|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1058 Records
-
2013 (5) TMI 1007
... ...
... ... ..... x Court categorically held that conversion of jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in desired size amounts to manufacturing or production eligible for deduction under section 80IA of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80IB of the Act and while allowing relief to the assessee he restricted the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act to the profits earned on manufacturing done in the month of March 2006 only resulting into addition of ₹ 4,17,987. While dealing with the issue, the ld. CIT(A) has also examined other aspects on which claim of deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Since the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find no infirmity therein. Accordingly we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/05/2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1006
... ...
... ... ..... Civil Appeal No. 6448/2012 on 12.09.2012. Consequently that question does not arise any further. As regards proposed question No. 3, the issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Supreme Court decision in Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. CIT 314 ITR 62 (SC). As regards proposed question Nos. 4 and 5, we find that these are pure questions of fact and no question of law is involved. As a result, while admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law arises for our consideration - Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of technical know-how of ₹ 61,20,05,000/- and royalty of ₹ 81,71,60,464/- paid by the assessee to Honda Motor Co. Ltd. Printing of paper books is dispensed with. The parties may file additional documents within 3 months provided they were part of record before the Tribunal. Tag along with ITA No. 474/2011 pertaining to the very same assessee.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1005
... ...
... ... ..... ssing Officer has treated the sale consideration of the shares in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash credit only on the basis of presumptions. There is no evidence contrary to the evidence of the purchase and sale of shares and the transactions as disclosed by the assesee. Assessments cannot be done on the basis of presumptions. A perusal of the order of CIT(A) clearly shows that the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta while granting the relief. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal, referred to supra, as the assesee has substantiated his case for purchase and sale of shares with the necessary documents, we are of the view that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. 8. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1004
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings in the civil suit till the decision of criminal case. Firstly, because even if there is possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts, such an eventuality cannot be taken as a relevant consideration. Secondly, in the facts of the present case there is no likelihood of any embarrassment to the Defendants (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein) as they had already filed the written statement in the civil suit and based on the pleadings of the parties the issues have been framed. In this view of the matter, the outcome and/or findings that may be arrived at by the civil Court will not at all prejudice the defence(s) of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the criminal proceedings. 21. For the above reasons, appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.11.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is set aside. The proceedings in the civil suit shall now proceed further in accordance with law. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1003
... ...
... ... ..... see could not be penalized for the failure of the department in maintaining the necessary record with it. In our considered view in a case of charitable trust where assessment has been framed and exemption provided under the act has been allowed to the Assessee, the presumption is that the Assessee trust was registered u/s 12A 12AA of the act till the same is rebutted by the Department by adducing documentary evidence to the contrary. The Revenue could not bring any evidence on record to prove that the assessee was not granted registration u/s. 12A of the Act. We are therefore of the view that a mere statement that the relevant registers are not available with the Department could not be considered against the assessee. Considering the totality of the facts, we of the view that the assessee should be considered to be having registration u/s. 12A in all the assessment years under appeal and therefore all these appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 10-05-2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1002
... ...
... ... ..... , therefore, the additions are thus sustained for ₹ 1,47,150/- for the A V. 2003-04, ₹ 72.000/- for tha A.Y. 2004-05 and ₹ 27,750/- for the A.Y. 2006-07. Rest of the addictions are deleted for these appeals. The second ground of all these three appeals is accordingly partly allowed.” 6. Since Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by following the Ahmedabad Tribunal decision in the case of Adinath Construction decided vide order dated 21.10.2005 in ITA No. 1975 and 176/Ahd.1999 wherein it was held that entire on-money did not represent the recipient’s income but only to the extent of 15% thereof and the balance 65 % being expended on the project and no contrary decision was cited by the Revenue at the time of hearing, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby upheld. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (5) TMI 1001
... ...
... ... ..... ot arbitrable. The respondent can raise this objection before the learned arbitrator. 3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, Ms. Rajlakshmi Rao, former Member of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Mob. 9820000123 and e-mail rajyarao@gmail.com) is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 4. This order is being passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and it shall not be treated as precedent. 5. The fees of the Arbitrator shall be governed by the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Administration Costs and Arbitrators' Fees) Rules. 6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 7. Copy of this order be also sent to the learned Arbitrator.
-
2013 (5) TMI 1000
... ...
