|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1059 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 925 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... in ITA No.1152/Bang/2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06. For the reasons and elaborate discussion made on these grounds in the order for the A.Y. 2005-06, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 31. ITA No.533/Bang/2012 is an appeal by the revenue relating to A.Y. 2007-08. 32. Grounds No.1 & 8 are general in nature and calls for no adjudication. 33. Grounds No. 2 to 5 are identical to grounds No.2 & 3 raised by the revenue in ITA No.1152/Bang/2011 for the A.Y. 2005-06. For the elaborate reasons given while deciding those grounds, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 34. Grounds No.6 & 7 raised by the revenue is identical to ground No.6 raised by the revenue in ITA No.1152/Bang/2011. For elaborate reasons given while deciding similar grounds for the A.Y. 2005-06, we do not find any merits in these grounds of appeal. Consequently, they are dismissed. 35. In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 924 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the gazetted officer to elicit the truth from the person interrogated. There is no involvement of the magistrate at that stage. The entire idea behind the provision is that the gazetted officer questioning the person must gather all the truth concerning the episode. If the statement so extracted is untrue its utility for the officer gets lost.” 59. It is thus clear that statements recorded under Section 108 of the Act are distinct and different from statement recorded by Police Officers during the course of investigation under the Code.” 5. We are of the opinion that the learned trial Court erred in preventing the appellant/Revenue from proceeding to take recourse to the provisions of Section 124. The order to that extent is set aside. 6. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. 7. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all usual formalities.
-
2013 (5) TMI 923 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h its objects(4.4 to be precise) and therefore, it is entitled for registration). It is not in dispute the assessee’s activity of interest free lending to its community’s businessman/women is ‘Qardan Hasana’, which is as per tenets of Islam propagated by the bohra community. We find that the very object was also there in the trust deed of bohra trust in case before Indore Bench reported in 2009 317 ITR(AT)133 in Dawoodi Bohra Jamat and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and registration was granted by holding that the assessee was a “Religious Trust’’. It has also came on record that the hon’ble Madhya Pradash High Court has upheld the order of the ‘Tribunal’. The Revenue has not cited any decision to rebut the same. Therefore, we held that the assessee is entitled for registration under section 12AA of the Act. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 7th of May, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (5) TMI 922 - ITAT MUMBAI
Netting of Interest income and expenditure - Deduction u/s 10AA/10A- The assessee has raised grounds in regard to treating the FDs kept as margin money with Bank against credit facilities as income from other sources instead of income from business and not netting such interest against interest payment to Banks, for calculation of deduction under Section 10AA & 10A.
HELD THAT:- Interest income and expenditure income has to be netted of, if there is a nexus. Netting of interest is allowed and AO is directed to compute the net income of interest or expenditure. If after netting of interest it is found that interest income is more than the interest expenditure then the surplus income has to be treated as income from other sources, otherwise no deduction is to be made while calculating deduction under Section 10AA/10A.
Decision in the case of M/S ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY M/S ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD.) & OTHERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-IV, MUMBAI & OTHERS [2012 (2) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon.
"Services" under IT Act and SEZ Act - Deduction u/s 10AA - The AO disallowed the deduction under Section 10AA by observing that the exemption claimed u/s. 10AA is applicable only for manufacturing unit as per the Act, whereas the assessee was involved in trading activities in Surat SEZ areas. Income Tax Act defines "service' essentially as professional and technical services. The assessee has done simple trading and, therefore, on trading activity deduction under Section 10AA is not allowable. Assessee claimed that SEZ Act section 2(z) defines "services' to include tradable services. - HELD THAT: - According to Section 51 of the SEZ Act, it has been provided that the provision of SEZ Act will override the provision of Income Tax Act. Trading done by the assessee is a service and, therefore, deduction u/s 10AA is allowable.
Decision in the case of DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2 VERSUS GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELLERS LTD. [2012 (3) TMI 258 - ITAT JAIPUR], relied upon.
-
2013 (5) TMI 921 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty - Survey - It has been stated by the assessing officer that despite ample opportunities having been provided to the assessee, he could not produce the books of accounts and supporting material - Held that: - I am satisfied that the penalty has wrongly been deleted by the Tax Board for the reason that (i) no books of accounts, bills, builty and vouchers were found/produced during the course of survey ; (ii) despite adequate opportunity having been granted not only at the time of survey but thereafter neither bills, builty, vouchers and books of accounts and other supporting documents relating to excess goods were produced ; (iii) there is clear-cut confessional statement of partner of the respondent-firm admitting about the excess stock of the goods; (iv) two witnesses were also present at the time of survey and in their presence physical stock was taken and the value of excess goods was admitted by the respondent; and (v) even before the DC (A) neither the bills, builty, vouchers nor books of accounts were produced and there is a categorical finding of the DC (A) that there is no violation of rule 50.
