Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 141 to 160 of 934 Records

• 2013 (2) TMI 803
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this case include the justification of the Tribunal in remanding the case for de novo adjudication, compliance with Rule 7(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, differentiation between "supplier" and merchant/traders, permissibility of proceedings for denial of Cenvat credit, treatment of the appellant in comparison to registered persons falling under different rules, applicability of the principle laid down in a previous case, application of the extended period of limitation, and interpretation of Rule 7(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules.
  
  Issue 1: Tribunal's decision to remand the case for de novo adjudication
  The appellant questioned the Tribunal's justification in remanding the case to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, with conclusive findings on the issues involved. The Division Bench found that the documents and invoices issued by the registered licensee were genuine, and there were no fraud allegations against the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal's remand was deemed unnecessary as the claim was time-barred.
  
  Issue 2: Compliance with Rule 7(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules
  The appellant contended that they had complied with the provisions prescribed under Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, by filing statutory monthly returns and Cenvat abstracts. The show cause notice alleged that the appellant had wrongly taken credit on endorsed invoices from non-existent manufacturers. However, the appellant argued that they had received grey fabrics under suppliers' challans along with endorsed invoices, with feasible details of the suppliers discernible.
  
  Issue 3: Differentiation between "supplier" and merchant/traders
  The Tribunal differentiated between the terms "supplier" and merchant/traders concerning Rule 7(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The appellant questioned this differentiation based on the clear provision contained in the rule, arguing that the names and addresses of the supplied traders/merchants were properly identified and goods were procured under proper endorsement on the invoices.
  
  Issue 4: Permissibility of proceedings for denial of Cenvat credit
  The Tribunal's decision to initiate proceedings against the appellant for denial of Cenvat credit was challenged. The appellant questioned whether such proceedings were permissible in the circumstances of the case and whether they were not barred by limitation as prescribed under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  
  Issue 5: Treatment of the appellant in comparison to registered persons under different rules
  The Tribunal's order, treating the appellant at par with registered persons falling under a different rule, was contested. The appellant argued that they were registered under a specific rule much prior to the introduction of a new textile scheme, and therefore, should not be equated with those under a different rule.
  
  Issue 6: Application of the principle from a previous case
  The Tribunal's reliance on the principle laid down in a previous case was questioned by the appellant. They argued that the facts and circumstances of the present case were different from the case referred to, and therefore, the principle should not have been applied without considering the distinctions.
  
  Issue 7: Application of the extended period of limitation
  The Tribunal's application of the extended period of limitation was challenged by the appellant. They questioned whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the ratio laid down in a specific case, ignoring a more recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court produced during the hearing before the Tribunal.
  
  Issue 8: Interpretation of Rule 7(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules
  The appellant contested the Tribunal's interpretation of Rule 7(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, particularly regarding whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps within the meaning of the explanation to the rule. They argued for a different interpretation based on their compliance with the provisions.
  
  This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the arguments and decisions made regarding each issue.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 802
  

  Service of notice - Held that: - in spite of the best efforts, the respondent could not be served. The respondent is not available at the address mentioned in the writ petition and in the contempt petition filed by the respondent - The appellants will take appropriate action for service to the respondent - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 801
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of compliance with court orders, interim stay of execution.
  
  Interpretation of compliance with court orders:
  The Division Bench of the Court passed an interim order staying the execution and implementation of the impugned judgment. The petitioner's counsel argued that the matter pertained to wrong compliance of the order, not non-compliance. The petitioner requested clarity from the respondents regarding their intention to comply properly with the order. The petitioner contended that the earlier claimed compliance was not legal or justified. The Court noted the interim order by the Division Bench and stated that there was no need for further action by the Court at that stage. The petitioner was advised to raise any concerns before the Division Bench.
  
  Interim stay of execution:
  The Division Bench's interim order stayed the execution and implementation of the impugned judgment. The Court decided to list the present petition under the same heading after the disposal of the mentioned LPA or the vacation of the interim order, whichever occurred first.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 800
  

  Disallowance of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Held that:- Assessing Officer was not justified in observing that the assessee is not eligible for deduction since commencement certificate and completion certificate are not in the name of the assessee.

