|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 798 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ts of the assessee. In this view of the situation, it was claimed by learned AR that the disallowance ought to have been deleted by learned CIT(A) and the same should be deleted. 20. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order and the order passed by learned CIT(A). 21. We have heard both the parties and their contentions have carefully been considered, aforementioned decision supports the case of the assessee. The only reason given by the Assessing Officer is that the assessee could recover these debts if it had made necessary efforts. The same cannot be the ground to disallow the claim of the assessee as the bad debts have been written off in the books of account. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow such claim of the assessee and this ground of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the result, both these appeals are considered to be partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.3.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 797 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cer of ₹ 2,27,41,125/- made by way of protective basis in the hands of the assessee company? (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in not taking final decision with regard to the rest of the profit i.e. 93.75% share of profit being the difference between the original addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- and ₹ 13,53,500/- confirmed on substantive basis in the case of Shri M.N. Patel being 6.25%?
-
2013 (3) TMI 796 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t that the Tribunal committed any error in not sustaining 100% additions in the hands of respondent assessee. In absence of any such rebutable evidence, we do not find that the Tribunal’s findings can be stated to be perverse. The Tribunal in particular observed that the Assessing Officer added 100% profit in the hands of the assessee without examination of facts of the case. While doing so, the Tribunal observed that as regards the assessee’s share of 6.25%, there was no dispute that this profit belonged to the assessee and to that extent addition is warranted. It was on this basis that Tribunal slashed down profit to ₹ 13.53 lakhs. 5. In the result, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. 6. Before closing we may record that we have admitted Tax Appeal No.42/2012 which pertains to the remaining additions being made in hands of the company. Nothing stated in this order would come in way of either side in pursuing such appeal on all contentions.
-
2013 (3) TMI 795 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act, which requires the amount of loan or deposit exceeding the sum of ₹ 20,000, to be accepted either by account payees cheque or account payees bank draft. When the assessing officer chose to invoke the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and added to the income of the assessee the said sum treating the same as unexplained cash credit, it cannot thereafter insist upon the invocation of provisions of section 269-SS and in turn, the provisions of section 271-D of the Act for breach of provisions of section 269-SS of the Act. Therefore, the assessing officer was wholly unjustified in invoking penalty provisions. 9. Even going by the decision of the both, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, the cash was received through cheque discounting facility and the same was for meeting the urgent business need. Even then, the logic given by both, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, would not require any interference. The Tax Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of CIT(A) by allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the assessee on prorate basis? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the Tribunal is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) by allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) to the assessee?
-
2013 (3) TMI 793 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tioners-assessees is pending before the Tribunal, it would be appropriate for the department not to proceed and invoke bank guarantee pending application. We would further like to observe that what is being observed by this Court is limited to the extent of disposal of instant writ petitions and that may not be inhabitated/influenced the Tribunal while deciding the pending application of the present petitioners-assessees for extension of interim protection prayed for. It is further expected from the Tribunal to decide the application and the appeal itself expeditiously in accordance with law. 13. Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to proceed further in pursuance of notice for demand/recovery impugned herein till the application for extension of interim protection is decided by the Tribunal. It is also expected from the Tribunal to decide the application and also the main appeal expeditiously in accordance with law.
-
2013 (3) TMI 792 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s. Gargi Khanna, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. O R D E R Heard Mr. Mohan Prasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner. Delay condoned. Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 791 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... eciation on moulds at 30% as claimed by it. The ground, is, therefore, allowed. 12. Ground no. 3 pertains to application of section 145A of the Income Tax Act. 13. We find that in the preceding year, the coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case has restored the issue to the file of the AO. 14. Since the issue pertains to consistency to be followed in the calculation of closing stocks in inclusive method, as prescribed by the ICAI, we deem it fit to restore the current year’s calculation also to the file of the AO, who shall compute the closing stock as per the provision and method prescribed by the ICAI and in the consistent line as followed in assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07, as per the directions given by the coordinate Bench. 15. The order of the CIT(A) is set aside on the issue with the above directions to the AO. 16. The appeal, is, therefore, treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on in the open court on 18th of March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 790 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... extra coaching classes would be given to the new entrants, it is practically impossible for a student to pick up the threads of teaching for the entire first year when half the course had been completed. 14. It is not for us to judge as to whether a particular Institution fulfilled the necessary criteria for being eligible to conduct classes in the concerned discipline or not. That is for the experts to judge and according to the experts the Institutions were not geared to conduct classes in respect of the year 2011-12. It is also impractical to consider the proposal of the colleges of providing extra classes to the new entrants to bring them upto the level of those who have completed the major part of the course for the first year. 15. