|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 851 Records
-
2010 (3) TMI 1183 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ision Bench clearly committed an error of law in concluding that there has been a breach of principles of promissory/ equitable estoppel. Therefore, the High Court erred in issuing the direction/writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to reabsorb the appellants in the service of TANMAG. 20. Before we part with the judgment, it would be appropriate to notice that during the hearing of these appeals, the respondents had been permitted to make the representation to the appellants for reconsideration of their request. The respondents had, therefore, submitted a representation on 15.2.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, stated that it was not possible for the appellant to accommodate the respondents, however, in case in future any vacancy arises, the request of the respondents may be considered. 21. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench under appeal is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1182 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... t after getting approval. Thereafter only the undertaking claimed exemption under section 10A of the IT Act. The claim of the assessee is supported by Board Circular No.1/2005, where it has been clearly held that undertaking set up in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), which is subsequently approved as 100 export oriented, is entitled to relief under section 10B of the IT Act provided the undertaking shall get relief only for the remaining period of ten consecutive years beginning with assessment year in which the undertaking begins to manufacture computer software as a DTA Unit." Respectfully following the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra) and the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Foresee Information Systems (P) Ltd. (Supra), we reject the grounds raised by the revenue. In the result the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1181 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e matter remand is made to the Assessing Officer following the decisions of this Bench in SRTP No. 119/2008 decided on 16.2.2010, than the issue could be reconsidered by the assessing officer and it would not be necessary to go in to the question of constitutional validity in these appeals. 5. Taking note of the submissions at the Bar and following our decision rendered in STRP No. 119/08, disposed of on 16.2.2010, these matter are remanded to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue with regard to the discount given in the instant case subsequent to the issuance of the invoice which has resulted in the lowering of the turn over. The assessee is at liberty to produce all material documents to that effect and the Assessing Officer would reconsider the entire matter in the light of provisions and the observations made in the aforesaid decision and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1180 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... records and stock in trade and after preparing an inventory of the assets as well as the stock in trade, submit his report to this Court and seek necessary directions, more particularly qua the stock in trade of the Respondent Company. The Company petition is accordingly disposed of. 16. At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent Company has submitted that the Order be stayed atleast for a period of two weeks. In view of the aforesaid conduct of the respondent Company the Respondent Company cannot be granted an unconditional stay of the order. The order is, therefore, stayed for a period of two weeks on the following conditions i. The statement made by the Respondent Company and recorded by this Court in its order dated 24th February, 2010 shall continue to be in force. ii. The Respondent Company shall not dispose of its aforestated stock in trade which is a substantial asset of the Respondent Company without obtaining prior permission from this Court.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1179 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ugh, in many cases the opinion of the expert witness may assist the Fora to decide the controversy one way or the other. 55. For the reasons discussed above, this Court holds that it is not bound by the general direction given in paragraph 106 in D’souza (supra). This Court further holds that in the facts and circumstances of the case expert evidence is not required and District Forum rightly did not ask the appellant to adduce expert evidence. Both State Commission and the National Commission fell into an error by opining to the contrary. This Court is constrained to set aside the orders passed by the State Commission and the National Commission and restores the order passed by the District Forum. The respondent no.1 is directed to pay the appellant the amount granted in his favour by the District Forum within ten weeks from date. 56. The appeal is thus allowed with costs assessed at ₹ 10,000/- to be paid by the respondent No.1 to the appellant within ten weeks.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1178 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... oss referred to in sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, in so far as such loss relates to the business of the undertaking, shall be carried forward or set off where such loss relates to any of the relevant assessment years ending before the 1st day of April, 2001 8.4 A reading of the above supports the assessee's claim that section 10A permits carry forward of loss relating to STP unit within tax holiday period. However a finding on this issue also depends upon adjudication of quantum of carry forward loss within tax holiday period and is consequential to earlier years assessment. In the interest of justice we remit this issue to the files of the AO and AO examine the same and give a finding as per law. Needless to add that the assessee should be given adequate opportunity of being heard. 9. In the result, these appeals filed by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/03/2010
-