... ... ..... be allowed and the impugned order whereby petitioner was directed to deposit amount of ₹ 10 Lacs be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submits that the petition be dismissed. It appears that Section 129 E deals with the industries which are suffering from undue hardship. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority while passing order Annexure P/1. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of with a short direction that the petitioner shall file fresh application before the authority, the same shall be decided by the authority keeping in view the provision of Section 129-E of the Act after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner is directed to move the application within a period of four weeks, till decision of the order, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 999
... ...
... ... ..... dquo;. Since the receipt of the assessee is more than ₹ 10 lakhs, in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, we are of the considered view that the assessee is required to get his accounts audited as per section 44AB of the Act and to enclose a copy of the said report in the prescribed form before the specified date. The assessee has admittedly not got his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the action of the AO to impose penalty under section 271B of the Act of ₹ 58,719/-. Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee.” 4.1. We therefore do not find any good and justifiable reasons to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed. 5 . In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 03.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... duty, notwithstanding the clarificatory notification having restrospectivity. In the present case, it is not a case of clarificatory notification but subsequent or new notification dated 18.06.2009 introducing concession @ 1% CST with effect from the issuance of the notification, to be paid on inter-State sales. If that is the basis on which the Authorities have proceeded to consider the matter and concluded that the petitioner is liable to pay Central Sales Tax @ 2% on the inter-State sales, for the period from 01.04.2009 to 17.06.2009, in our opinion, the same is unexceptionable and no interference in that behalf is warranted. 12. The argument of the petitioner that the petitioner relying on the Cabinet decision refunded the amount to customers, cannot create any right in favour of the petitioner, much less, to claim any exemption from payment of tax in terms of the policy in vogue. 13. Taking any view of the matter, the petition is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... We are of the view that in the light of the discussion in the earlier part of this order, the question of disallowance to be made under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules is remanded to the AO for fresh consideration and the order of the CIT(A) in this regard is set aside. The assessee as well as the AO shall follow the directions given in para 18 of this order. The issue will be decided by the AO after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 21. The order of the Tribunal dated 07.12.2012 in the above appeal will stand modified to the extent that the disallowance of ₹ 7,10,315 made by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Rules will stand deleted, whereas the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 6,15,000 by the AO under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules will stand remanded to the AO for fresh consideration. In the result, the miscellaneous petition by the revenue is dismissed, whereas the miscellaneous petition by the assessee is allowed to the extent indicated in this order.
-
2013 (5) TMI 995
... ...
... ... ..... and providing facilities for storage of articles or things and descriptions whatsoever. The profit and loss account of the assessee company shows that its main source of income is storage charges and maintenance or user charges. Even substantial part of the expenses also relate to the salaries of the employees engaged in the maintenance and upkeep of the godowns and warehouses. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the income of the assessee from letting out of warehouses and godowns is chargeable under the head “Business Income” and not “Income from House Property”. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue.” 5. The facts and situation being the same, we are of the opinion that the appeal of the Revenue has no merits. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 02nd of May, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (5) TMI 994
... ...
... ... ..... he learned CIT(A) and even no remand report was sought by the learned CIT(A) on the comments of the assessee, therefore, this issue may be sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication for making proper verification. 35. In his rival submissions, ld. counsel for the assessee did not object if the matter is sent back to the Assessing Officer for verification. 36. We, therefore, considering the submissions of both the parties remand this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after affording a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 37. In the result, the appeals of the Department for assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 and Cross Objections filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 & 2006- 07 are dismissed while the appeal of the Department for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 16.05.2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 993
... ...
... ... ..... han 10% of the average turnover. In that view, the Commission has inflicted the penalties of 0.5 times of the net profit for one year that is from 2009 to 2010 that too taking from 20th May, 2009 and 2010-11. Under such circumstances, we would chose to grant stay to the penalties, however with a condition that the appellants deposit 10% of the penalties inflicted. We make it clear that the deposit of the penalty should be within one month from today. We also make it clear that if the penalties are not so deposited, the appeal shall be treated as dismissed without further reference to the Court. 37. As regards, the orders of 'cease' and 'desist', we do not find anything wrong at least prima-facie. We, therefore, refuse to stay that order against the appellants, including the Cement Manufacturers Association. 38. All stay applications are disposed of in above terms. The matter now be posted for further hearing. Pronounced in open Court on 17th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 992
... ...