  Construction of even one building with several residential units of the size not exceeding 1000 square feet ('E' building in the present case) would constitute a 'housing project' under Section 80IB(10) of the Act.

  Gram panchayat Keshav Nagar, Mundhwa, Pune, is local authority for the purpose of issuing completion certificate for claiming deduction u/s.80IB(10) in respect of profit from sale of eligible flats in project in question. Assessee fulfilled all conditions laid down for claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10)

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 799
  
  Issues involved: Abuse of process of law in availing interim relief without cooperating for final disposal of appeal.
  
  The judgment discusses the appellant's failure to provide updates on the status of the case before higher courts despite benefiting from a stay order since 2009. The Tribunal notes that the appellant's conduct amounts to an abuse of the legal process, causing prejudice to the Revenue. As a result, the Tribunal decides to vacate the stay order to enable the Revenue to recover its dues. A notice is issued to the appellant to justify their actions, with a hearing scheduled for April 11, 2013.
  
  The Tribunal emphasizes that the appellant's behavior of not actively participating in the legal proceedings while enjoying the benefits of the stay order is unfair and detrimental to the Revenue's interests. By vacating the stay order, the Tribunal aims to ensure that the Revenue can pursue the recovery of the outstanding dues in accordance with the law. The appellant is given an opportunity to explain their actions before the Tribunal on a specified date.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 798
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against the judgment and order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding substantial questions of law.
  
  Issue (i): The decision of the ITAT on the addition of Rs. 23,58,118 back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
  
  The ITAT's decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the issue without pointing out any specific deficiency was challenged. The ITAT's direction to add peak debit balance and allow netting was also questioned. The High Court noted that the Tribunal remanded two issues for fresh consideration, granting a second inning to the assessee on the first issue with significant revenue implications. The Court found that the Tribunal provided proper reasons for remanding the matter, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.
  
  Issue (ii): The addition of Rs. 3,29,264 made in respect of unaccounted investment in gold.
  
  The ITAT's decision to restore the issue to the AO was challenged based on the lack of evidence supporting the assessee's contention during the search. The High Court observed that the ITAT acknowledged the absence of evidence and statements from lady members regarding the ornaments at the business premises. Ultimately, the Court found that the Tribunal's decision to remand the issue did not give rise to any question of law, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.
  
  Issue (iii): The addition made on account of bank deposits and the benefit of telescoping in recurring deposit accounts.
  
  The ITAT's direction to give the benefit of telescoping in respect of recurring deposit accounts and restore the issue of Rs. 2,39,028 made on bank deposits to the AO was questioned. The High Court noted that the Tribunal remanded two issues for fresh consideration, including this one. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was supported by proper reasons, leading to the dismissal of the Tax Appeal.
  

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 797
  
  The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the taxation of UPS and CVT as essential parts of a computer at a rate of 4%. The court held that UPS and CVT are indeed essential parts of a computer as they are necessary for its functioning. The petition was dismissed as no legal issue arose for consideration.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 796
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 r.w.s 147.
  2. Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3).
  3. Application of net profit rate.
  4. Separate disallowance u/s 40a(ia) after rejection of books.
  5. Treatment of bank interest income.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 r.w.s 147:
  The assessee contended that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were invalid as they were based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The CIT(A) agreed, noting the reassessment was initiated due to an audit para and lacked new facts or information. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society Vs. CIT, which held that an audit party's opinion on a point of law could not justify reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the reassessment was declared null and void, and the department's appeal was dismissed.
  
  2. Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3):
  The A.O. rejected the assessee's books of account citing various discrepancies such as non-maintenance of stock registers, improper vouchers, and self-prepared vouchers. The CIT(A) upheld the rejection, agreeing with the A.O.'s observations. The Tribunal concurred, noting the significant defects in the books of account justified their rejection.
  
  3. Application of net profit rate:
  The A.O. applied a net profit rate of 12.5% based on a comparable case (Jain Construction Co.). However, the CIT(A) directed the A.O. to apply a net profit rate of 8.35%, considering the past history of the assessee's case, where the declared profit rate was better than the preceding year. The Tribunal modified the CIT(A)'s order to accept the profit rate declared by the assessee subject to depreciation, interest, and salary to partners, including interest to third parties.
  
