|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 893
... ...
... ... ..... ard Circular No.1916 dated 11-05-1984. 7. Now, the claim of the assessee is that such benefit as per the CBDT Circular No.1916 should be allowed in respect of other family members also i.e. Praptiben for 500 grams and Bhavin for 100 grams. We do not find any merit in this contention because as per page 1 of the statement of facts cum synopsis filed by the assessee before us along with her appeal, it is seen that jewellery of ₹ 11.47 lacs is also found as belonging to Praptiben and ₹ 1.82 lacs as belonging to Bhavin and hence, any benefit as per this Board Circular can be allowed only to explain jewellery belonging to these two persons and no such benefit can be allowed for the jewellery belonging to the assessee. Hence, on this aspect also, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/06/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 892
... ...
... ... ..... may be cases where no dividend income has been earned by the assessee and this does not mean that in a year in which there is no dividend income, there is no expenditure incurred in that regard. Hence, in our considered opinion, the very basis adopted by the assessee in estimating the amount of expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is faulty. Hence, we do not find any mistake in the satisfaction of the AO that the working of disallowance made by the assessee is not correct. 8. In a situation where the AO has recorded his satisfaction that the working of the assessee regarding expenditure incurred for earning exempt income is not correct, then the same has to be worked out as per Rule 8D of the IT Rules and the AO has worked out the disallowance on the basis of Rule 8D only. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21-06-2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... m the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings then such ground can certainly be considered. This view has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383). In aforesaid view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and allow the ground raised by the assessee. 9. In view of our decision in ground No. 7, the other grounds raised by the assessee have become redundant and hence not required to be adjudicated upon. 10. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. ITA NO. 301/HYD/13 for AY 2006-07 11. Facts in this case are materially same as in ITA No. 300/H/13 decided by us hereinabove. Hence, following our order passed in ITA No. 300/H/13 we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 12. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. To sum up, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 28/06/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... year 2003-04 while deciding the appeal for the A.Y 2003-04.” 15. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the assessee has obtained the bank loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- on 18-6-2003 and this was shown in the assessment year 2003-04. The AO has treated the loan amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- as bogus for the reason that the assessee has shown repayment of ₹ 5,50,000/- during the relevant financial year. This repayment might have been made from any sources of income, which is not an issue before us. We find that once loan is taken from West Bengal State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited, this is explained and taken in the immediately preceding assessment year 2003-04, where it is assessed. Hence, no addition on this issue can be made. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 16. In the result appeals of assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-06-2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 889
... ...
... ... ..... other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9.6 We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the decision cited before us. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Gajendra Kumar T. Agarwal Vs. ITO vide ITA No. 1798/Mum/2010 order dated 31-05-2011 has held that the assessee can be granted set off of brought forward loss from business dealing in derivatives, incurred in assessment years prior to assessment year 200607 against the profits of the same business in A.Y. 2006-07 and subsequent assessment years. Respectfully following the above decision and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we allow the ground raised by the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of June 2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... icts attached to this Bench of the Madras High Court. It must also be remembered that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court even if a small part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court that itself is not sufficient for the Court to entertain a matter. 14. Thus, from the foregoings, this Writ Petition cannot be entertained, as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over Union Territory of Puducherry or the District of Kancheepuram. Therefore, this petition is dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. No costs. 15. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the competent Court, if he has any enforceable right and if he is so advised. 16. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of Special Leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the jurisdiction limit is not in dispute, we are not inclined to grant Leave and the said request is rejected.
-
2013 (6) TMI 887
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal, till such time the appeals are not disposed the financial stringency is established by the issues raised by the assessee in their appeals may therefore be considered for grant of stay till disposal of the appeals. 3. The learned CIT-DR left it to the discretion of the Bench insofar as the prayer for stay ought to have been before the Revenue authorities prior to being petitioned to the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee has been deprived of the legitimate revenue by way of raising the demands insofar as the taxation of the debtors and creditors would leave no finance to the assessee the business having been closed on the direction of the Government. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to grant stay for both the AYs of the demand raised by the Revenue and direct the Registry to fix the cases for hearing in the next Division Bench. 5. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (6) TMI 886
... ...