2010 (3) TMI 1177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal which is impugned in these proceedings, is the common order for Assessment Years 199495, 199596, 199697 and 199798. The appeal by the Revenue pertains to Assessment Year 199495. During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that the appeals filed by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Years 199596, 199697 and 199798 were dismissed by the Division Bench on 27th February 2008. The same question of law was framed in this appeal. Since the appeals involving the very same question have been dismissed by the Division Bench on 27th February 2008 and there is nothing before the Court to indicate that the order of the Division Bench has been set aside by the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for this Court to take any other view, inconsistent with the view already taken. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27th February 2008, the appeal shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1176 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... when no evidence of payment, in fact, has been found even at the time of search. Under these circumstances, the statement alone cannot be made a sole basis for making addition as unaccounted investment as held by Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Shri Ramdas Motor Transport vs. CIT (2000) 163 CTR (AP) 403 (1999) 238 ITR 177(AP). It, however, remains, if the Department's case is that the promoters of the scheme can be said to have received the amount towards construction or for any reasons more than that disclosed in his accounts by the assessee a suitable action may be taken in the hands of the vendors in accordance with law. The learned CIT(A), therefore, is found justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 24,50,000 as unaccounted investment which under the present facts and circumstances of the case needs no interference. Ground in appeal raised by Revenue, therefore, stands rejected. 11. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1175 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... order of the ld. CIT(A) 41. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case. The ld. DR did not dispute the submissions of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) that the direct sale price inclusive of excise duty was ₹ 146.85 per kg as against cost price of ₹ 137.14, inclusive of excise duty leading to profit of ₹ 9.71 per kg. nor any material was placed before us, contrary to the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the ld. CIT(A). In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, ground nos. 3 & 4 in the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 42. Ground no. 11 in the appeal of the assessee, being a mere prayer while no additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no.12 , both these grounds are dismissed. 43. In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed, but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court, on this 19th day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1174 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e income from sale of investments is to be treated as Capital Gains, Long term or Short term as the case might be, and not as business income. The Assessing Officer is therefore directed to treat the income from sale of investments in the year under consideration as Capital Gains and also allow the Appellant to set off the brought forward-unabsorbed Capital losses As a result ground no.1 to 4 are allowed in favour of the Appellant.” 3. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. No material whatsoever was placed before us by the Revenue to contradict the findings of the first appellate authority. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not suffer from any infirmity since the issue was disposed of on the strength of the facts available on record and by applying the decisions of ITAT, Mumbai Benches. Under the circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 30th day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1173 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/assessee had entered into an agreement with one Mr. Lakshman to purchase the sites from out of the layout formed by Lakshman. Therefore, the short question that fall for the consideration for the Assessing Officer as the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal was whether if the assessee has agreed to purchase the sites from a vendor if any sale consideration is paid on installment basis, the assessee is required to deduct the tax at source or not. When the assessee is only a purchaser if any advance sale consideration is paid the assessee has no business to deduct the tax at source as it is for the seller of the sites to pay the capital gains depending upon the tax payable by hm. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the question of law framed in this appeal has to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1172 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of pre-deposit on the ground that the Department has classified the particular activity under the category ‘works contract service’ introduced with effect from 1-6-2007. The definition of ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’ (CICS) was not modified when this contract service was brought into the tax net and therefore, the Tribunal has granted complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the dues adjudged pending appeal. Inasmuch as in one matter the Tribunal had applied a yardstick, it cannot apply a different yardstick in another case. 3. In these circumstances, we allow the present appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 5-11-2009 as well as the order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 23-9-2009. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal will proceed without there being any pre-deposit. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1171 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ). 11. We do not see any reason to distinguish the expenditure involved in Headquarters and the expenditure involved in two units at Jamshedpur and Jammu. Since all the three expenditures incurred by the assessee being part of the same restructuring and assessee's business continued in later years with increased turnover and profit, we are of the view that on the same principles considered by the CIT(A) while allowing the Headquarters expenditure is also applicable to the other expenditure. Moreover, the facts are exactly similar to the decision considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. CIT 247 ITR 178. In view of this we are of the view that the assessee has correctly claimed the expenditure as M/s. Foseco India Limited revenue and accordingly, the same is directed to be allowed. Assessee's ground is considered allowed. 12. In the result, appeal is decided accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th March 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1170 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... itself and the assessee could have made the freight charges by means of account payee cheques, though the trucks alleged to have arrived with goods late in the evening. Had the truckers insisted for immediate cash payments like their counter-parts from other States, the assessee could have prevailed on them to accept the account payee cheques which would have been got encashed by the truckers within a couple of days from the dates of presentation before their respective banks? Since the assessee’s assertion is not above the board and the circumstantial evidence is also contrary to the assessee’s claim, the AO was justified in invoking the provisions of s.40A(3) to this extent. 