|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1043 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 18/- out of total addition of ₹ 12,20,366/- made on account of undisclosed income. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. 3) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 6.1. Grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal are also similar as were in Revenue’s appeal for AY 2006-07(supra) except change in figures. Since no change in the facts and circumstances are pointed out by the ld.Sr.DR, therefore taking our consistent view taken in Revenue’s appeal in assessee’s own case for AY 2006-07 in ITA No.59/Ahd/2013(supra), for this year also this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned here-in-above.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1042 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ically stated that the seized cash may be adjusted against the tax liability arising out of the disclosure. The assessee was levied the interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C discarding the request made by him. The matter was carried to the Tribunal and the Tribunal deleted the interest levied. The Department carried the matter further before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal deleting the interest levied by the Assessing Officer to the extent of cash seized ₹ 42 lacs. In our opinion, the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decision cited (supra). As per the assessment order we find that total income tax payable as per the assessment order is to the extent of ₹ 39,53,215/- which is more less than the amount of cash seized by the department. We, accordingly, allow the grounds taken by the assessee. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 26-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1041 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed from the ambit of Chapter X of the Act”. 62. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the adjustments, if any, only to international transactions. This Ground is allowed in favour of the assessee.” Respectfully following the aforesaid order of the co-ordinate bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the adjustment only to the internal transaction while determining the ALP. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed. 13. In ground No.7, the assessee has challenged the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As the charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is consequential in nature being dependent upon the final determination of income, this ground is not required to be adjudicated upon at this stage. 14. In view of our finding in the preceding paragraph, no separate adjudication is required in so far as ground No.8 is concerned. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed in part. Order pronounced in the court on 22 -8-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1040 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ded as under - “We have already seen the meaning of the word “particulars” in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.” 7. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1039 - ITAT PUNE
Levy of penalty u/s.158BFA (2) - Held that:- Facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant levy of penalty u/s.158BFA(2). We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to cancel the penalty levied u/s.158BFA(2) on account of disallowance of interest expenditure.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1038 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o giving of admissions to such students in the academic year 2014-15, Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel for the Medical Council of India, has seriously opposed the same and, thereafter, has cited the authorities which we have referred to hereinbefore. We are bound by the said precedents. In certain individual cases where there is defective counselling and merit has become a casualty, this Court has directed for adjustment in the next academic session but in the case at hand, it is not exactly so. Though we are at pains, yet we must express that it will not be appropriate to issue directions to adjust them in respect of the subsequent academic year, for taking recourse to the same would affect the other meritorious candidates who would be aspirant to get admissions next year. For doing equity to some in presenti we cannot afford to do injustice to others in future. Therefore, the submission stands repelled. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1037 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... late Tribunal may be expedited. 4. Having regard to the fact that the matter pertains to the above Assessment Years, the Appellate Tribunal shall endeavour to hear and decide the appeals as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 31st October 2013. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue agrees to communicate this order to the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal. 6. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1036 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Abatement of the proceedings in case the Settlement Commission - time limitation - Section 32F(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
-
2013 (8) TMI 1035 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... t of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (2013) 90 DTR 26 (Cal) wherein Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held that “we are of the view that the conditions laid down u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for making addition is that tax is deductible at source and such tax has not been deducted. If both the conditions are satisfied then such payment can be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act but where tax is deducted by the assessee, even under bona fide wrong impression, under wrong provisions of TDS, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked.” Hence, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld. Thus the solitary ground raised by the Revenue is rejected. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1034 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... said that the final product emerging out of such inputs/input services are exempt in view of the fact that products manufactured are to be used in the manufacture of final products which suffer duty. 6. In the case of Aurangabad Auto Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad 2011-TIOL-1010-CESTAT-MUM , it was held that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sterlite Industries Ltd. (supra) would be applicable in respect of input services also. 7. In view of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and since the issue is covered by both the decisions cited by the learned counsel, I find that the appellant cannot be denied the Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on input services used in their goods manufactured on job work basis and cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E., dated 25-3-1986. In the result, both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1033 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on Sec. 66A of the Act. If sub-section (31) of Sec. 65 of the Act and Sec. 66A of the Act are not applicable, we have no other option than to answer question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Moreover, question of law raised in this appeal is answered by this Court in a connected matter in CEA 11/2007 in the case of M/s. SKF India Ltd. Therefore, answering the question of law against the Revenue, we dismiss this appeal.” 10. In the present case, we have gone through the agreement which is in respect of transfer of technical know-how of the product manufactured in India including the patent rights. Therefore, the present agreement is in respect of transfer of Intellectual Property Rights which is in the domain of the appellant to M/s. Guala India. In view of these facts, we find that the ratio of the above judgment is fully applicable to the present case. 11. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1032 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n service provider, as foreign service provider the branch or agency of the same company in India. 9. In the present case, situation is different here the service provider is outside India and recipient of the service in India. This factual aspect is not in dispute. In these circumstances, as applicant received taxable service from the service provider who is outside India, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, the applicants are liable to pay Service Tax as a recipient of taxable service. The applicant had already deposited the part amount of the Service Tax confirmed. As applicant had not made out a case for waiver of Service Tax, therefore, the applicants are directed to deposit the remaining amount of Service Tax confirmed within a period of eight weeks. On deposit of the above mentioned amount, the pre-deposit of interest and penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal. Compliance is to be reported on 17-10-2013. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1031 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... spective of the distance between such places. Admittedly, respondents are having tourist permit under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax as tour operator during the period in dispute. 9. In respect of the imposition of penalties, we find that the Service Tax on tour operator was first time levied w.e.f. 1-9-1997 and the present demand is from 1-9-1997. We find that Section 80 of the Finance Act provides notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Sections 76, 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in said provisions, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 10. In the present case, as the period in dispute is the initial period of levy. In view of the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, the respondents are not liable for any penalty. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1030 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... properly classifiable under CTH 3802. Therefore, for these matters, we hold that the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 3802 and the appellants are required to pay duty accordingly. 6.1 For Appeal No. C/425/10 we find that the imports for the period from 11-10-2004 to 20-12-2006, the show cause notice was issued only on 19-5-2009 by invoking the extended period of limitation and in the matter of Komal Trading Company and Others (supra) this Tribunal has held that the demand confirmed by invoking extended period are not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that in this appeal demands are time barred as well as are not sustainable on merits as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Komal Trading Company and Others, (supra). 6.2 As the issue involved in classification of the impugned goods therefore, no fine and penalties are warranted. Accordingly, fine and penalties are dropped. 7. In these terms, the appeals are disposed of. (Dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1029 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or assessment year 2009-10 under Section 143(3). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I allow this issue in favour of the assessee and direct the AO to allow the various expenses incurred by the assessee in its profit and loss account by treating the business of the assessee company has set up. 8. Regarding miscellaneous income of ₹ 24,720/- claimed as business income, I find that in subsequent year ie. Assessment year 2009-10, similar income shown by the assessee has been computed as income from other sources and as per learned counsel of the assessee the assessment order for assessment year 2009-10 has been accepted by the assessee. Accordingly, I hold that the AO and learned CIT(A) were justified in treating the nature of income as income from other sources. Accordingly, I confirm the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of Aug.2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1028 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s. 8OIC - Held that:- We are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) did not commit any error in holding that the activities of the assessee were in the nature of manufacturing, therefore, the assessee is entitled to get deduction under section 80 IC of the Act. We decline to interfere in the relief granted by Ld. CIT(A) and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1027 - ITAT RAJKOT
Depreciation on pipelines - Held that:- Admittedly, this issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2004-05
Disallowance of depreciation on telecom system - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that in the Assessment Year 2004-05 the depreciation was not allowed on the ground that in the Tax Audit Report it was stated that telecom system in question was put to use on 30.09.2004. There is no dispute that the system in question was put to use by the assessee which is evident from the certificate of IOCL dated 07.05.2003. We are, therefore, of the view that the assessee is entitled to full depreciation for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and subsequent years in accordance with the law. We are accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. We also direct the assessee to furnish the working of depreciation to the Assessing Officer who will verify and allow the same in accordance with law.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance on the ground that the assessee has not furnished any evidence in support of the claim that those expenses were crystallized during the year. Before us also the ld Counsel of the assessee could not produce any evidence in support of the claim that those expenses were crystallized during the year. Therefore, we decline to interfere
Lump sum disallowance of vehicle and office expenses - Held that:- It is pertinent to note that the assessee has not produced voucher of these expenses before the Assessing Officer. Keeping in view of this conspicuous facts, the Assessing Officer made the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/-. The disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is neither excessive or unreasonable.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1026 - ITAT PANAJI
Additional depreciation on plant and machinery utilized in its mining operations, windmill operations and computers used in those operations u s 32(l)(iia) - Whether engaged in the production or manufacturing of an article or thing - Held that:- Activity carried by the company in its mining division viz., iron-ore processing amounts to production of an article - processing activity carried out by the Company to convert raw iron ore to saleable processed iron ore amounts to 'production' - the activity carried in windmill division viz., generation of electricity, the same also amounts to production of an article or thing - once the company is in the manufacture or production of article or thing, any new machinery or plant purchased would qualify for additional depreciation, irrespective of the fact that the same is directly or indirectly used in the manufacturing or production activity - entitle to additional depreciation on machinery as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Sesa Goa Ltd [271 ITR 331] - entitled for additional depreciation on windmill operation as per the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs V T M Limited [319 ITR 336] - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (8) TMI 1025 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Money-Laundering - Enforcement Directorate has not filed the final report - Held that:- Section 65 of the Money-Laundering Act takes care of such a situation and the Enforcement Directorate is duty bound to submit final report or charge sheet, as the case may be, before the Court which is designated as Special Court by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court under Section 43 of the Money-Laundering Act. In the present case, admittedly after completing investigation the Enforcement Directorate has not filed the final report on the ground that there is no provision for submission of the final report under the Money-Laundering Act.
Since we hold that the term 'investigation' shall also include submission of final report as defined in the Code, we direct that if the process is issued by the Magistrate or upon a further investigation a charge-sheet is submitted in respect of any scheduled offence, the Enforcement Directorate will submit the Final Form before the designated Court so that the designated Court shall be in a position to examine the efforts made by way of investigation, the evidence collected during the investigation and find out as to whether the final report was justified or not. The complainant shall also get an opportunity to look into the report and submit a protest petition, if he desires.
Dispose of this writ petition directing the Enforcement Directorate, in case of contingencies given above, to submit Final Form before the designated Court within 2 months from the date of knowledge of the same.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1024 - ITAT MUMBAI
Admission fees for taking membership of MCX and NCDEX - allowable deduction - Held that:- We find that the assessee had made payments towards membership fees of two exchanges Fees paid by it was onetime payment and as a result assessee was allowed to carry out business on both the exchanges. Such a right has to considered a capital asset. In the cases of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) and Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 713 - SUPREME COURT ) Hon'ble Apex court has held that Stock exchange membership cards were assets eligible for depreciation under section 32 of the Act. In our opinion membership fees paid by the assessee under the head exchanges cards fees is squarely covered by the above judgments. FAA has already directed the AO to allows depreciation. Therefore, we are of the opinion his order does not suffer from any infirmity - Decided against the assessee
............
|
