|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1037 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1508 - SC ORDER
Refund claim - deemed exports/physical exports - Held that:- There is no merit in the petition - the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1507 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t that the assessee/partner is not allowed to claim any conveyance expenditure from the firm as provided in the partnership deed (please refer to statement of facts filed before the CIT(A). We find that the issue is also covered in favour of the aesessee by the decision of “E” Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Bharat S Raut in ITA No.9212/Mum/2004 and CO No. 212/Mum/2005 vide order dated 25th June, 2008. Thus, respectfully following the precedent, we delete the disallowance.” Respectfully following the aforesaid order and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue at the time of hearing before us, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and delete the disallowance of ₹ 1,66,658/- as made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. The order is announced in the open court on 7.1.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1506 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... CC costs and fee of the arbitrator had to be deposited in advance, the judgment debtor cannot raise a grievance that merely because the judgment debtor could not afford to make payment thereof, its counter claim ought not to have been left unconsidered. 48. Consequently, I dismiss E.A. No.704/2009 filed by the judgment debtor, and hold that the foreign award in question is enforceable under Chapter I Part II of the Act, and the award is deemed to be decree of this Court. E.A. NO.77/2010 This application has been moved by the decree holder to require the judgment debtor to deposit the awarded amount in this Court pending the hearing of the application preferred by the judgment debtor under section 48 of the Act. No specific orders were passed in this application and the same remained pending. Now that the objections of the judgment debtor under section 48 of the Act (E.A. No.704/2009) have been dismissed, this application has become infructuous. The same is dismissed as such.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1505 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, the findings are based on evidence collected after following due procedure. It was noted that the responses from Chinese exporters were deficient, which required further investigation. The designated authority made a comparison between the export price at normal value and also noticed that imports from China were increasing, resulting in retarding of domestic industry. In view of the said findings, the impugned notification levying anti-dumping duty, cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary so as to call for interference by this Court, at this stage, ignoring the alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are only to consider whether alternative remedy should be treated as a bar to interfere at this stage and will not be treated as expression of final opinion on merits. This order will not affect the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1504 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1503 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... oduction of bills to the extent the expenditure was disallowed by him. As pointed out by the ld. C.I.T.(A), the assessee furnished details of fuel charges and repairs & maintenance along with bills and vouchers during course of assessment proceedings. Copies of these details filed along with the letters addressed to the A.O. were also produced before us and placed at pages 7 to 12 of the paper book. In view of the above and also the fact that the A.O. has failed to indicate the specific defect/omission in furnishing supporting bills/vouchers, the ld. C.I.T.(A) was justified in deleting the additions of ₹ 1,92,900/- and ₹ 15,780/- under the heads of expenditure ‘fuel charges’ and ‘repairs & maintenance’ respectively. We, therefore, uphold his order on this issue and the grounds of appeal of the department are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. This order is pronounced in open Court on 07.01.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1502 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... whether the association as exists for profit or not. All these need to be enquired into by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The CIT shall also look into the question whether it is a case of fresh registration being not granted by him, or the cancellation of registration already granted earlier u/s 12A of the Act. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of the CIT for his fresh adjudication after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to make such submissions and contentions before the CIT as he thinks fit and proper in support of his case, and shall be at liberty to produce or furnish any other evidence or materials necessary for deciding the assessee’s claim for registration. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated to be allowed for statistical purposes. 7. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court immediately after the hearing was over on 17.01.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1501 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 43B - ''incentive'' sales tax remission - nature of receipt - the assessee claimed that the incentive in the form of sales tax remission as enjoyed by it under the West Bengal Incentive Scheme, 1999 was a capital receipt, not chargeable to Income Tax. the AO treated the said amount as revenue receipt only. He also stated that even otherwise the sales tax collected by the assesee has not been paid within the due date of filing of return and hence as per the provision of section 43B the amount needs to be added back to the income for the year. Hence, he dismissed the assessee’s contention and the amount of the deferred sales tax being the assistance received was added back to the income of the assessee. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assistance given by way of sales tax remission is in the nature of capital receipt and accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. Aggrieved by the said order, now the revenue is in appeals.
