|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 927 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1359 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... lls P. Ltd, 293 ITR 201, inter alia. This fact was not or could not be denied by the ld.DR as we are also aware of this line of action being taken by the Benches in Chennai. Consequently, we restore this appeal of the Revenue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he shall decide the impugned issue in the light of plethora of judicial pronouncements on this issue. Needless to mention that the Assessing Officer shall give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as required by law. 4. The cross objection by the assessee would become premature in view of the fact that we have set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and that of Assessing Officer, but the assessee is at liberty to raise this issue whenever occasion arises. Accordingly, we keep open the issues raised in the cross objection but dismiss the same as premature. 5. In the result appeal of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1358 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... Since, in this case, neither the appellant nor the amalgamating companies are carrying on any manufacturing activity, the set off of losses of the amalgamating companies cannot be allowed. The Assessing Officer’s decision is upheld and the appellant gets no relief on this ground also.” 29. Now the assessee has preferred an appeal before us but during the course of hearing nothing has been placed before us to substantiate that the amalgamating companies are industrial undertakings. We however, carefully examined the order of the CIT(A) and we find that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has rightly adjudicated the issue and we find no infirmity therein and we accordingly confirm his order. 30. In the result, the appeal nos.153 & 154 of 2009 and 397 of 2010 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and appeal no.60 of 2011 of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 11.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1357 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ants who purchased shares while in possession of the unpublished price sensitive information are still continuing to enjoy the fruits of the ill-gotten gains that they made. It is a different matter that the price of the scrip may have fallen today. The authorised representatives of the appellants inform us that immediately after the issue of bonus shares the price of the scrip did go up from ₹ 18 to ₹ 63 per share. This was a fit case where the Board also should have initiated proceedings under sections 11 and 11B of the Act for issuing appropriate directions to the appellants and other insiders to ensure that they do not take advantage of their wrongdoing. It is only through such directions that they could have been directed to disgorge their ill-gotten gains. Having said this, we leave the matter at that. In the result, the appeals fail and they stand dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman of the Board for information.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1356 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Chhaya and the judgment was delivered on 20/11/1995. No issue was framed as to whether the present plaintiff is the owner of the suit land or not. Chhaya died on 23/08/2001 and the present suit was preferred on 02/01/2002. In the above set of facts the argument advanced by learned counsel has no legs to stand firstly because in the earlier suit no issue regarding ownership of present plaintiff was framed and secondly because any right in favour of present plaintiff would accrue only after the death of Chhaya and not before that. Since the present plaintiff is claiming to be the owner of the suit property on the strength of he being the adopted son of late Chhaya and the said issue has been found to be proved concurrently by both the Courts below, the present suit filed after the death of Chhaya is not barred under the principles of res judicata. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1355 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be drawn that the plea set up by him is not correct. 11. The first Appellate Court has rightly observed that in the absence of examination of the complainant under Section 254 Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that there is any evidence, which indicates that the petitioner had advanced a loan to respondent No. 1 and later in order to repay the loan, respondent No. 1 had issued a cheque Ex.CW2/3 in favour of the petitioner and it was in discharge of his legally enforceable liability. No evidence could be said to be on the record with regard to presentation of the cheque by the petitioner and issuing of the notice by him. It was only he, who could prove these facts, which were in his personal knowledge. 12. As such, while agreeing with the findings returned by the first Appellate Court, it may be observed that there are no reasons to make a different opinion than what was formed by the first Appellate Court. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1354 - SUPREME COURT
Challenging the HC order - Direction for summon and examine court witness u/s 311 of the CrPC - HELD THAT:- The case of the prosecution is simple that in order to settle the matter relating to construction of boundaries on the disputed property, which is being supervised by the Appellant who is father of Smt. Ruchi Saxena, the Respondent No. 2 and another accused had demanded a sum of ₹ 2 lacs as bribe amount from the Appellant as a result of which the Appellant had filed complaint pursuant to which a trap was laid and accused were arrested while receiving an amount of ₹ 50,000/- as part payment of the bribe amount of ₹ 2 lacs. As is evident from the facts of the case after success of the trap, FIR in the case was lodged. After framing of charge and commencement of trial several witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who had been cross-examined by the accused. The record nowhere shows that any complaint was filed by Smt. Ruchi Saxena against any of the accused making grievance that they had demanded any bribe amount from her. Smt. Ruchi Saxena had nothing to do with the bribe case either as a complainant or as a witness to the trap arranged by the police. Her name did not figure as one of the witnesses to be examined by the prosecution when charge-sheet was submitted in the court of learned Special Judge. The HC without specifying as to how Smt. Ruchi Saxena is a material witness or how her evidence is essential for just decision of the case, has directed the learned Special Judge to summon Smt. Ruchi Saxena as a court witness u/s 311 of the CrPC and to examine her.
