|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 848 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ined an enduring benefit. The new product manufactured is out of new technology. In fact, the assessee itself had capitalized this expenditure in the books of accounts. However, for the income tax purpose it had claimed the same as revenue expenditure. As stated earlier, “Sucralose” is entirely a new product different from the products, which were manufactured currently and exported by the assessee company. The product was developed during the relevant financial year and pilot trial was drawn. Once these products are made for market consumption, the benefit derived therefrom would be a long lasting and enduring one. Therefore, we are of the view that the expenditure incurred is of capital nature and the same has been rightly disallowed by the Income Tax authorities. Accordingly, ground nos.5 and 6 are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th day of November, 2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 847 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nani, President (Real Estate) of Aasia Management & Consultancy P. Ltd., to ascertain the genuineness of the claim of the assessee with regard to the nature and significance of services rendered by him to the assessee in finalizing the transaction relating to purchase of property situated at 2nd Main Road, 18th Cross, Sankey Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore, and allow such commission as may be felt reasonable and proportionate to the services which may be found to have been rendered by Shri Gurnani. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the assessing officer and substantiate its claim for commission before the assessing officer, by adducing necessary evidence with regard to the services rendered by Shri Gurnani. Assessee’s grounds No.7 and 8 on this issue, are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, read with the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 18.12.2009, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 22.11.2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 846 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t is only when the excess amount of tax is refunded but the interest is not refunded therewith, that the retention of interest amount would become unjustified and interest on interest would also become payable. The reason is simple. It is the tax which was paid in excess by the assessee which became refundable. The assessee would be compensated by paying interest thereupon. It is only when the interest is not refunded along with excess tax that the withholding of the interest becomes unjustified and it becomes an "amount due" to the assessee on which the assessee can claim further interest.” 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) to direct the Assessing Officer to verify and allow the interest as per law. Hence, the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt, where the tax effect. is less than Rs 10,00,000/- and in view of the decision of this Court ITA No.3191/2005 the Case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. M/S. RANKA & RANKA, wherein it was held that InstructionNo. 3/2011 issued on 09.02.2021 is applicable to pending proceedings also, this appeal preferred by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly. the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 844 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in respect of which he does not have the conscious possession. Slaughter of Cows, subject to exceptions under Section 4, in any place, is prohibited under Section 3 and penalty for doing so is provided under Section 8. 22. The High Court's finding that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved in the absence of proof of their ownership or conscious possession of the house where slaughter took place, is a finding which is de-hors the said Act and is clearly not legally sustainable. Slaughter of the Cows is clearly prohibited under Section 3, subject to the exceptions in Section 4. The case of the accused persons is not covered under the exceptions in Section 4. No such defense was ever taken. 23. Therefore the impugned order of the High Court is, with respect, legally not sustainable. We therefore are unable to accept the reasons of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set-aside and that of the learned Sessions Judge is affirmed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 843 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nly on the basis of suspicion that there might be inflation in the purchases. Further, the disallowance of ₹ 65,17,186/- is without any basis. The Revenue has brought no material on record to show that the purchases claimed by the assessee were not reasonable considering the prevailing market condition at the material time. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the income disclosed by the assessee was not reasonable compared to the income disclosed by other assessees in the same line of business or in view of the past accepted position in the case of the assessee. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, the disallowance of ₹ 65,17,186/- made on the basis of suspicion alone without any basis cannot be sustained. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 65,17,186/- and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 842 - SUPREME COURT
Offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Question of validity of sanction order in the course of trial - HELD THAT:- While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in Parkash Singh Badal [2006 (12) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT] expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction.
The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind - a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial.
Since cognizance has already been taken against the Appellant by the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the Trial Court and giving liberty to the Appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the Appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the Trial Judge.