HELD THAT:- I am of the opinion that the assistance given by way of sales tax remission is in the nature of capital receipt. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to delete the addition. In this view of the matter and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the revenue at the time of hearing before us, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Therefore, the appeals of revenue for all the years are dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1499 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... r additional claim for deduction under section 80 HHE then requirement of law should be considered as satisfied as it is only a technical breach. Even if the matter is restored to the AO on this ground, the claim have to be again allowed as the report would be available before him in the set aside proceedings. We accordingly do not consider it necessary to set aside the issue as suggested by the ld. DR, as in our view it will only be academic and a ritualistic exercise. We accordingly allow the claim of the assessee. As a result, this ground of assessee is also allowed. 15. The next issue is regarding charging of interest under section 234B and under section 234D. In our considered view it is consequential in nature therefore, do not require any specific adjudication, even otherwise no specific arguments have been raised by the assessee. This ground is accordingly rejected. 16. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 21.1.11.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1498 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is no attempt to evade tax. In the instant case, M/s VOPL have filed return for the AY 2006-07 on 7.12.2006 reflecting income of ₹ 2,37,740/-. Thus, it appears that no tax evasion attempt can be spelt out. In view the foregoing, especially when there is no material on record in support of fair market value of the job work for the product, we have no hesitation in vacating the findings of the ld. CIT(A), there being no cogent material on record to invoke provisions of sec. 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, ground no. 4 in this appeal is allowed.. 14. Ground no. 1 being general in nature nor any submissions having been made by the ld. AR, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of the residuary ground, these grounds are dismissed. 15. No other plea or argument was made before us. 16. In the result, appeal is allowed, but partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 31 -01-2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1497 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... prises and Engineers (P) Ltd. were different from the facts of the assessee’s case. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the T R F Ltd. (supra) has held that for allowing the claim of bad debt to the assessee after the amendment made in the Act with effect from 1st April, 1989 in section 36(1)(vii) only write off of debt in the books of account by the assessee was sufficient and the assessee need not to prove that the debt has actually become bad. Further, it is not in dispute that the debt in question have been written off by the assessee in its books of account. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T R F Ltd. (supra), we confirm the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 38 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 21st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1496 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ases would, therefore, suggest that the products in question were found to be and rightly held to be covered under Chapter 30 and not Chapter 33. We must immediately point out that the expert opinion was pressed into service before the Tribunal of Dr. V.N. Pandey who had in detail analysed all these products and noted that the products contained the elements having ayurvedic medicinal value. It was also noted rightly by the Tribunal that all these products were produced under the drugs licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.” 7. Products in question have been held to be “Ayurvedic medicines” covered under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not the “cosmetics and toilet preparations” as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, whole substratum of the complaint goes. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the ACMM. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1495 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance of interest Rs.,6,92,79,428/relating to the funds lent as interest free loans to sister concerns, as not tenable ?" 2. As regards the third question is concerned, the Tribunal in para18 and 19 of its judgment has given cogent reasons as to why the disallowance of interest cannot be sustained. No fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the third question cannot be said to be substantial question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal. 3. The Appeal is admit on first two questions.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1494 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... du, reported in 2010 U.P.T.C. 1309. I find substance in the argument of learned Standing Counsel. In the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that where the supply is FOR destination under the contract the ownership of the goods remained with the supplier till they are delivered at the destination station, the amount of freight and insurance charges incurred by the dealer form part of the sale price. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Let the Tribunal may decide the appeal afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra). The revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 23rd July, 2003 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (Supra).