There is no manner of doubt that the power u/s 311 of the CrPC is exercised arbitrarily and, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1353 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ependent material. He has simply extracted the order of DIT(E). Therefore, the reopening of assessment is not sustainable. We allow this ground of appeal in all the four assessment years and quash the reassessment orders. 2.7 As far as the additions on merit are concerned, those additions have been made because benefit of section 12A was not available to the assessee. Now, the Tribunal has restored the registration granted u/s 12A. If, on further appeal, reopening of the assessments are to be held proper then also these issues in our understanding would be decided afresh in the light of the registration available to the assessee u/s 12A. Therefore, we do not see any reason to embark upon the justification of the additions or otherwise. These grounds in a way become redundant, in view of our finding on the issue of reopening of assessment. 3. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 26.08.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1352 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... in the case of Kerala Chemicals and Proteins Ltd supra has held that interest u/s 234D should be charged w.e.f 1.6.2003 whereas the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that interest u/s 234D was chargeable from Assessment Year 2004-05 and not in earlier Assessment Years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd 1973 88 ITR 192 SC has held that when there are two views of two different High Courts on an issue, and there is no decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, then the view which favours the assessee must be adopted. Therefore, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we hold that interest u/s 234D is chargeable from Assessment Year 2004-05 and subsequent years and not in the earlier years and accordingly dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the Eleventh Day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1351 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... A.Y. 2002-03 and ₹ .8,41,863 for A.Y. 2004-05 on account of interest received from bank, treating interest received from Co-operative Banks are exempt u/s. 80P(2)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee has not filed any details.” 12. Having heard the learned Departmental Representative, we find from the details of investments of the assessee, all the interest income is from co-operative bank and not from non-cooperative bank. Therefore, they are exempt under section 80P(2)(c). In the impugned order, the CIT(A) has directed the AO to verify whether the contention of the assessee is correct that all the fixed deposits in the cooperative bank and allow the deduction under section 80P(2)(c). Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in his order to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same. 13. Ground No.4 in both the years is dismissed. 14. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1350 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 5000/-( Rupees five thousand only) in favour of the respondent no. 1. 17. In view of the dismissal of the revision application, the applicant has to undergo sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco-Da-Dama in Criminal Case No. 1304/OA/NIA/2006/B. The applicant is granted time of two weeks to surrender to learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-Da-Gama. The bail bond executed by the applicant shall stand discharged only after the applicant surrenders before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vasco-Da-Gama. In case, the applicant fails to surrender within a period of two weeks from today, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-Da-Gama, shall take appropriate steps to take the applicant in custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. The amount of ₹ 2,00,000/-deposited by the applicant be returned to him. Revision application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1349 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents of the Explanations to Section 82(2) o the Act of 1987 as existing presently. The members of the Petitioner Sangham shall be permitted to participate in this exercise and substantiate their claim by producing relevant proofs in support thereof. The benefit of Section 82(2) of the Act of 1987 shall be extended to ah such members of the Petitioner Sangham who are found to satisfy the statutory requirements to claim the status of a 'landless poor person'/small and marginal farmer. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the parties shall continue to abide by the arrangement that subsisted during the pendency of this writ petition. WPMP No. 21801 of 2008, WVMP Nos. 1435 of 2008 and 2400 of 2009 shall stand dismissed along with all other miscellaneous petitions in the light of this final order. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1348 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... h was required to be examined which had not been done by AO. It is possible that ultimately the discrepancy may be reconciled but fact remains that the AO did not make any examination or enquiry in relation thereto and such order is therefore erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4.9 Finally, we may point out here that CIT has not decided the issues on merit. He has only restored this issue to the file of AO for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after necessary examination. Therefore, merit is not the issue before us. We are only concerned with the jurisdiction of CIT under section 263. In our view as we have held earlier the order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, we hold that exercise of jurisdiction by CIT under section 263 of the Act is legally in order and accordingly the order of the CIT is upheld. 