  4. Separate disallowance u/s 40a(ia) after rejection of books:
  The A.O. disallowed Rs. 13,85,860/- u/s 40a(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on job work payments. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, citing the ITAT Jodhpur Bench's decision in Goyal Bricks Industries, which held that once books are rejected and profit is estimated, no separate disallowance u/s 40a(ia) is justified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the department's appeal.
  
  5. Treatment of bank interest income:
  The A.O. treated bank interest income of Rs. 11,25,370/- as income from other sources. The CIT(A) reversed this, considering the interest and commission income directly linked to the business operations. The Tribunal found the facts unclear and remanded the issue back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objection and partly allowed the appeal, while the department's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 795
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to refusal of refund u/s Prohibition & Excise Superintendent's order, under-valuation of assessable value, legality of refund rejection, availability of alternative remedy, entitlement to interest on refund.
  
  Refusal of Refund Order: The petitioners challenged an order refusing refund of a sum of Rs. 2,48,612/= by the Prohibition & Excise Superintendent. The petitioners held necessary license for storing alcohol and manufacturing products under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955. Various authorities confirmed a duty demand against the petitioners, which was later quashed by the revisional authority. Despite this, the Superintendent refused the refund, citing under-valuation of goods due to exclusion of labor and overhead charges in the valuation of preparations.
  
  Legality of Refund Rejection: The High Court found the Superintendent's refusal to grant the refund as illegal. The Court emphasized that once a higher authority had quashed the duty demand, the refund was rightfully due to the petitioners. The Court noted that the Superintendent's grounds for rejection were already decided in favor of the petitioners by the revisional authority, and it was impermissible for the Superintendent to ignore the binding order and raise the same issues again. The Court held that the Superintendent's actions were against legal principles of finality of decisions and ordered the refund to be released with interest.
  
  Availability of Alternative Remedy: The Court dismissed the argument of the respondents regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, stating that the illegal nature of the Superintendent's order warranted intervention through writ jurisdiction. The Court deemed the Superintendent's order as completely illegal and against legal norms, justifying the Court's interference in the matter to ensure justice for the petitioners.
  
  Entitlement to Interest on Refund: The Court directed the respondents to release the refund to the petitioners with simple interest at 9% per annum, starting three months from the date of the refund application. The Court emphasized the duty of the Superintendent to release the refund within a reasonable period and criticized the prolongation of litigation due to frivolous grounds. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the petition and allowed for an inquiry into the conduct of the Superintendent for potential recovery of interest and costs if found responsible for causing damage to the Government.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 794
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of the entertainment tax demand.
  2. Authority of the Prescribed Officer to recall his own order.
  3. Requirement of administrative approval for tax assessment orders.
  4. Proper procedure for reassessment and revision under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Legality of the Entertainment Tax Demand:
  The petitioner challenged the communication dated 22.07.2010 demanding entertainment tax at the rate of Rs. 44,925/- per week for the period between 01.04.2005 and 30.09.2005. The petitioner contended that the tax rate was wrongly applied and the sudden increase from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 44,925/- per week was without any basis. The High Court had earlier partially allowed the petition, directing the Competent Authority to provide a detailed calculation of the tax amount.
  
  2. Authority of the Prescribed Officer to Recall His Own Order:
  The Prescribed Officer initially assessed the tax at a lower rate ranging between Rs. 11,156/- to Rs. 14,617/- per week, which was acceptable to the petitioner. However, the Officer later unilaterally recalled this order without notice, hearing, or reasons, and reinstated the higher tax rate of Rs. 44,925/- per week. The Court found this procedure completely impermissible in law, as the Prescribed Officer lacked the authority to recall his own quasi-judicial order.
  
  3. Requirement of Administrative Approval for Tax Assessment Orders:
  The Court observed that the Prescribed Officer's order of assessment was tampered with by higher authorities by refusing to grant administrative approval, which had no source or authority in law. The Court emphasized that once the tax assessment is completed by the Prescribed Officer, it cannot be varied merely on the ground of lack of administrative approval. The law does not recognize any such requirement for administrative approval of quasi-judicial orders.
  