... ... ..... sessment year 2009-10 before Assessing Officer for claiming that unspent amount was spent in this prescribed period but neither Assessing Officer nor Ld CIT(A) commented about it. It is also apparent that fact of the assessee having spent significant amount in next year was not examined by Assessing Officer. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit the file to the office of Assessing Officer to examine the books of accounts of assessee for assessment year 2009- 10 to ascertain the amount of spending in next year within prescribed period as laid down by law and if the amount of investment exceeds unspent amount within prescribed period, in next year then the Assessing Officer should condone the delay and irregularity in filing Form No.10 and should allow the exemption if found to be eligible otherwise. 11. In view of the above circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... non-eligible unit against the profits of the eligible unit. Respectfully following the binding precedent, we hold, in principle, that profit of eligible units cannot be set off against losses of non-eligible units. However, it is noticed that the learned CIT(A), vide the above extracted part of the impugned order, has proceeded on the premise as if the question is about the setting off of losses of eligible unit against the profits of non-eligible unit. The assessment order records the contrary position. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this issue is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of A.O. We order accordingly and direct him to decide this issue afresh in conformity with our above opinion by not setting off of loss from non-eligible unit against the profits of the eligible units. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 26th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 884
... ...
... ... ..... has made a disallowance of 20% of the claim made by the assessee on the ground that no vouchers were produced for the expenses incurred at the quarries. The said addition of 20% has been modified to 10% by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). The expenses mainly related to purchase of diesel, tyres, tubes, bata to lorry drivers and cleaners, etc. For all these expenses incurred in remote areas in villages at odd times, one cannot expect formal invoices, bills, receipts and vouchers. When compared to the size of operation carried out by the assessee, the disallowance confirmed by the Commissioner of Incometax(Appeals) is sufficient. We are not inclined to interfere in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) on this point. This ground is decided against the Revenue. 4.4. The appeal of the Revenue is partly successful. 5. In result, all these three appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday, the 19th of June, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... she deserves to be discharged. Lastly, the purpose of filing the petition is liable to be dismissed against R9. She is a practising company secretary and whatever she did, she has done under instructions of her clients. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against her. Petition is, thus, allowed in terms of the following order ORDER (i) I, in the exercise of the powers conferred upon me by virtue of section 237(b) of the Act, direct the Central Government to pass an order for investigation into the affairs of the company and take appropriate action, if warranted, on receipt of the investigation report. The parties are hereby directed to cooperate and furnish all the information, as they possess, to the authorities concerned during investigation. (ii) Respondent No. 9 is discharged. (iii) Parties shall bear their own costs. (iv) All the pending CAs stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (v) Let copy of the order be circulated to ail concerned.
-
2013 (6) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... port is filed at any time before framing the assessment, the required conditions are considered to be fulfilled. Our view is fortified by the decision in CIT vs. ACE Multitaxes Systems (P) Ltd. (2009) 317 ITR 307 (Kar.); CIT vs. Medicaps Limited (2010) 323 ITR 554 (MP); AKS Alloys Pvt. Ltd. (2012); 18 Taxman.com 25(Mad.); CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam; 75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). The sum and substance of these decisions is that audit report can be filed with the revised return or at any stage up to framing of assessment. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Our view is further fortified by the decision from Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Contimeter Electricals Pvt.Ltd.; 317 ITR 249. In view of these facts, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. It is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 19.6.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... l extract before the Assessing Officer and any other evidence that Assessing Officer may require, for substantiating his claim. 30. Related grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. Assessment Year 2007-08 31. The only issue, apart from disallowance of interest under Section 234B and 234C, and belated remittance of TDS, is treatment of agricultural income of Rs. 8,36,000/- by the Assessing Officer as income from undisclosed sources. 32. We have already remitted the issue regarding agricultural income, back to the file of Assessing Officer for consideration afresh for assessment year 2006-07. Same directions will apply for assessment year 2007-08 also. 33. To summarize the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2001-02 is dismissed, for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04 are partly allowed, and for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 6th of June, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... aritime lien, subject however to the evidence that may unfold at the time of trial, the liability of the defendant either to get arrested or to furnish security, cannot be questioned. In such circumstances, the prayer of the defendant for the refund of the amount, which has now replaced the vessel, cannot be granted. Therefore, A.No.7371 of 2010 is dismissed. 25. The amount already deposited by the defendant to the credit of the above suit, shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of one year. The Registry is directed to convert the amount into a fixed deposit, if it had not already done, in the Indian bank, High Court branch. A.No.4772 of 2010 is disposed of on the above terms. 26. The defendant is directed to file a written statement if they have not already filed. It is open to the defendant to take recourse to the procedure prescribed under Order VIII-A CPC to rope in the previous owner of the vessel, if they deem fit and proper. The trial of the suit may be expedited.