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1347 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plication, Courts do not impose any cost on the Petitioner but since it has been pointed out that the application has been filed not only under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure but also under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, I feel that the Court will be failing in its duty in case the petition is dismissed without imposition of any cost in the light of the facts narrated above. 21. I accordingly, impose a cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- each on both the Petitioners. The aforesaid cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- shall be recovered from the Petitioners by the learned CMM, after expiry of 90 days by invoking Section 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure 22. Expression of any opinion may not be treated as an expression on the merits of the case. Further, a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar General of this Court to bring it to the notice of the Deputy Registrar (Filing) so that in future anticipatory bail contains the requisite information as stated above. 23. Dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1346 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the Jet Speed Ltd and paid on their behalf and the Assessee is receiving only commission at 10% on that amount and he is also claiming to set off this expenditure out of the undisclosed income. We find no force in the arguments of the Assessee's counsel with regard to payment of this amount on behalf of other parties. However, we accede to the other propositions of the Assessee regarding telescoping of this payment out of the undisclosed income. Accordingly, we direct the assessing officer to telescope this payment out of the undisclosed income in the relevant period if any. If there is no undisclosed income during the relevant period covering the block period, he is at liberty to consider the balance payment as undisclosed income of the Assessee. The issue is set aside to the file of assessing officer for fresh consideration. 26. In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee's are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court 11.8.2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1345 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... AAC are vide enough to be co-terminous with those of the A.O., so that he can do and direct the A.O. to do what he has failed to do so. In view of the matter, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to claim the legal deduction supported by the audit report. Since the above legal claim was not examined by the Assessing Officer nor by the Learned CIT(A), therefore, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer and accordingly we set aside the order passed by the Revenue Authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground taken by the revenue is, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 31. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of Aug, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1343 - ITAT MUMBAI
Corporate Membership fee CSR Expenditure Deduction u/s 37(1) - Membership fee was not allowed as deduction by AO - HELD THAT:- Following the decision in the case of, OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1991 (4) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], we are of the opinion that membership in clubs are taken with the expectation that it would enable the officers of assessee to meet persons in high social status which would result to the growth of the business of the assessee. The expenditure can be said to have been incurred is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of his profession and hence allowable u/s 37(1) - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Undervaluation of closing stock - The AO made an addition to closing stock on the ground that the method followed by the assessee is not as per accounting principles and that date wise details of purchases and consumption of stock have not been furnished - HELD THAT:- . As per the provisions of sec 145A, the value of purchase tax has to be taken into account while valuing the closing stock, but at the same time, as held by the jurisdictional, High Court In the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS P. LTD. [2009 (4) TMI 182 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the opening stock valuation should be correspondingly adjusted. Therefore, we restore the matter back to AO to reconsider the facts as per the decision of HC - Matter restored back.
Uninterrupted Power Supply system - Part of Computer System or not? - Ld. CIT(A) said that uninterrupted Power Supply system cannot be considered as part of the computer system and concluded they are not entitled to the rate of depreciation applicable to computer - HELD THAT:- No doubt the UPS can be used for other purposes, in the present case they constitute an essential part of the computer system. The UPS is necessary for the computers to function smoothly and without interruption.
The Delhi Tribunal in the case of DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS ORIENT CERAMICS AND INDUSTRIES LTD. [2010 (2) TMI 984 - ITAT DELHI], has held that UPS is an integral part of the computer and hence is entitled to the rate of depreciation applicable to computers. In following the ratio of the decision of the Delhi Tribunal we uphold the claim of the assessee on this issue - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Depreciation on Plant and Machinery - CIT(A) restricted depreciation to half the year stating that assessee has appended certificates from the Plant Managers, but he should have produced further material in the nature of evidence of production for allowance of depreciation for the full year - HELD THAT:- we are inclined to accept the submissions of the assessee that the Machinery in question were put to use prior to 30.9.2003. The certificates of installation issued by Plant Manager Cannot be ignored. The invoice for purchase were much prior to 30.9.2003 and it appears that only the capitalization entry was passed on 30.9.03. We uphold the claim of the assessee, for depreciation on the assets at the full rate.
Computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB - CIT confirmed the taxation of profit on sale of undertaking and profit on sale of fixed assets while computing book profits u/s. 115JB -HELD THAT:- We find that the decision in the case of RAIN COMMODITIES LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD [2010 (7) TMI 794 - ITAT HYDERABAD] is against the assessee, whatever amount that have been credited to the Profit and Loss account will have to be taken into account in determining the Book profits u/s 115JB and only adjustments permitted are as per Explanation to the section 115 JB - Decision against Assessee.
Diminution in Investments - Provision for loans and Advances - Computation of book profit u/s 115JB - CIT confirmed the taxation of provision for diminution in investments and provision for loans and advances written book while computing book profit u/s 115JB- HELD THAT;- We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the provision of Explanation (i) to Sec 115 JB. Under that explanation any amount withdrawn from a reserve or provision has to be excluded in computing the Book Profits u/s 115JB. The amount withdrawn can be excluded only if in the year in which Reserve was created or provision made the book profits were increased by the amount of Reserves/ Provisions. However, in this case the provisions were created in the earlier financial year 2002-03. - Matter restored back to AO.
Levy of interest u/s 234B - CIT confirmed the levy of interest u/s 234B when the liability of the appellant arose only u/s 115JB(MAT) - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of JTC. IT., MUMBAI VERSUS M/S ROLTA INDIA LTD. [2011 (1) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that, the pre-requisite condition for applicability of section 234B is that the assessee is liable to pay tax u/s 208 and the expression "assessed tax" is defined to mean the tax on the total income determined under section 143(1) or under section 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source. Thus, there is no exclusion of section 115J / 115JA in the levy of interest under section 234B - Decision against assessee.
Payment to Scientific institutions as Business Expenditure - AO allowed payments made to various scientific institutes as a business expenditure by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A - HELD THAT:- The issue is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) and if found in order allow the claim of the assessee.
Expenditure incurred in installation -CIT held that fees paid to agency which installed and implemented SAP software to be part and parcel of the acquisition of software itself and thereby allowing 60% depreciation on the same - HELD THAT:- Expenditure incurred in installation/commissioning an asset should be considered as part of cost of acquisition of asset and depreciation allowed thereon. The Ld. CIT(A) had correctly allowed depreciation at 60% on the expenditure on installation treating it as part of cost of acquisition of software.
Business Disallowance u/s 40A(9) - CIT deleted the disallowance of some amount considering them as Staff and sports welfare expenses - HELD THAT:- Following the decision of High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VERSUS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [2001 (3) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that such expenditure can't be covered under Section 40A(9), revenue ground was dismissed.
Utilization of CENVAT Credit - CIT deleted the addition made to the total income of the assessee on account of CENVAT credit was obtained during the amalgamation. This CENVAT credit balance was treated as an opening CENVAT credit balance in the books of the assessee post merger - HELD THAT:- As held by CIT(A), as a result of grossing up u/s. 145A, there is an increase in the closing stock for A.Y. 2003-04 - This increase in closing stock has resulted in increase in the opening stock for the current A.Y. which has been brought out by the Tax Auditor. The increase in opening stock consequent to increase in closing stock in the previous year does not result in any reduction in the income. The Auditor has also clarified in the Tax Audit report that consequent to the application of Sec. 145A there is no impact on the profit before taxation. We confirm the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that the utilization of CENVAT credit is completely revenue neutral and does not call for addition to the profit and loss account - Revenue Appeal Dismissed.
Contribution Towards the Brand Equity and Business Promotion Scheme - AO stated that the company has made huge business losses and since there is no profit before tax the brand equity payment was disallowed by him - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is covered by the decision in the case of HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM [2007 (5) TMI 372 - ITAT COCHIN], where such expenditure was allowed u/s 37(i) - Respectfully following the ratio of the decision in the case of Harrisons Malayalam (supra) we dismiss the revenue’s appeal.
Disallowance for Brokerage Paid -The assessee submitted that the AO has disallowed certain payments made as brokerage by relying on conjectures and surmises which are unjustified in fact and in law - HELD THAT:- The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the debit notes raised indicates the nature of work done. He further observed that the rate of brokerage charged is reasonable and the market reality is such that loans and borrowing cannot be obtained without brokerage expenses.