  4. Proper Procedure for Reassessment and Revision under the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act:
  The Court highlighted that the Gujarat Entertainment Tax Act provides detailed provisions for assessment, reassessment, appeal, and revision of entertainment tax. The Prescribed Officer's order could be subject to appeal or revision, but not to administrative approval. The respondents' belief that reassessment was permissible under Section 9 of the Act was incorrect, as no valid reassessment proceedings were instituted. The proper legal recourse was not followed, making the higher tax demand invalid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court quashed the impugned order dated 22.07.2010, ruling that the orders under challenge suffered from serious illegality. The demand for higher tax was quashed on the ground that the Prescribed Officer's order was not legally disturbed, without commenting on the merits of the assessment itself. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 793
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of notification regarding exemption for goods supplied to United Nations or International Organisation.
  
  Summary:
  The appellant-assessee challenged the order of the Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of notifications providing exemption for goods supplied to United Nations or International Organisation. The appellant failed to produce the required certificate from the United Nations or an International Organisation as mandated by the notifications. The assessing authority disallowed the exemption claimed by the appellant for non-production of the certificate. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant is entitled to exemption as no evidence was presented by the revenue to rebut the claim. On further appeal, the Tax Appellate Tribunal emphasized the condition precedent for the assessee to produce the certificate before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, as it serves as documentary evidence supporting the exemption claim. The Tribunal concluded that the requirement of the certificate was essential for seeking exemption under the notifications. The appellant argued that even a photocopy of the certificate should suffice as evidence for claiming exemption. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the notifications must be read as a whole, and the requirement of the certificate for exemption is clear. The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the decision of the Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of complying with the certificate requirement for seeking exemption under the relevant notifications.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 792
  

  Application for bail - Held that:- Considering the magnitude of the offence and the fact that in the past applicant had not cared to respondent to the summonses of the department, the possibility of the applicant not being available for investigation or trial cannot be entirely ruled out. This is more so because of magnitude of the crime. He was arrested, does not show that he would not abscond in future. Expecting that the authorities dealing with this investigation may complete the investigation fast and put the applicant to a quick trial without clubbing all the cases together bearing in mind the limitation in the Code of Criminal Procedure about joinder of trials, the applicant’s application for bail is rejected.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 791
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment deals with the denial of long term capital gains (LTCG) and short term capital gains (STCG) by treating them as business income instead of income from capital gains and taxing them at normal rates of tax.
  
  LTCG and STCG Treatment:
  The assessee, a lady with income from various sources, declared LTCG of Rs. 4,93,365 and STCG of Rs. 9,27,202 on sale of shares. The assessing officer (AO) denied LTCG and STCG, treating them as an eyewash for tax reduction. The denial of LTCG led to exemption under section 10(38) also being denied. The AO considered the capital gains as business income and taxed them at normal rates.
  
  Consistent System of Maintenance:
  The assessee's representative argued that the assessee maintained a consistent system of books over the years, distinguishing between shares held as investments and those held for trading. Citing a relevant case, the representative contended that the assessee's conduct was similar to her husband's, whose pattern was accepted by the AO previously. The AR highlighted that the Tribunal had recognized the distinction between investment and business transactions, emphasizing the need for uniform treatment when circumstances are identical.
  
  Arguments and Decision:
  The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the revenue authority's decisions, emphasizing the turnover and loan amount as indicators of trading activity. However, the AR clarified that loans were taken from family members and had been returned. After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, noting the consistent approach taken by the assessee and the failure of the department to disprove the same. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, directing the AO to delete the addition made and accept the assessee's contentions.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, overturning the decision to treat LTCG and STCG as business income and taxing them at normal rates. The judgment was pronounced on 27th February 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 790
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition of Rs. 3,26,000/- u/s 68.
  2. Addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s 68.
  3. Addition of Rs. 5,26,000/- u/s 68.
  4. Double taxation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
  5. Addition of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 68.
  6. Addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- u/s 68.
  7. Addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 68.
  8. Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 68.
  9. Double taxation and doctrine of promissory estoppel.
  10. Double additions across assessment years.
  11. Charging of interest u/s 234B.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 3,26,000/- u/s 68
  The assessee contended that the cash creditor, Sh. Gurcharan Singh, had explained the source of the advance as his past savings and contributions from his sons. However, the cash creditor failed to provide evidence of these savings or contributions. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting the lack of evidence to prove the creditworthiness of the cash creditor.
  
  Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- u/s 68
  The cash creditor, Sh. Harjeet Singh, denied giving any advance to the assessee. The assessee argued that the amount was forfeited in a later year to avoid double taxation. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, confirming the addition for the impugned year and directing the AO to ensure no double taxation in subsequent years.
  
  Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 5,26,000/- u/s 68
  The cash creditor, Smt. Gurdarshan Kaur, could not be traced, and no explanation was provided by the assessee. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, noting the absence of any evidence or explanation for the cash credit.
  
  Issue 4: Double taxation of Rs. 1,00,000/-
  The assessee argued that Rs. 1,00,000/- was brought forward from an earlier year. However, no supporting documents were provided. The Tribunal upheld the addition, citing the lack of evidence.
  
  Issue 5: Addition of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 68
  The assessee admitted that Rs. 30,000/- was forfeited from an advance given by Sh. Jatinder Pal Singh. The Tribunal confirmed the addition due to the lack of evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction.
  
  Issue 6: Addition of Rs. 7,00,000/- u/s 68
  The assessee claimed that Rs. 7,00,000/- was forfeited from an advance given by Sh. Jasbir Singh and included in a later year's income. The Tribunal upheld the addition, noting the absence of any explanation or evidence for the cash credit.
  
  Issue 7: Addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- u/s 68
  The assessee stated that Rs. 3,00,000/- was forfeited from an advance given by Smt. Ritu. The Tribunal confirmed the addition, citing the lack of evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction.
  
  Issue 8: Addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 68
  The assessee admitted that Rs. 2,00,000/- was forfeited from an advance given by Sh. Parshotam Lal. The Tribunal upheld the addition due to the lack of evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction.
  
  Issue 9: Double taxation and doctrine of promissory estoppel
  The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument regarding double taxation and the doctrine of promissory estoppel, confirming the additions made in the impugned year.
  
  Issue 10: Double additions across assessment years
  The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's argument of double additions, confirming the additions made in the impugned year.
  
  Issue 11: Charging of interest u/s 234B
  The Tribunal noted that charging of interest u/s 234B is mandatory and consequential, requiring no separate adjudication.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal of the assessee was dismissed in its entirety, with all grounds of appeal being rejected. The Tribunal confirmed the additions made by the AO and the CIT(A) and upheld the charging of interest u/s 234B.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 789
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves various issues including disallowances under Rule 6B, treatment of canteen supplies and provisions, excise duty on finished goods, share dilution expenses, expenditure on consumable items, adjustments to profits for Modvat credit, interest on DPEA liability, capital gain computation, slump sale treatment, deduction u/s. 80M, payment to sports club, premium on debentures, and taxability of non-complete fees.
  
  Disallowances under Rule 6B:
  The Tribunal justified in not sustaining the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under Rule 6B in respect of gift articles. The Tribunal's decision was based on previous orders and was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Treatment of Canteen Supplies and Provisions:
  The Tribunal directed to allow the expenditure on canteen supplies and provisions for visitors in the guest house as regular business expenditure, contrary to the provisions of Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on previous orders and was accepted by the Revenue, resulting in the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Excise Duty on Finished Goods:
  The Tribunal deleted the addition of a specific amount in respect of excise duty paid on finished goods lying in the closing stock. This decision was in line with previous orders and was accepted by the Revenue, leading to the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Share Dilution Expenses:
  The Tribunal held that share dilution expenses incurred for rising capital for the purchase of Plant & Machinery should be capitalized, allowing depreciation on the same. This decision was based on previous orders and was accepted, resulting in the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Expenditure on Consumable Items:
  The Tribunal held that the entire expenditure incurred on the purchase of consumable items like Diesel, Oil, and Coal should be allowed as business expenditure, even if not all purchases were consumed during the relevant previous year. This decision was based on previous orders and was accepted, leading to the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Adjustments to Profits for Modvat Credit:
  The Tribunal directed to effect adjustments to profits in respect of unutilized Modvat credit and disallowances for computing the total income for deduction u/s. 80I 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. This decision was based on previous orders and was accepted, resulting in the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Interest on DPEA Liability:
  The Tribunal held that interest on DPEA liability should be allowed as expenditure on a year-to-year basis, despite being contingent in nature. This decision was based on previous court orders, leading to the dismissal of the issue.
  