-
2013 (6) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... ar was filed. The assessment has been completed under Section 143(3), the claim of deduction under Section 10A has been allowed by the AO itself. Copy of the assessment order for assessment year 2010-11 is placed in the compilation. After going through all these details and material and the order of the CIT(A), we found no reason to interfere in the findings of the learned CIT(A). The order of the learned CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of learned CIT(A) is perverse in any way. 18. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) for all the three assessment years. 19. Since we have confirmed the order of the CIT(A) for all the three years, therefore, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 20. In the result, appeals of the department as well as cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of Jun.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 878
... ...
... ... ..... is ground of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed. 1.2 Rest of the grounds, i.e., grounds no.2 and 3 are identical as disclosed hereinabove hence, to be decided de novo as per the directions. In the result, these grounds may be treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Resultantly, the appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 may be treated as partly allowed that to for statistical purpose. E. For A.Y. 2006-07 (ITA No.2274/Ahd/2012) 1. First ground is in respect of reopening of assessment. This ground goes against the assessee. Hence dismiss. 1.1 The next grounds no.2 and 3 are identical with the issue already decided in respect of claim of Section 10B pertaining to CCGL export. These two grounds are restored back to the AO to be decided on the same lines as directed hereinabove. 1.2 In the result, the appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 may be treated as partly allowed that to for statistical purpose only. • In the result, all the Five appeals are partly allowed but for statistical purpose only.
-
2013 (6) TMI 877
... ...
... ... ..... ia Ltd. 201 ITR 884 (Cal), wherein it was held that - ‘In the Festival months, the shops in this part of the country had to pay contributions towards community celebrations to keep the youths in the neighborhood of the shop happy to ensure smooth conduct of the business. The expenditure could be said to be an expenditure required to maintain the business.’ 6.2 The expenses under consideration also appear to be of the nature described by the Hon’ble High Court. Respectively following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, the disallowance of ₹ 3,300/- is accordingly deleted.” We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as he relied on the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. (supra), which is squarely covered in favour of assessee and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... Accused persons is also made out. 5. Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The word 'person' in Article 21 is wide enough to cover not only citizens of this country but also foreigners who come to this country. The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners who come to this country and ensure that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Notwithstanding the said guaranty Under Article 21 of the Constitution, in this case, the Mumbai police acted on the FIR of the complainants, which we have found to be baseless. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR and we further direct that if the passport of any of the Petitioners has been impounded on account of the impugned FIR which we have quashed, the same shall be released forthwith. We accordingly allow the writ petition.
-
2013 (6) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... aling with the same issue has held as under “Section 115jB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Minimum Alternate Tax. Assessment year 2008-09 - Assessee company had debited a certain amount to its profit and loss account on account of provision for gratuity made on actuarial basis and same was done on account of adoption of revised Accounting Standard-15-Said amount was purely reflected in profit and loss account and duly added back to total income in computation of income under norms of Act being covered u/s 43B - Assessing Officer added back said amount while computing book profit u/s 115 JB - Whether in view of insertion of clause (i) in Explanation 1 to section 115JB (2) with retrospective effective from 1.4.2001, Assessing Officer was not justified in his action - Held, yes.” Therefore, following above decision we decide the issue against the Revenue. 15 In the result, appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 11.6.2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... e file of the learned Assessing Officer to examine the claim of the assessee/Revenue and then decide in accordance with law. This will also cover ground No.3 of the appeal of the Revenue (ITA NO. 575/Chd/2008). Needless to mention here that due opportunity of being heard be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also at liberty to furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim, therefore, these grounds of the assessee / Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes only.” 18. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts before the Tribunal in the earlier years and following the parity of reasoning, we remit the issue back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication in line with the directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2008. Accordingly, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 19. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2013.
........
|