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders of the High Court impugned in these Special Leave Petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Having regard to the facts involved, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 789 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory under Art. 14 of the Constitution, then court should not invoke judicial review to strike down such exemption or extend the exemption to certain class of Articles, though, they have some semblance of the Article exempted but standing in a different footing in the commercial field. So under the circumstances, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that classification made excluding bone meal in the category of exempted articles is perfectly justifiable, and it is not unconstitutional and as such the petitioners are not entitled to get the declaration prayed for, and also the consequential relief of quashing the assessment orders of the assessing authority and rightly dismissed the Writ Petitions. We did not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the learned single Judge and the Writ Appeals lack merit and the same are liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 788 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for modification of the stay order which would have been more appropriate, transparent fair action which any Departmental officer would have taken instead of resorting to unilaterally and feigningly in ignorance interpreting the adjournment based on the input of an Inspector (who may not be qualified to advise the Class-I AO) apparently without feeling the need or the necessity to consult the CIT Departmental Representative (a more responsible and senior officer than the AO) appointed by the CBDT to look after the transfer pricing matters on the Delhi Benches. The AO has resorted to seek a review of the impugned order and made knowingly wrong assertions in regard to the position of the return of bank guarantee. It is unfortunate that the fate of the taxpayers of India nevertheless rests in the hands of such officers who are always presumed to act bona fide. 10. Accordingly for the reasons given hereinabove, the miscellaneous application filed by the Department is dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 787 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... see cannot be denied just for a reason that assessee's representative had agreed, otherwise. 9. Taking the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh visit by the Assessing Officer. No doubt, assessee's claim for provision for non statutory reserve may not be allowable, since these were not against any ascertained liability. However, with regard to other provisions whether it was within the four corners of Sec. 36(1)(viia) or whether any of such item represented diminution in value of investments, all need to be verified. Assessee has to be given an opportunity to explain. We therefore, set aside the order of the authorities below and remit the issues back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in accordance with law. 10. In the result, appeals of Revenue as well as Cross Objections of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 21st March, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (3) TMI 786 - SC ORDER
Law of retraction - whether retraction after a period of 9 months can be considered to be valid? - Held that:- There is no merit in the appeal - SLP dismissed.
-
2013 (3) TMI 785 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax Act without appreciating that the appellant was not involved in or carrying out any commercial activities and without appreciating that the grounds prescribed u/s.12(AA)(3) for withdrawal of registration had not at all arisen? b) Whether the ITAT was justified on facts and in law in holding that the appellant has committed any blatant violation of law?
-
2013 (3) TMI 784 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the Director of assessee company. The aforementioned decision was subsequently followed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mirza Ataullaha Baig and Another, 202 ITR 291(Bom), wherein assessee did not pay full price of the vehicle at the time of purchase and only part of the purchase price was paid, balance was to be paid in installments, vehicle stood in the name of the vendor in the records of authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act. On these facts it was held that assessee is entitled for depreciation on the vehicle. 4. So far as it relates to disallowance of interest on the loan taken for purchase of vehicle, similar proposition will be applicable. 5. In view of the above discussions, we find no justification in the disallowances upheld by Ld. CIT(A). The same are deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 4th day of March, 2013 .
-
2013 (3) TMI 783 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t of disallowance of claim of expenses of ₹ 90,97,554/- For making this submission he placed reliance of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 97 of 2010 dated 29/11/2011. Ld. D.R. on the other hand relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. After hearing both the authorities and perusing the record and case laws relied by the assessee, we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee and following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd. (supra) restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the additional ground taken by assessee on merits. 9. C.O. of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O. of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (3) TMI 782 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the matter to the lower appellate authority to consider the matter afresh inasmuch as the appeal was not disposed of on merits in the said case. Therefore, in the present case also, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit of dues adjudged, we remand the matter to the lower appellate authority to consider the matter afresh and decide whether the activity undertaken by the appellant can be classified under “Business Support Service” when the said service is not for supporting any business of anybody. 3. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. The stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (3) TMI 781 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ed the rate of ₹ 107/- and ₹ 91 per Sq.Mtrs. for the land bearing Survey No. 101 and Survey No. 510/A/1 respectively on the fact that the assessee has already sold out the land prior to the date of the valuation and the assessee could produce the evidence in the form of the actual sale transaction supporting his claim. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the evidence placed allowed the claim of the assessee that the correct valuation should be ₹ 107/- per Sq.Mtrs. in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 101 as against ₹ 400/- adopted by the Assessing Officer and ₹ 91/- per Sq. Mtrs. in respect of land bearing Survey No. 510/A/1. Nothing has been placed before us to controvert the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) on said facts. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and accordingly the same is confirmed. Ground No. 3 is dismissed. 14. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 26-03-2013
-
2013 (3) TMI 780 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... el for the Petitioner states that the disputes have been settled. The settlement agreement dated 26th February 2013 is taken on record and shall form part of the above order. 3. The application is disposed of. Co. Pet. No. 150 of 2005 4. The petition is disposed of in terms of the settlement agreement dated 26th February 2013 which shall form part of the order.
-
2013 (3) TMI 779 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... held the order of the assessing officer. 4. On further appeal, the Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the claim of the respondent - assessee for exemption under Section 54EC of the Act by following the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. 2006 281 ITR 210. Since the Tribunal has followed the decision of this Court and applied the principles laid down therein in respect of Section 54E of the Act to Section 54EC of the Act, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. This Court in the matter of Ace Builders (P) Limited (supra) has held that the deeming fiction of a long term capital gain to be treated as a short term capital gain is restricted only to Section 50 of the Act and would have no application to other provisions such as Section 54E of the Act. The above rationale would be equally applicable to the claim of deduction under Section 54EC of the Act. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
........
|
