|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 871 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 596
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of advance against order.
2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia).
3. Addition on account of purchases.
4. Addition on account of sampling expenses.
5. Disallowance on account of conveyance, repair, maintenance, and staff welfare expenses.
6. Disallowance on account of depreciation on car, insurance, repair and maintenance, and telephone expenses.
Summary:
1. Addition on account of advance against order:
The assessee debited Rs. 45,03,927 under "expenses" for advances against orders. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this, questioning the genuineness and business necessity of the transaction. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the assessee's bona fide belief in the transaction and subsequent steps taken upon discovering the fraud.
2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia):
The AO disallowed Rs. 5,00,000 paid as refundable security for factory premises rent, citing non-deduction of TDS. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal, however, allowed the assessee's appeal, referencing Circular No. 718, which clarifies that TDS is not required on refundable security deposits.
3. Addition on account of purchases:
The AO added Rs. 32,657 for items not disclosed in the closing stock. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal found no error in this decision and rejected the assessee's appeal on this ground.
4. Addition on account of sampling expenses:
The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 48,075 made by the AO. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, implying agreement with the CIT(A)'s deletion.
5. Disallowance on account of conveyance, repair, maintenance, and staff welfare expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 90,000 due to lack of supporting material. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the absence of detailed evidence from the assessee.
6. Disallowance on account of depreciation on car, insurance, repair and maintenance, and telephone expenses:
The AO disallowed Rs. 90,000 from the total expenses of Rs. 1,86,388 due to insufficient details. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision for similar reasons as the conveyance and maintenance expenses.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, specifically allowing the claim related to the refundable security deposit but upholding other disallowances and additions. Decision pronounced on 18.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 595
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without affording any opportunity of hearing, the subsequent directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court, and the implications of not providing a hearing to the petitioner in matters concerning pre-deposit conditions.
Summary:
Issue 1: Rejection of application without opportunity of hearing
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the petitioner's application under Section 35F without a hearing, leading to a writ petition being filed. The Division Bench directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a hearing. The subsequent order by the appellate authority denied the petitioner's request for dispensing with the pre-deposit condition, indicating a change in view. The court observed that not hearing the petitioner earlier may have caused loss to the revenue.
Issue 2: Implications of not providing a hearing
The appellate authority justified its decision not to provide a hearing based on a previous judgment, which the petitioner claimed was not cited during the proceedings. The petitioner argued that had the judgment been brought to their notice, they could have presented different interpretations given by various High Courts. The court scheduled the matter for final disposal and stayed the operation of the impugned order until the next hearing date.
The judgment highlights the importance of affording a fair hearing to parties involved in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning pre-deposit conditions under the Central Excise Act. It also underscores the significance of citing relevant judgments during arguments to ensure a comprehensive and informed decision-making process.
-
2012 (5) TMI 594
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision regarding the deletion of entry tax for the year 2003-04 under the U.P. Entry on Goods Into Local Area Act, 2007. The tribunal found no evidence of goods moving between local areas, justifying the deletion of entry tax. No question of law was involved in the decision.
-
2012 (5) TMI 593
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are denial of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act due to interest-free loans given to charitable societies, confirmation of addition of excess income over expenditure as taxable, alleged infringement of Section 13 by giving advances to other societies, justification of charging interest u/s 234B and u/s 234D, and initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1).
Denial of Exemption u/s 11 & 12:
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) denying exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act due to interest-free loans given to other charitable societies, invoking the provisions of Section 13. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) did not follow the precedent set by Hon'ble I.T.A.T. in a previous assessment year. The Tribunal found that the appellant, a charitable institution registered u/s 12AA, provided education through colleges. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction u/ss 11 and 12 citing infringement of Section 13 due to interest-free loans given to specific societies. However, the Tribunal noted that similar loans were given in previous years, and the Coordinate Bench had ruled in favor of the appellant in a previous order.
Confirmation of Addition of Excess Income:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of excess income over expenditure as taxable, alleging infringement of Section 13 by giving advances to other societies. The appellant contended that the explanation offered was not accepted, despite the Tribunal ruling in their favor on a similar ground in earlier years. The Tribunal observed that the appellant's loans to certain societies were justified, as these societies were registered u/s 12AA and engaged in charitable activities, thus not violating Section 13.