  Capital Gain Computation and Slump Sale Treatment:
  The Tribunal concluded that the sale of the Family Production Division was a slump sale, as no evidence was presented to show valuation on an asset-to-asset basis. This decision was based on the absence of capital gain before the introduction of section 50B of the Income Tax Act, leading to the dismissal of the related questions.
  
  Deduction u/s. 80M and Payment to Sports Club:
  The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deduction u/s. 80M on dividend income and the payment made to Glaxo Sports Club, respectively. These decisions were based on previous orders and court decisions, leading to the dismissal of the related questions.
  
  Premium on Debentures and Taxability of Non-Complete Fees:
  The Tribunal allowed the premium payable on the redemption of Debentures as a revenue expenditure on a year-to-year basis. Additionally, the Tribunal held that the amount received as non-complete fees was neither taxable as capital nor as revenue receipt. These decisions were based on previous orders and court decisions, leading to the dismissal of the related questions.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the Tribunal's decisions based on previous orders and court rulings were upheld and accepted by the Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 788
  

  Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the RST Act - Form-18A - Held that: - all documents were found in order and the penalty was wrongfully imposed on the respondent-assessee (transporter) when he was simply carrying the goods - further, no independent verification or enquiry was got conducted either from the consignor or the consignee and the imposition of penalty on the transporter is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice - the penalty has been rightly deleted - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner-Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 787
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Method of accounting.
  2. Treating Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as interest income.
  3. Non-allowing the claim u/s 54EC on LTCG.
  4. Treating LTCG on sale of DDBs as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG).
  5. Addition of accrued interest on DDBs.
  6. Addition of accrued interest on OFCPNs.
  7. Status of assessee as 'Trust' vs. 'Individual'.
  8. Disallowance of expenses u/s 14A.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Method of Accounting:
  The AO observed that the assessee was following a cash system of accounting but treated it as mercantile based on a block assessment order. The CIT (A) upheld the AO's decision. The Tribunal, however, decided in favor of the assessee, conforming to an earlier Tribunal decision in a similar case, allowing the assessee to adopt the cash method of accounting.
  
  2. Treating LTCG as Interest Income:
  The AO treated LTCG of Rs. 1.19 crores on the repurchase of 700 DDBs as interest income, supported by a CBDT Circular. The CIT (A) upheld this view. The Tribunal, referring to earlier decisions, concluded that the gains should be treated as LTCG and not interest income, thus deciding in favor of the assessee.
  
  3. Non-Allowing the Claim u/s 54EC on LTCG:
  The AO disallowed the claim of Rs. 1.19 crores u/s 54EC on the LTCG, treating the gain as interest income. The CIT (A) upheld this decision. The Tribunal reversed this, allowing the assessee's claim u/s 54EC, treating the gains as LTCG.
  
  4. Treating LTCG on Sale of DDBs as STCG:
  The AO treated LTCG of Rs. 3,01,35,849/- on the sale of 1391 DDBs as STCG, disallowing the claim u/s 54EC. The CIT (A) upheld this view. The Tribunal, following earlier decisions, directed the AO to treat the income as LTCG and allow the claim u/s 54EC.
  
  5. Addition of Accrued Interest on DDBs:
  The AO added Rs. 48,83,858/- as accrued interest on 1250 DDBs Series-B, applying a CBDT Circular retrospectively. The CIT (A) upheld the addition. The Tribunal, consistent with its earlier ruling, decided in favor of the assessee, deleting the addition.
  