10.3.4. In a nut-shell, the assessee gets relief of ₹ 14982/- and the balance of ₹ 15618/- is sustained. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 are partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1169 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssion and not under the ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer is directed to treat the interest income as ‘business income’ allow the relief accordingly.” 7. The facts in the present assessment year are identical. The revenue has accepted the order of learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 1999-2000 and other orders for A.Ys. 2000-01 to 2002-03 and has not filed any appeal before the ITAT. As held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the principle of consistency the order of learned CIT(A) has to be upheld. We are also of the view that there is a direct nexus between the deposit which yielded the interest income and the business of the assessee and therefore on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lok Holdings (supra) the order of learned CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. We therefore uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the Revenue. Order has been pronounced on 23rd Day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1168 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tered this undertaking as a 100 EOU, after due scrutiny, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the transaction. Even otherwise, ‘Human Resource Service’ is covered within the meaning of IT enabled services as per the CBDT notification 890(E) dated 26 September 2000. Therefore, in the light of the above fact I find considerable force in the appellant’s company’s claim that it is entitled to the benefit of exemption of section 10A/10B of the Act. Therefore, the first ground is allowed in favour of the appellant.” 10 In view of the above facts and circumstances and in view of the detailed reasoning given by the ld CIT(A), we confirm his order. 11 Similar facts are involved in other two appeals of the department for other years; therefore, on the same reasoning, we confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) for those years i.e. 2002-03 and 2004-05. 12 In the result, the appeals filed by the department are dismissed. Order pronounced on 8th Mar 2010
-
2010 (3) TMI 1167 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e earned from this AOP in their respective returns of income. Thus, all the primary facts were disclosed. The claim of the assessee is also bona fide as it is based on circular issued by the CBDT and the said claim of the assessee also could not be stated to be an impossible claim as the constitution of the Special Bench itself suggests that the view taken by the assessee was requiring a considerable deliberation. If the claim is supported by some material, then the claim cannot be said to be a claim which is not bona fide. Therefore, the ratio of the said decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court will also be fully applicable to the present case and it has to be held that it is not a case where levy of penalty can be held to be justified. 19. In view of aforementioned discussion, we see no justification in the order of learned CIT(A) vide which the impugned penalty has been upheld. We delete the penalty for both the years. 20. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1166 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... he whereabouts of the assessee so as to warrant service by affixture. Under order 5, r. 17 of CPC the requirement is that due diligence should be exercised by the AO to know the whereabouts of the assessee and only if the assessee could not be found, then the notice is to be served by affixture. The exercise carried out by the AO later during the course of recovery proceedings establishes the case of the assessee that reasonable diligence was not shown by the AO as the address of the assessee in Sirhind could be traced in 2006 i.e., during the course of recovery proceedings and not at the start of the proceedings. In the absence of proper enquiries being made for the service of notice under s. 158BD of the Act, upholding the alternative plea of the assessee, we confirm the order of CIT(A) that the service of notice in the present facts and circumstances is invalid. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 29. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1165 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2,50,634/- as loss in foreign currency in respect of shipment made in the last year but realized during the year. The difference being fluctuation in price of dollars was held not allowable by treating the same as notional. The learned CIT(A) held that the rate per dollar as on 31.3.2002 was ₹ 48.55 and the same as on 31.3.2003 was ₹ 47.29 per dollar. Therefore, the foreign exchange assets at the closing rate were to be valued according to AS-2. Any loss on re- statement of such assets/liabilities is allowable as such since the same is on revenue account. 20. In view of the latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., 312 ITR 254, the loss being on revenue account is allowable as such and is not a notional loss. Therefore, the ground raised by the revenue fails. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1164 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 8377; 9.89 lacs is not correct and the same is excess of the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. We find that Section 50C(2)does envisage that if the assessee claimed before any AO that the value adopted or assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority exceeds the fair market value of the property, the AO may refer the valuation of the capital asset to Valuation Officer. In this regard, we find that assessee has not made any such claim before the AO. However, upon careful consideration in the interest of justice, we remit this aspect to the files of the AO. The AO shall consider the assessee’s plea that the fair market value of the property is lower than the value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The assessee shall also submit the necessary documents supporting the claim. o p /o p 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 9/03/2010 o p /o p
............
|