Charging of Interest and Penalty Proceedings:
The appellant challenged the justification of charging interest u/s 234B and u/s 234D, as well as the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1). The Tribunal considered the arguments of both parties and concluded that the issue of interest-free loans to specific societies was already settled in the appellant's favor by a previous order of the Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the excess income over expenditure was deemed exempt, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
This judgment highlights the importance of consistency in applying legal principles and precedents, especially in cases involving tax exemptions for charitable institutions and the interpretation of relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.
-
2012 (5) TMI 592
Whether the period of limitation would start running from the date of pronouncement of the order or the date of communication thereof?
Whether an order passed by the Tribunal in appeal merges with an order by which the Tribunal has dismissed an application for review of the said order was argued before us at some length?
-
2012 (5) TMI 591
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the treatment of exchange rate fluctuation on capital assets.
Summary:
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana heard multiple appeals concerning the application of Section 43A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to exchange rate fluctuations on capital assets. The main issue was whether the value of a capital asset should be notionally enhanced due to foreign exchange fluctuation at the end of each financial year or at the time of payment during the year.
In the case under consideration, the respondent-assessee had raised loans in foreign currency for machinery purchase, leading to an increase in the loan amount due to a fall in the value of the Indian rupee. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for depreciation on the enhanced payment, stating that depreciation could only be claimed when the additional liability of the loan was actually paid. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initially upheld this decision but later allowed the claim based on Section 43A of the Act.
The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 43A both before and after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2002. The unamended Section 43A allowed for adjustments in the actual cost of assets due to exchange rate fluctuations without requiring actual payment of the increased liability. However, the amended Section 43A, effective from 1.4.2003, mandated that adjustments be made only at the time of actual payment, irrespective of the accounting method used by the assessee.
Referring to the judgment in Woodward Governor India (P) Limited's case, the High Court concluded that the amendment to Section 43A was amendatory and not clarificatory, making it applicable prospectively from 1.4.2003. Therefore, for assessment years prior to 2003-04, the unamended provisions of Section 43A would apply. As the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, they were entitled to exchange rate fluctuation benefits for the relevant assessment years.
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, citing that the judgments relied upon did not support the revenue's case due to differing factual circumstances. Consequently, the substantial question of law was answered against the revenue, and the appeals were dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 590
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 35(G) of Central Excise Act against order of Tribunal dismissing appeals as barred by time.
The appeals were filed on 21.10.2004 against 7 orders passed between 8th February, 2010 to 8th January, 2002. The Commissioner found the appeals filed after two years, whereas required to be filed within 60 days of order communication. The delay was extended to 30 days only, leading to dismissal. Appeals were then filed before the Tribunal, which also faced delays. The Tribunal, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, affirmed the Commissioner's order, stating that the appeals were beyond the permissible limit for condonation of delay. The Tribunal considered the date of receipt of the order as 13th August, 2003, and found the appeals were indeed filed beyond the Commissioner's powers to condone the delay.
The Tribunal rejected the submissions that the partner receiving the orders was suffering from dementia and not entitled to receive the communication on behalf of the firm. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it held that the Commissioner can only condone the delay up to 30 days after the normal 60-day appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized that the judgment cited by the appellants was not applicable to the present case. The findings by both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, deeming the appeals time-barred, were based on a thorough consideration of all relevant materials.
The appellant's counsel argued that the person receiving the order was not authorized for communication receipt. However, the Tribunal upheld the date of order receipt as 13th August, 2003, and noted that the appeal was filed by the same person. The findings of both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, declaring the appeals time-barred, were concluded based on factual considerations, with no legal questions arising for further review.
Conclusion: All appeals were dismissed by the High Court, affirming the decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal regarding the time-barred nature of the appeals.
-
2012 (5) TMI 589
Maintainability of appeal - requirement of pre-deposit - Held that: - appellants did not report the compliance of making pre-deposit of 25% - the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise, Act, 1944 - decided against appellant.
