited above. In view of the propositions laid down in the above cited case law, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim set off of unabsorbed depreciation and eligible business loss, if any, against short-term capital gain computed under s. 50 of the Act. Hence we find merit in the contention of the learned Authorised Representative…….Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow set off of the eligible amount of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business loss against the short-term capital gain.” 7. In the other two cases cited by the AR same principle has been upheld. After considering the above mentioned legal position we allow both grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee-company. 8. As a result appeal filed by the assessee-company stands allow. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 810 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent - assessee to set off its long term capital loss in terms of Section 74 of the Act by following its decision in the matter of Manali Investments v. Asstt. CIT 2011 45 SOT 128 (URO)/10 taxmann.com 293 (Mum.). The Revenue has preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in the matter of Manali Investments (supra) to this Court in appeal, being Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012. By our order passed today i.e. 13th March, 2013, we have refused to entertain Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012. 4. For the reasons indicated in our order passed today i.e. 13th March, 2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.1658 of 2012 filed by the Revenue in respect of Manali Investments, we see no reason to entertain the proposed reframed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 809 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nts. The arguments at this stage that Department wants to verify the genuineness is only for the sake of arguments. It was the assessment order which should have spoken about the ingenuity of the transactions. Thus, for all these reason, the provisions of s. 269SS are not attracted to the facts of the case. The penalties levied are, therefore, cancelled. Even if they were to apply , in the facts and circumstances explained above the action of the appellant in accepting the funds in cash can be ascribed to its bona fide belief that provision of s. 269SS would not be attracted in the nature of transactions. Bona bide belief coupled with the genuineness of the transactions will constitute reasonable cause in this case.” 8. In view of the above, the penalty imposed by assessing officer u/s 271D and sustained by Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (3) TMI 808 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to consolidation of the proceedings so as to avoid conflicting decisions or simultaneous trial/hearing, then, all the more, the powers to transfer needs to be exercised in this case. It is undisputed that the parties are common to both matters. In both matters the same Award is under scrutiny. In such circumstances, the argument that both Petitions need to be consolidated but before the District Court at Thane cannot be accepted. That would mean two Courts render decisions and more or less on the same issue and may be at the same time. The arbitration petition filed by the Petitioners in this Court is already placed before the Single Judge of this Court and is now adjourned. It would be proper if the proceedings before the District Court, Thane are brought and are heard alongwith the Petition filed by the Petitioners in this Court. 33. As a result of the above discussion, this application succeeds. It is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 807 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the liability made out is of the defendant No.1 Company and the defendant No.2 in CS(OS) No.47/2011 and of the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 in CS(OS) No.48/2011. The only case pleaded against the defendant No.3 is of being a Director of the defendant No.1 Company. However a person owing to being a Director of a company does not become personally liable for dues of the company. No case against the defendant No.3 Smt. Neelam Goyal is thus made out and the suit as far as against her, is dismissed. 23. A decree is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiff in each case and against the defendants, as sought for ₹ 5,75,17,240/- and ₹ 9,94,14,041/- respectively. Though the parties had agreed to payment of interest at the rate of 36% per annum but interest pendente lite and future is restricted at 9% and 15% respectively and only on the principal amount of loan in each case. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to costs in accordance with law. Decree sheet be drawn up.
-
2013 (3) TMI 806 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)
... ...
... ... ..... aint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, it is open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in paragraph 8, the complaint itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint.” Criminal Writ Petition No. 1131 of 2012 is allowed. The orders impugned in this petition are quashed and set aside. Complaint petition in question is dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 805 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 297 ITR 167 is distinguishable and not applicable to the appellant's case ? e) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant did not acquire any capital asset at any time on the grant of stock options and thus the impugned sum is not exigible to tax as capital gains is sound and maintainable ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order dated 19-11-2010 is perverse, contrary to weight of evidence adduced by the appellant and founded on irrelevant considerations and, therefore, all its conclusions, findings and holdings are vitiated and plagued by infirmities inasmuch as no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the inferences arrived by the Tribunal in so far the questions projected in serial numbers (I) to (vii) supra are concerned ? 2. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.1162 of 2008.
-
2013 (3) TMI 804 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Interest on Borrowed Capital u/s 36(1)(iii) - Assessee Company is in the business of manufacturing of transformer. The AO’s objection was that the assessee had shown capital WIP, including capital advances but no interest expense had been capitalised. The assessee’s answer was that the capital advance was made from own funds and not from borrowed funds. A.O. disallowed proportionate interest u/s.36(1)(iii). - HELD THAT : - As Assessee demonstrated that there were non-interest bearing own funds and those funds were claimed to have been utilized for the purpose of capital WIP. A.O. cannot presume that the interest-bearing funds could have been used as a capital WIP.
Decision in the case of - THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. [2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], relied upon.