We find that the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in holding that the payments have been made for services rendered to the assessee and due to commercial expediency hence allowable as a deduction in the hands of the assessee. This ground of the Revenue is dismissed.
Bad Debts written off when not proved as actually bad - Revenue raised that CIT(A) has erred in deleting the Bad debts when the assessee has not proved them to be actually bad - HELD THAT:- We find that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that, this position in law is well-settled. After 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. In the instant case there is no controversy about the write off, therefore we respectfully follow the decision of SC.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1342 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice. Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the same. 26. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.8.2010 is hereby set aside. Petition filed by the Appellant under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. Complaint No. 87/02/09 pending before the Magistrate, Jalandhar and all orders passed therein are quashed. Before parting with the case, we clarify that Respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to continue with her other cases and the court concerned may proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made herein. The said observations have been made only to decide the application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the Appellant.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1341 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Excess stock of gold ornaments and silver ornaments was found in business premises of Assessee - AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the amount comprising disallowance of remuneration to partners on account of treatment of the amount disclosed on account of excess stock u/s 69B of the Act and the amount added u/s 68.
HELD THAT:- In the assessee's own case, CHOKSHI HIRALAL MAGANLAL VERSUS DY. CIT [2011 (1) TMI 125 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD], tribunal have accepted the claim of the assessee that excess stock has to be treated as business income, entitled to deduction of a higher amount of remuneration to partners in terms of provisions of section 40(b) of the Act. As regards the amount added u/s 68, the matter has been restored to the file of the AO for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of, KC BUILDERS AND ANOTHER VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT], held that ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside. Where an order of assessment or reassessment on the basis of which penalty has been levied on the assessee, has itself been finally set aside or cancelled by the Tribunal or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and the same is liable to be cancelled.
Hon'ble Delhi HC, in the case of R DALMIA AND OTHERS (A. OP) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1991 (10) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT], held that no penalty survives after deletion of additions, forming the basis for the levy of penalty.
Since the very basis upon which the penalty has been imposed on the amount relating to excess stock added u/s 69B and consequently, denial of deduction on account of remuneration to partners in terms of provisions of section 40(b) of the Act, does not exist in view of the aforesaid order, we are of the opinion that penalty levied in relation to the said amount has to be cancelled. As regards penalty levied in relation to amount added u/s 68, since matter is restored to the file of the AO, penalty does not survive at this stage. However, the AO is free to initiate the penalty proceedings in accordance with law while completing the assessment in pursuance to the aforesaid directions of the ITAT in quantum appeal - Matter restored back.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1340 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ot possible for that assessee to earn the amount invested in the properties. It held that, by no stretch of imagination, could the assessee be credited for having earned this income, in the course of assessment year nor was she in a position to earn it for a decade or more. The case was of a Muslim lady who is aged about 20 years. In the case on hand, the assessee company was in the process of setting-up of a project and has not commenced production during the year and there was no possibility of the assessee company earning any such income during the course of this assessment year. The receipt in question being receipt of share premium, is a capital receipt and cannot be brought to tax. As already held, the addition is not warranted under section 68 of the Act. Hence, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss this ground raised by the Revenue. 14. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th August 2011
-
2011 (8) TMI 1339 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , 2011, we had directed the Joint Team to carry out survey and demarcation of 99 mining leases in District Bellary. We direct that the said Order shall also stand extended to the mining leases in Districts Tumkur and Chitradurga and for the remaining mines in District Bellary. (iv) On the next date, i.e., 2nd September, 2011, CEC will also furnish to this Court the name of the Government Agency which would be in-charge of effecting sale(s) of the existing stock and keeping Accounts of the sale proceeds including royalty payable at the rate of ten pa-cent of the market price . (v) We also hereby extend our Order dated 5th August, 2011, to the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga, by which we had directed ICFRE to undertake macro level EIA study in respect of district Bellary and to submit reclamation and rehabilitation plan. Consequently, the said order shall equally apply to the Districts of Tumkur and Chitradurga. 2. Subject to above, place the matter on 16th September, 2011.
........
|