-
2012 (5) TMI 588
Reopening of assessment - jurisdiction to issue notice - Held that:- ITO Kapurthala has no jurisdiction to issue notice on the present assessees, which, in fact, should have been served upon Sh. Jarnail Singh, the power of attorney holder to whom the notices by the Department had been issued by ITO Ward 2(6), Jalandhar/ITO Ward IV(2), Jalandhar. Sh. Jarnail Singh, the special power of attorney holder who had signed the return of income. As mentioned hereinabove, he is the special power of attorney holder in the return of income itself. The department has not held the return of the assessee as invalid return which has been signed by Sh. Jarnail Singh, special power of attorney available at PB-9. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases, having not served the notices on Sh. Jarnail Singh at vill. Dhina (Jalnadhar) and in view of the ‘Review Note’ mentioned hereinabove and order of the CIT u/s 264 and arguments made by both the parties and paper books available on record, we are of the view that the notice issued by the Income Tax Department on Sh. Jasbir Singh and other assesses at vill. Noorpur Dona/Mansoorwal Dona, Distt. Kapurthala, is bad in law and assessments so made are quashed
-
2012 (5) TMI 587
CENVAT credit - common input used for taxable as well as exempt goods - demand of 10% of the value of bagasse sold by them in the market on the ground that bagasse is an exempted excisable item - Held that: - neither the SCN nor the impugned order in appeal mentions as to which common Cenvat credit availed inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final product) and bagasse (exempted final product) - Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any inputs-chemicals etc. having been used at that stage - appeal allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 586
Application for waiver of pre-deposit - CESTAT had before it a batch of matters in which the allegation is that the assessees, who manufacture and sell M.S. ingots, had clandestinely cleared manufactured goods by suppressing the actual production - Extension of period to make pre deposit.
-
2012 (5) TMI 585
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the modification application and appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution and non-compliance with the stay order conditions under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
-
2012 (5) TMI 584
The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the writ petition with liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition if needed. (Citation: 2012 (5) TMI 584 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT)
-
2012 (5) TMI 583
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment in property. The primary issue is whether the addition of Rs. 74 lacs is justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Facts and Decision:
The case involved a search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the premises of Gopal Zarda group, including the assessee. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee acquired a property for Rs. 51 lacs, which was let out at a monthly rent. The AO estimated the purchase consideration at Rs. 1.25 crores and added Rs. 74 lacs u/s 69 of the Act. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition based on the year of taxability, lack of evidence, and reliance on estimate and conjecture.
The CIT(A) held that the investment related to the financial year 2006-07 and the sale deed formalized it in 2008. The AO's estimate was based on conjecture without concrete evidence. The valuation report was not submitted, and no seized document corroborated the additional payment. The CIT(A) emphasized that deeming provisions should be strictly interpreted, and without positive evidence, the addition was not sustainable in law.
Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the property was purchased in the preceding year, not the year under consideration. As no evidence of additional investment was found during the search, the addition was solely based on estimation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of evidence to support the addition and the primary burden of proof on the Revenue to prove understatement of income.
The Tribunal highlighted the absence of incriminating evidence post-search and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal emphasizing the Revenue's failure to provide contrary evidence or arguments to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 74 lacs, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence, reliance on estimation, and the absence of incriminating evidence post-search. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision based on the facts and legal principles involved.
-
2012 (5) TMI 582
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty for the petitioner to file an application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the maintainability of the application, which would be examined according to the law.
-
2012 (5) TMI 581
Issues Involved:
1. Addition u/s 41(1) on account of Cessation of Liability.
2. Disallowance of Interest expenses.
3. Disallowance towards Reduction in Cable Point Income.
4. Disallowance towards Security Cover & Labour Supply Charges, Advertisement Charges, and Programme Production Charges.
5. Disallowance towards License & Permission Fees.
6. Disallowance towards General Expenses.
Summary:
1. Addition u/s 41(1) on account of Cessation of Liability:
The Authorities below added Rs. 13,63,646/- u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing cessation of liability due to debts being older than three years. The ITAT found that the limitation period had not elapsed, as the first year of default should be excluded. Thus, the addition was deleted, and ground no. 1 was allowed.
2. Disallowance of Interest expenses:
The assessee claimed interest on unsecured demand loans as allowable. The revenue authorities disallowed this, and the ITAT upheld the disallowance due to the assessee's failure to substantiate the nexus between the loans and business purposes. Ground no. 2 was dismissed.
3. Disallowance towards Reduction in Cable Point Income:
The assessee claimed reductions in cable point income due to customer settlements without proper vouchers. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 25%, and the ITAT further reduced it to 10%, recognizing practical business difficulties. Ground no. 3 was partly allowed.