It is very relevant here to observe that while order of imposing the penalty was passed on January 19, 2004, the appeal was decided on March 22, 2007 therefore, during the intervening period of almost about three years, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondent about pressurizing tactics/coercion by the assessing officer, during the course of survey and filing an affidavit is merely for the sake of filing of an affidavit - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT
Bail application - Held that:- Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
Taking note of all these aspects, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also with regard to the claim of the CBI and the defence, we are of the opinion that the appellant cannot be released at this stage, however, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file charge sheet(s) as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from today. Thereafter, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.
-
2013 (5) TMI 919 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... y of interest income of ₹ 7,59,984/- and the consequential claim of assessee for deduction under Section 80P of the Act on such income has been remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh as per directions given therein. 15. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated 20.01.2009 is unsustainable and we hold so. It may be mentioned that since the matter relating to the assessability of ₹ 7,59,984/- representing interest income has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act if warranted as per law after he passes an order in pursuance of our directions of even date contained in ITA No.212/PN/2010 dealing with the merits of the addition. 16. In the result, the appeal of the R7e venue is dismissed, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 918 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... eedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there is no positive material to say that the credit balances were indeed false. Therefore, in so far as the penalty levied with respect to the credit balances pertaining to M/s Mahavir Construction and M/s Ganesh Construction is concerned, the same is untenable, and is hereby directed to be deleted. 7. The case of the third creditor i.e. Mr. Zamal Khan amounting to ₹ 2,96,500/-, in our view stands on a different footing. In this case, the verification exercise carried out by the Assessing Officer established that the credit balance was false and therefore, in our view the same falls within the mischief of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, with respect to the aforesaid addition, penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is hereby affirmed. 8. In the result, the assessee partly succeeds as above. 9. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 917 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stainable. Only because date was left to be filled in, in my opinion, the form could not have been re-used. Therefore, in my view, judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Guljag Industries supra in so far as the present facts and circumstances are concerned, is not applicable and distinguishable. 10) It is also a finding of fact by both, the Tax Board as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the bills have been found to be just and proper and have been admitted to be genuine and there is no allegation of the same having been forged or fabricated therefore, according to me, the Tax Board has not committed any illegality, irregularity or perversity in passing the impugned-order while sustaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who had rightly deleted the penalty in the present case. Even otherwise, it is basically a finding of fact and no question of law is involved. 11) Resultantly, the revision petition and stay application, if any, are dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 916 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... n the dutiable goods, department denied the same on the ground that the goods manufactured under Notification No.214/86-DE dated 25.03.1986 were exempted goods, although that is not so. 2. If the goods manufactured under above Notification fetches duty from the principal manufacturer, there is no scope to deny cenvat credit since appellant has claimed input credit of service tax against the duty payable on the dutiable goods. Accordingly, both stay application and appeal are allowed. Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court .
-
2013 (5) TMI 915 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... es incurred by the assessee should have been allowed as deductible under the head “Business Income” of the assessee. The learned DR submitted that the assessee has not conducted any business, and therefore no expenses could be allowed to be claimed as deduction by the assessee. 9. We have considered rival submissions and have perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find that there is no merit in the CO of the assessee. There was complete stoppage of business in the year 1999 and the assessee has admitted that no business was transacted till the year 2007. In these facts, we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in not allowing the expenses as deductible in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed, and the grounds of the CO of the assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the CO of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (5) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI
Profit arriving from purchase & sale of shares - capital gain or business income - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in similar activity for the last 30 years and for the last 25 years the assessee was assessed to tax under the head capital gain on similar activity. The revenue never treated the shares as stock-in trade in the hands of the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not carrying on the business of shares. These findings of the Tribunal have been upheld, therefore, the matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of assessee itself, namely Shri Dilip V. Variya [2013 (5) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI ]
-