Calculation Of Value Of Inventories Taxation u/s 145 A - A.O. that the assessee had shown an amount receivable on account of unutilized MODVAT and also a closing balance of CENVAT credit. Admittedly, those amounts were not included in the value of the closing stock. The A.O. has observed that as per the provisions of section 145A the taxes/duty/cess related to stock are required to be included in the value of the closing stock. - HELD THAT :- A.O. is directed to verify the accounting policy adopted by the assessee in respect of Modvat/Cenvat incentives and if it is according to the law, then not to disturb the method of accounting of the assessee in this regard.
Decision in the cases of - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS. NARMADA CHEMATUR PETROCHEMICALS LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 263 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS UNIQUE INDUSTRIES [2008 (5) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], relied upon.
Depreciation on New Commercial Vehicle under Clause VI-A of the Appendix - Assessee has claimed excess depreciation on the new commercial vehicle purchased. The AO’s objection was that those vehicles were not registered by the RTO “Commercial Vehicle”, also vehicle used by the appellant is a private vehicle not used for the purpose of hire. HELD THAT : - The vehicle purchased by the appellant fulfills all the conditions prescribed in the Income Tax Act and the related Motor Vehicle Act and falls within the definition of Commercial Vehicle. The Act has nowhere prescribed that a commercial vehicle should be a vehicle which is used for the purpose of hire . It only prescribes that the vehicle should be used for the purpose of business or profession.
Depreciation on Computer Software - IT Act overwrites Accounting Standards - Assessee has claimed depreciation on computer software. The AO disallowed the depreciation holding that it was an application software and should be treated as intangible asset. Also, AS 26 specify computer software as intangible asset. HELD THAT :- The Income Tax Act does not make any difference between the system software and the application software. The schedule only provides the depreciation @ 60% on the computer software and the term ‘computer software’ has also been defined in the Appendix – I. The classification made by the Accounting Standards cannot overwrite the definition given in the Income Tax Act.
-
2013 (3) TMI 803 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... e citations given by the ld. Authorised Representative of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in the case of Subhash Dall Mill vs. ACIT, 257 ITR (AT) 115 and CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 (SC) does not help to the assessee. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. also does not help to the assessee as in that case the Apex Court held that when the assessee filed details, the burden is on the Revenue for further examination. In the case under consideration, the A.O. has further examined and found that depositors had deposited cash in their Bank account just before issuing cheques to the assessee. Further contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the depositors are assessed to tax also does not help to the assessee. We follow the above order of Jurisdictional High Court and in the light of that we confirm the order of CIT (A). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (3) TMI 802 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... g Officer who framed the assessment order. All that had happened was that through a bona fide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. The assessee should have been careful but the absence of due care, in a case such as the present, did not mean that the assessee was guilty of either furnishing inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. On the peculiar facts of this case, the imposition of penalty on the assessee was not justified”. 6. Keeping in view the above decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and having regard to all the facts of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we cancel the penalty imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-03-2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 801 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is fully taxable thereby increasing the profit of Poiser Project? 2) So far as question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal by the impugned order upheld that the order of the CIT(A) and returned a finding that the respondent assesses had maintained two separate accounts for its Poisar project as well as Saki Naka project. Further, the impugned order records a fact that the Assessing Officer has proceeded only on the presumption that the assessee might have debited the expenditure relating to Poisar project to Saki Naka Project to get the benefit under section 80IB(10) of the Act. The Tribunal by impugned order recorded that the expenses incurred for Poisar project was to the extent of ₹ 1,05,11,664/and the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defects in the books of account maintained by the respondentassessee. In this view of the matter, the decision being based on a finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain question (b) 3) The appeal is admitted on question (a).
-
2013 (3) TMI 800 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h were debited to Saki Naka Project with clear cut intention to suppress the profit of Saki Naka Project, which is full taxable thereby increasing the profit of Poisar Project? 2) So far as question (b) is concerned, an identical question was raised by the revenue in appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 200607 being Income Tax Appeal No.2253 of 2011. By our order passed today i. e. 7/3/20123 we did not entertain Income Tax Appeal No.2253 of 2011 with regard to identical question (b) herein. For the reasons mentioned in our order dated 7/3/2013 in Income Tax Appeal No.2253 of 2011, we see no reason to entertain question (b). 3) The appeal is admitted on question (a).
-
2013 (3) TMI 799 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng both shares as well as investments for which separate accounts are kept and if the Department in the past has accepted the sale of shares held as investments would give rise to capital gains and not business. Since the said decision is squarely applicable in the case of the assessee in the present case, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly answered this issue affirmatively. 6.4 In view of that matter, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) directing the AO to assess the profits on sale of share under the head ‘Capital Gains’ and not as business income. Thus, the order of the Ld.CIT is hereby upheld. Since all the sub-grounds in this appeal are pertaining to the same issue in relation to the assessment of long term capital gains, we do not adjudicate the sub-grounds separately. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of March 2013.
........
|