4. Disallowance towards Security Cover & Labour Supply Charges, Advertisement Charges, and Programme Production Charges:
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 1,67,46,891/- citing non-genuine transactions based on statements and inspector reports. The CIT(A) upheld this. The ITAT found a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or review statements. The issue was remanded to the A.O. for fresh examination. Grounds no. 4 (i), (ii) & (iii) were allowed for statistical purposes.
5. Disallowance towards License & Permission Fees:
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 1,96,350/- out of Rs. 7,99,257/- due to lack of supporting documents. The CIT(A) upheld this under Explanation to section 37(1). The ITAT found no reason to disturb the findings, and ground no. 5 was dismissed.
6. Disallowance towards General Expenses:
The A.O. and CIT(A) disallowed Rs. 20,000/- out of Rs. 2,36,700/- for lack of substantiation. The ITAT upheld the disallowance due to unsubstantiated claims. Ground no. 6 was dismissed.
Other Grounds:
Ground nos. 7 & 8 were not pressed by the AR and were dismissed as not pressed.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed, with specific grounds being allowed, dismissed, or remanded for fresh examination. The order was pronounced on 23/05/2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 580
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the stay petitions and appeals due to non-prosecution by the appellants. None appeared on behalf of the appellants despite notice on multiple occasions.
-
2012 (5) TMI 579
Non prosecution of appeal by the assessee - Held that:- In this case, the notice of date of hearing fixing the appeal for 17.05.2012 was sent to the assessee. However, at the time of hearing, none was present on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application for adjournment of the case. It appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.
In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India [2009 (9) TMI 177 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]. We are convinced that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted.
-
2012 (5) TMI 578
Lease legality - petition to quash Jal Mahal Tourism Project and cancel Mansagar Lake Precinct Lease Agreement dated 22nd November, 2005 giving 100 acres of land on lease for a period of 99 years to respondent no.7-Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited and Jal Mahal Leave & License Agreement dated 22nd November, 2005 - Held that:- 1) That Mansagar Lake Precinct Lease Agreement dated 22nd November, 2005 giving 100 acres of land on lease for a period of 99 years to respondent no.7-Jal Mahal Resorts Private Limited is declared illegal and void;
(2) That similarly, Jal Mahal Leave & License Agreement dated 22nd November, 2005, appendix 14 to Mansagar Lake Precinct Lease Agreement is also declared illegal and void.
(3) That Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt. Ltd. is directed to bear costs to be incurred in restoration of the original position of 100 acres of land in removing the soil filled-in by it and to restore back the possession to the RTDC who shall in turn give it to Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Municipal Corporation and State.
(4) That respondents are further directed to immediately remove all sedimentation and settling tanks from the Mansagar Lake basin and to realize costs from Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt.Ltd. and to examine restoring position of Nagtalai and Brahampuri Nalah (Drains) to their original position as realigned by RUIDP under Mansagar Lake Restoration Plan, in consultation with Central Government MOEF.
(5) That respondents-authorities are further directed to monitor, maintain and re-fix boundaries of the Mansagar Lake in its full original length, breadth and depth in consultation with Central Government MOEF and not to reduce normal water level.
(6) That all encroachments made in the catchment area of Mansagar Lake be removed immediately;
(7) That wall erected by Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt.Ltd. in the lake is ordered to be dismantled and cost be realized from Jal Mahal Resorts Pvt.Ltd.
-
2012 (5) TMI 577
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the quashing of an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal requiring a petitioner to deposit a pre-deposit amount of Rs. 40 lakhs for hearing an appeal.
Summary:
The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture of uncoated Kraft paper, availed the benefit of Small Scale Exemption but was later found to have wrongly availed it. The respondent-department alleged that the petitioner engaged in trading of Kraft paper apart from manufacturing, leading to a demand of Rs. 1,01,74,318/- and an equal penalty. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 40 lakhs as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal due to allegations of clandestine removal. The petitioner challenged this direction, citing financial difficulties. However, the High Court found no merit in the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's direction for partial deposit of Rs. 40 lakhs was deemed justified as the balance sheet did not reflect the true financial position due to clandestine removal. The High Court dismissed the petition but extended the period for deposit by six weeks, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits if the amount is deposited within the extended period.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to require a pre-deposit amount for hearing the appeal, considering the allegations of clandestine removal and the financial position of the petitioner. The extension of the deposit period was granted to facilitate compliance with the Tribunal's directive.
............
|
9911796707