  6. Addition of Accrued Interest on OFCPNs:
  The AO added Rs. 1,13,123/- as accrued interest on OFCPNs, applying the CBDT Circular. The CIT (A) upheld this addition. The Tribunal, referring to an earlier decision, ruled that the interest cannot be assessed on an accrual basis for an assessee following the cash system of accounting, thus deleting the addition.
  
  7. Status of Assessee as 'Trust' vs. 'Individual':
  The AO adopted the status of the assessee as 'Trust' instead of 'Individual.' The CIT (A) upheld this without providing reasons. The Tribunal, citing jurisdictional High Court rulings, decided that the status should be 'Individual.'
  
  8. Disallowance of Expenses u/s 14A:
  The AO disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 20.72 lakhs and service charges of Rs. 3.15 lakhs u/s 14A, considering them related to exempt income. The CIT (A) upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal, following judicial precedents, ruled that such expenses are allowable if incurred for maintaining the establishment, thus deciding in favor of the assessee.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal's consolidated order largely favored the assessees, allowing the adoption of the cash method of accounting, treating gains as LTCG, allowing claims u/s 54EC, and deleting additions of accrued interest, while also clarifying the status of the assessee and allowing certain expenses.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 786
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA granted waiver of predeposit of service tax of Rs. 44,919 and penalty. The applicant had already paid Rs. 7244 and Rs. 5757, which were appropriated by the adjudicating authority. The remaining dues were waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal. Stay petition was allowed.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 784
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deduction u/s 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Validity of CIT-II, Jodhpur's order u/s 263 of the Act.
  3. Assessment and reassessment proceedings.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deduction u/s 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961

  The department contended that the CIT(A) erred in accepting the claim of deduction u/s 80IB without verifying if the preconditions were fulfilled. The A.O. disallowed the deduction citing insufficient machinery, low electricity expenses, and use of old machinery. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction, which was contested by the department. The Tribunal found that the assessee fulfilled all conditions of section 80IB(2), including not being formed by splitting or reconstruction, not using previously used machinery, manufacturing a new article, and employing the required number of workers. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that similar deductions were allowed in previous years and the department failed to show any change in circumstances.

  Issue 2: Validity of CIT-II, Jodhpur's order u/s 263 of the Act

  The CIT-II, Jodhpur, set aside the original assessment order u/s 263, stating it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue due to lack of verification by the A.O. The Tribunal observed that the CIT-II's reasons for setting aside the assessment were similar to those in a previous case (ITO, Ward, Balotra Vs. M/s P.T.M. Industries), where the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal found no merit in the department's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which had followed the Tribunal's earlier decision.

  Issue 3: Assessment and reassessment proceedings

  In the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB, reiterating the CIT-II's findings. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had accepted the purchase of raw materials and sale of finished goods, and the assessee had provided sufficient explanations for electricity and fuel expenses. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of consistency, as the deduction was allowed in previous years, and there was no change in the assessee's activities. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals for all assessment years involved.

  Conclusion:

  The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders allowing the deduction u/s 80IB, dismissed the department's appeals, and emphasized the importance of consistency in tax assessments.

  ---

• 2013 (2) TMI 783
  
  Issues Involved:
  The appeal involves the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB(10) based on the area of the plot developed for a housing project for A.Y. 2008-09.
  
  Issue 1 - Area of Plot Eligibility:
  The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) for a housing project on a plot of 4100 sq.mtrs., contending it is more than one acre. However, the AO rejected the claim based on a recorded area of 3940 sq.mtrs., deeming it less than one acre, thus denying eligibility.
  
  Issue 2 - Discrepancy in Plot Area Records:
  The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, emphasizing the government records indicating a smaller plot area. Despite the assessee's evidence of the actual plot size, the CIT(A) deemed the government records as conclusive, leading to the rejection of the claim.
  
  Judgement Summary:
  The ITAT Mumbai considered the discrepancy in plot area records and the assessee's evidence. The ITAT referred to a previous case where verification of the plot area was directed for eligibility determination. Acknowledging the importance of accurate measurements, the ITAT set aside the matter for the AO to reevaluate based on physical verification, aligning with the previous decision.
  
  Therefore, the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the significance of verifying the actual plot area for determining eligibility u/s 80IB(10) in housing projects.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 47