-
2011 (1) TMI 1493 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... appellant i.e M/s. Bon Limited had already merged with M/s. HUL and therefore the appellant was not in existence on the date of filing the appeal. The appeal filed by a non existent person cannot be admitted and the same is therefore dismissed as non maintainable. The party affected will however at liberty to file fresh appeal if permitted by law. 2. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. 3. The order was pronounced in open court on 19.01.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1492 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lying the provisions of Sec.23(1)(a) of the Act. Since the rent received by the Assessee was more than the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the actual rent received should be the annual value of the property u/s.23(1)(b) of the Act. Notional interest on interest free security deposit/rent received in advance should not be added to the same in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K.Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra). We hold accordingly. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. We see no reason to take any other view of the matter than the view taken by the Tribunal in the above case, as also in assessee’s own case for assessment year 1999- 2000.. Since the CIT (A) has followed the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we approve the order of the CIT (A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 7th January, 2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1491 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ent received in advance should not be added to the same in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.K.Investors (Bombay) Ltd. (supra). We hold accordingly. The appeal of the revenue is dismissed.” 6. In the light of the aforesaid decision, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining the annual value under section 23(1)(a) by ignoring the Municipal valuation/ratable value adopted by the Municipal Authorities. Since, the actual rent paid by the Assessee was much more than the Municipal Valuation, the annual value had to be determined on the basis of the provisions of Sec.23(1)(b) of the Act. The claim of the assessee on the basis of the provisions of section 23(1)(b) had to be accepted. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the revenue. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 21st day of Jan.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1490 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . Thus, even if the statements of the creditor are ignored, significant fact of non-payment and absence of dispute lead to a justifiable conclusion that no payment was due as no sale was made by M/s Unifoil Enterprises to the assessee. In any case, the ld. counsel does not want us to remand the case for further enquiry. The facts on record, when seen in totality, go against the case of the assessee. Therefore, we agree with the ld. CIT(A) when he held that no purchase was made from the aforesaid creditor. This automatically leads to a conclusion that either the purchase was made from some other party in cash or the sale amount was inflated. Thus, the amount received by way of foreign exchange was not in respect of sale of goods. Accordingly, it is held that the AO was right in making addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs u/s 69 and denying enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. 6 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 14 January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1489 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Recovery of amount jointly and severely on various assessees/appellants - Held that:- Tribunal in number of precedent decisions, has held that such confirmation of demand jointly and severely on various assessees/appellants, is not in accordance with law. In all such earlier matters, appeals stand remanded with direction to original adjudicating authority to decide the liability of each individual separately.
Matter remanded to Commissioner for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1488 - SUPREME COURT
Rules of guidance for Offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - General directions have been issued to all the criminal courts, which are called upon to hold trials, particularly in cases involving an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - discretion on the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance before the Magistrate/ the Trial Court, - complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
HELD THAT:- Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure confers a discretion on the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance till such time his appearance is considered by the court to be not necessary during the trial. It is manifest from a plain reading of the provision that while considering an application under Section 205 of the Code, the Magistrate has to bear in mind the nature of the case as also the conduct of the person summoned. He shall examine whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence - Therefore, the satisfaction whether or not an accused deserves to be exempted from personal attendance has to be of the Magistrate, who is the master of the court in so far as the progress of the trial is concerned and none else.
Order of the Magistrate should be such which does not result in unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant. The Court must ensure that the exemption from personal appearance granted to an accused is not abused to delay the trial.
In Manoj Narain Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal & Ors. [2009 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT], this Court, while observing that the High Court cannot lay down directions for the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 205 of the Code, had held that similarly, the High Court should not have, for all intent and purport, issued the direction for grant of exemption from personal appearance. Such a matter undoubtedly shall be left for the consideration before the learned Magistrate. We are sure that the Magistrate would exercise his jurisdiction in a fair and judicious manner.
It is equally trite that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and in rare cases to correct patent illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice - Similarly, while it is true that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. In any event, the power of superintendence cannot be exercised to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner.
Thus, in the instant case, there are no hesitation in holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution by laying down the afore-extracted general directions, which are inconsistent with the clear language of Sections 205 and 313 of the Code. In light of the afore-noted guidelines laid down by this Court, further directions on the same issue by the High Court were wholly uncalled for.
The impugned order containing general directions to the lower courts is set aside - Appeal allowed.
........
|