-
2011 (11) TMI 841 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .2007 in which the question framed is same as one proposed in this appeal. 2. Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law. “Whether on the facts and the in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding for calculating u/s.80HHC of the Act turnover of all independent business is to be clubbed and thereby rejecting the Assessee's contention that turnover of only export business is required to be taken into consideration?” 3. To be heard with Tax Appeal No.1553 of 2007.
-
2011 (11) TMI 840 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to Civil Appeal nos.8899-8901 of 2011. In this behalf it would also be pertinent to mention, that the conclusions drawn by us pertain to acquisition of land falling in the revenue estate of village Badepur. In so far as the instant set of appeals are concerned, they pertain to land acquired form the revenue estate of village Rajapur. The High Court, while making a reference to the land acquired from village Rajapur, noticed that village Rajapur had a lower market value as it was farther from the nerve centre of Gulbarga town as compared to village Badepur. As such, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and appropriate to affirm the compensation determined by the High Court at ₹ 65,000/- per acre, even for the land acquired from the revenue estate of village Rajapur. 30. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no cause or justification to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court. 31. Dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 839 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... penses claimed are not fully verifiable, still in the interest of justice the adhoc disallowance is limited to 5% of ₹ 66,06,095 ₹ 69,65,795 - 3,59,700 (₹ 1,50,900 ₹ 2,08,800) which comes to ₹ 3,30,304. Balance addition is deleted.” 8. Even before us the assessee has not improved his case particularly when the evidences in respect of labour expenses were doubted by the Revenue Department. The first appellate authority had given a finding on fact that the copies of the vouchers in respect of labour expenses have depicted that those vouchers were firstly self-prepared vouchers and secondly the names and addresses of the persons to whom the cash payment was made was also missing. Since the said factual finding has not been rebutted by placing cogent evidence on record therefore we find no fallacy in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and affirm the same. 9. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed that too for statistical purpose only.
-
2011 (11) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Corporation is not likely to suffer in any manner as the Corporation itself is not mortgaging its land to anyone and NOC granted, therefore, may not be treated as if Corporation has agreed to create mortgage over the land in question. However, the said aspect will be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the matter finally. The aforesaid interim relief is granted in view of the fact that according to the petitioners if for want of NOC, the Axis Bank may withdraw its offer to give financial assistance. 17. At this stage Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that the Corporation would like to challenge this order in connection with grant of NOC for creating mortgage is concerned. He requested that this order may be stayed for two weeks. Since we have already granted two weeks time to the Corporation for granting NOC, the Corporation may challenge this order within the aforesaid period and in view of the same it is not necessary to consider the said request of Mr. Kumbhakoni.
-
2011 (11) TMI 837 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s which might be earned in the case of the assessee could not be correlated before us. Therefore, we are not in a position to direct the Assessing Officer to give telescoping benefit of this amount which was taxed as peak cash deficit to the GP addition being made in the Revenue appeal. However, the assessee is free to furnish the revised working before the Assessing Officer to claim any set off, if the assessee is in a position to explain the earnings of GP to the cash availability with the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the same before considering the benefit of telescoping. 13. With these directions, the appeal is considered partly allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to bring to tax 3% of the GP on the tainted purchases, as was done in earlier years and later year as upheld by the ITAT. The grounds are determined accordingly. 14. In the result, revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 836 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ervation of the lower authorities that the case deposits are attributable to income generated by the assessee from such property transactions is unfounded. Coming to the assessee’s reconciliation, in our view, the same has not been controverted on the basis of any material and has been ignored on surmises. There is no finding that the cash withdrawn by the assessee was invested elsewhere. In the absence of such finding, the availability of cash with the assessee remains unrefuted. The assessee’s explanation is found to be reasonable that in the property business, there are times to withdraw the cash and if unutilized, the same will be redeposited. The period of withdrawal and deposit is not inordinate to raise any other assumption. In view thereof, we are unable to uphold the orders of lower authorities on this view. The addition made is deleted. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 30th November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 835 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e course of first appellate proceedings the assessee submitted copy of the affidavits from Mirza Iqbal and others who denied to have received the same amount. The CIT(A) did not accept the affidavits as the same were not submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. The said affidavits are dated 17.5.2010. Further, the agreement of sale clearly shows that the assessee had paid the amount in cash and the vendors had received the same in cash. Therefore, the subsequent retraction is not believable especially when the same was not filed during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of payment of ₹ 10 lakhs to Mirza Iqbal Ahmed and others is sustained. The entire addition of ₹ 19 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer is confirmed. This ground is dismissed. 29. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 834 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... nda, Adv. And Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. For The Respondent (s) None ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 833 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s below. In the quantum appeal (supra), the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), have been remitted back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh for the reasons given above while deciding the quantum appeal (supra). Since the issues pertaining to the additions have been remitted back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the quantum of appeal, penalty levied on such non-existent additions, does not have legs to stand in the eye of law. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and cancel the penalty sustained by the CIT(A). However, it is open to the AO to proceed further after deciding the quantum appeal in accordance with law. Accordingly the ground raised by the assesee is allowed and ground raised by the revenue becomes infructuous and the same is dismissed as infructuous. 22. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 832 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot applicable because of change in law as we have noted that section 36(1) (vii) of the Act has been amended w.e.f. 1/4/1989. We, therefore, decide this issue also in favour of the assessee.? Against this order, the present appeal is preferred. Though, the order of the ITAT is challenged on both counts, it is not necessary to go into the issue on validity of the initiation of reassessment proceedings, inasmuch as, on merits, we find that the addition is not sustainable and the assessee was entitled to loss on sale of repossessed assets under Section (1) (vii) read with Section 36 (2) of the Act. This very issue has been decided by this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. (ITA 1712/2010 and 1714/2010) vide judgment dated 9th November, 2010. The assessee here is also a non-banking financial company like Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd (supra) in the aforesaid appeal. Following that judgment, this appeal is also dismissed holding that no question of law arises.
-
2011 (11) TMI 831 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... l. When the scripts or the securities are held in Demat form, there is no individual identification like the distinctive nos. etc., which would have been there in case the securities were existing in a physical form. Undisputedly, it is not a case of change of method of valuation in the case of assessee but the method of valuation which has consistently been followed for the last so many years. Under these circumstances, we fully concur with the finding of the Ld CIT(A) that the method of valuation of stock followed by the assessee was an accepted method in consonance with the law as well as Accounting standard and therefore, there is no reason to discard the same. We thus do not find reason to interfere with the first appellate order on the issue which is a speaking order supported with the decisions relied upon by him. The same is upheld. Ground No. 2 is accordingly rejected. 10. In result, appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 8th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 830 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... all the five years are hereby deleted.’’ 8.5 We have heard both the parties. The assessee applied for construction of hotel over the land which was allotted to him for the purpose of constructing a cinema or hotel or petrol pump. The Urban Improvement Trust vide its order dated 11-09-2008 turned down the assessee's application on the ground that said land is reserved for the purpose of park and open space. Subsequently in 2003, Urban Improvement Trust developed a park and installed the statute of late Shri Rajeev Gandhi. If in the Master Plan the land was reserved for park then no construction could have been possible unless the use of the land as shown in the master plan is changed. Hence, it was the land at which no construction was permissible. Hence, the CWT(A) was justified in holding that such land is not includible in the Wealth Tax Act. 9. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16-11-2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 829 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ome-tax Act, 1961, wherein the definition of deemed dividend is applicable to loan or advance given to a registered and a beneficial shareholder, the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Sanwarmal (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of assessee’s case.” 7. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we hold that for bringing an assessee within the purview of Section 2(22)(e), both the conditions regarding assessee being registered as well as beneficial shareholder of the lender company are required to be established. In case any of the conditions is not satisfied then deeming provisions contained u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be attracted. Since in the present case, the assessee is neither a registered nor a beneficial shareholder of the lender company, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and confirm the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed.
........
|