... ... ..... oses of reduction of the share capital. However, in view of decision of the Madras High Court in Asian Investments Ltd, and others 1992 Company Cases 517 which has been followed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Novapan India Limited 1997 Company Cases 596, the procedure for reduction of share capital under Section 100,101 and 102 of the Act is not necessary where the scheme is for amalgamation and the entire assets and liabilities of the trasnferor company are to be transferred to the transferee company. In view of the aforesaid, there is no impediment in sanction of the scheme of arrangement. Accordingly, the scheme of arrangement filed as annexure 7 to the company petition is hereby sanctioned. Let a copy of this order along with scheme of arrangement including reduction in capital be placed before the Registrar of the Companies U.P. Kanpur within 30 days for the purposes of registration. Petition is allowed and the Company Application No. 17 of 2012 stands disposed of.
-
2013 (5) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... respect of trading in derivatives’ shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction. The expression ‘eligible transaction’ has been defined vide the Explanation given below the said proviso and it covers the impugned transaction carried out electronically on screen based system through a stock broker involving the recognized stock exchanges. Therefore, such trading activity has to be deemed as non speculative business activity in other words, it is a normal business activity. Nothing is brought to our notice, that the impugned transactions are not “eligible transactions” and not traded in stated Stock Exchange vide the provisions of the said clauses cited above. Therefore, the finding of CIT(A) given in para 5 extracted above, does not call for any interference. 9. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 08th day of May, 2013.
-
2013 (5) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... iew of Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (Supra) there would be no discretion to the Commissioner (Appeals) to impose penalty lesser than duty demand/cenvat credit demand upheld. But the Commissioner (Appeals) in the same order has given two contradictory findings. In view of this the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for de-novo decision. In course of de-novo proceedings the Commissioner (Appeals) must clearly analyse the evidence on record and give a clear finding as to whether or not the evidence on record is sufficient to uphold the allegation of clandestine removal of Cenvated inputs and finished goods and only if this allegation is uphold, the penalty under section 11AC would be attracted which would be equal to duty/ cenvat credit demand upheld and there would be no discretion to impose lower penalty. The Revenue appeal is accordingly allowed. (Order dictated & pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (5) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... so filed an appeal and same had been disposed of by the Tribunal by Final Order No.A/56238/2013-EX DB dated 04.04.2013 by which the matter had been remanded to the Commissioner for denovo decision. 4. Since the matter with regard to quantification of duty demand has been remanded, present appeal filed by the Revenue is also remanded to the Commissioner for deciding the question of penalty. The Revenue’s appeal stands disposed of as above. 5. Since appeal itself has been disposed of, Misc application for early hearing is also dismissed. Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court .
-
2013 (5) TMI 987
... ...
... ... ..... purchase and sale of these shares are found and enclosed. All these papers were available before the AO. We have noticed that the sale of shares was found to be genuine when the AO made enquiries from the stock exchange directly. This fact is evident from assessment order (refer p. 17 para 8.17). In our considered opinion, the AO has acted on the basis of suspicion alone. Some of the decisions relied on by the learned Authorised Representative mentioned supra are as under 1. Dalpat Singh Choudhary v. Asstt CIT 2012 25 taxmann.com 153 (Jodh.) 2. Dy. CIT v. Smt. Hansa Choudhary 2012 23 taxmann.com 302 (Jodh.) 3. Asstt. CIT v. Chandresh Kumar Maheshwari 2009 29 SOT 58 (Jodh.) (URO) 4. Baijnath Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT 2010 40 SOT 475 (Agra) (TM) 5. Smt Sunita Oheroi v. ITO 2009 126 TTJ (Agra)(TM) 745 6. Acchyalal Shaw v. ITO 2009 30 SOT 44 (Kol.) (URO). Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee on merits. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed.
-
2013 (5) TMI 986
... ...
... ... ..... nue could not dispute this legal position. Therefore, so far as question of law involved in this appeal that whether the interest could have been levied against the assessed income of the assessee under Sections 234 A and 234 B is concerned, in view of the Full Bench judgment of Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court delivered in the case of Smt. Tej Kumari, the revenue can levy the interest only on the total income declared in the returns and not on the income assessed and determined by the A.O. to that extent. The orders passed by the authorities below are accordingly modified and interest shall be chargeable in the light of the Full Bench judgment, referred above.” 6. We accordingly following the above decision, direct the Assessing Officer to re-compute the interest under section 234B on the basis of the total income declared by the assessee in the return filed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 7th May, 2013.
........
|