2013 (5) TMI 913 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e have heard the rival parties and find that the CIT(A) made no mistake in holding that the claim of the assessee 8 under Section 10A of the Act be allowed, subject to fulfillment of all the conditions. Ostensibly, there is no dispute to the position that the disallowance of ₹ 1,21,57,820/- made by the Assessing Officer is erroneous as no such claim has been made in the return of income, and the CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. Thus, Ground of appeal no. 2 raised by Revenue is dismissed. 13. In so far as Grounds of appeal no. 3 and 4 are concerned, at the time of hearing the learned Departmental Representative did not substantiate the same and fairly conceded that they do not arise out of the impugned orders of the lower authorities, and accordingly the same are dismissed, as announced at the time of the hearing. 14. Resultantly, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 912 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Pre-deposit - Held that: - In the absence of any stay of the impugned order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 911 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ind that the law does not provide for any such requirement. Thus this is not a good ground for disallowance. 16. Coming to the decision in the case of Kanahyalal Punj Charitable Trust vs. DIT(E) reported in 297 ITR 66 (DEL) relied upon by the Ld. DR, we find that the case law is not applicable because during the current FY and the subsequent FYs, when the assessee is seeking registration u/s.12AA, there is no deposits or investments made with any interested parties. 17. Similarly the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Chandrika Education Trust vs. CIT reported in 139 CTR 96 is not applicable to the facts of the case. 18. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the contentions of the assessee and allow the appeal. The DIT(E) is directed to grant registration u/s.12A read with S.12AA of the Act as well as grant exemption u/s.80G of the Act. 19. In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 910 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... of account by omission of the value of such goods from the sales as well as the closing stock while preparing the final account and in such situation even if the detection would subsequently but the loss was allowed in the year in which embezzlement is actually happened. 12. We also find that the CBDT also issued a circular being Circular No. 35/D(XLVII-20)(F. No.10/48/65 IT (A1) dated 24-11-1965 and as per the said circular the loss of embezzlement by the employee is allowable as relating to incidental to the business and the said loss should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it is discovered. Nothing has been placed before us to show why the loss was claimed in the A.Y. 2008-09 when the said loss was detected in the previous year 2004. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly the same is confirmed. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 30-05-2013
-
2013 (5) TMI 909 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition on account of non reconciliation of AIR information - Held that:- We find that the assessee had shown higher income than the income reported in the report received by the AO. It reconciled all the accounts wherever ledger entries were made available to it. Only in one case he could not reconcile the entries. From the RR of the AO it is evident that the facts narrated by the FAA (para 2.2) are correct and based on sound footings. FAA had upheld a portion of addition where assessee had failed to reconcile the figure. In our opinion, in these circumstances, his order does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. Therefore, confirming his order we decide Ground against the AO.
Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - short deduction of TDS - Held that:- DR fairly admitted that issue was decided in favour of the assessee. AR relied upon the order for the earlier year. We find that in the above referred order, to which one of us was party, Tribunal had held that provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were not applicable in matters of short deduction of TDS. While deciding the issue Tribunal had placed reliance on the decision of M/s. Chandabhoy and Jassobhoy (2011 (7) TMI 956 - ITAT MUMBAI).
-
2013 (5) TMI 908 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deemed dividend addition u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- The very fact that the amount of loan is being brought forward when it was to be considered the actual payment received in the impugned assessment year whether could be subject to taxation as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act was for revisiting the definition of deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is of no avail. The AO has not been able to establish the facts otherwise, in so far as, it was not the assessee who suddenly took action for receiving the amount as deemed dividend when the department has been accepted the loan amount much more payable by it to M/s.Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd. was acceptable to them earlier and further more the interest paid has been allowed by the AO in the impugned assessment year as expenditure.
It is not the case of the Revenue to give a name as deemed dividend to the interest income which has been earned by M/s.Pataka Industries Pv.t Ltd. on which tax has already paid for the impugned assessment year for the assessee. We have no hesitation in upholding the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2013 (5) TMI 907 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - incomplete declaration form ST/18/A - Held that: - the form could have been re-used but when all “material particulars” namely’ quality, weight description of the goods, value, name of the transporter, name of the consigner and consignee had been duly filled in, apprehension of the department that the form could have been re-used, is not sustainable. Only because invoice number and date was left to be filled in, in my opinion, the form could not have been re-used - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue-petitioner.
-
2013 (5) TMI 906 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... argin in case of similar sales to non AE’s. Thus, applying the internal TNMM method no adjustment is required to be made. Even with respect to the comparables selected by the assessee, it is found that mean margin on operating cost was 7.78 which is within the 5 range of the operating margin of 6.75 in case of the AE sales. Therefore, even applying the TNMM method based on the comparables selected by the TPO, no adjustment is required to be made. The adjustment has been made by the TPO/AO because of the wrong computation made with respect to total operating cost whereas the adjustment has to be calculated only with respect to the operating cost in relation to the AE sales. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we see no infirmity in the order of CIT (A) deleting the addition made by AO. The order of CIT (A) is accordingly upheld. 5. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on today i.e. 8th May, 2013.
............
|
