|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1174 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ed the change of address. It shows that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 1991 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT 1997 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine as pronounced in the open Court on 27-08-2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1173 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... icer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of assessee, the same are liable to be rejected. Under these circumstances, estimation of profit is to be made in respect of sale proceeds not accounted for. Accordingly, profit element in the unaccounted sale proceeds received in cash is to be brought to tax net. Keeping in view the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court as well as other High Courts as discussed hereinabove and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, keeping in view the nature of assessee's business of purchase and sale of real estate and flats, we direct the Assessing Officer to take 25 % of sale proceeds received in cash as assessee's income rather than making addition of entire amount of sale proceeds received in cash. We direct accordingly. 12. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 4th September, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1172 - ITAT INDORE
Deduction for Co-operative Society u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). - It was contended that Assessee, a cooperative society derives income from providing credit facilities to its relatives. Also, after insertion of 80P(4), deduction is only available to primary agricultural credit society and primary cooperative agricultural and rural development bank. Hence, not liable for deduction.
HELD THAT:- The assessee society is providing credit facilities to its members only and not to the public at large, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered under sec. 80P(2) and not by 80P(4). It is undisputed fact that the Assessee is registered as a credit cooperative society. Also, the objects of the society are fortified by the letter of the President as per which it has been specifically mentioned that the society is restricted to employees of BHEL and no outsider is permitted to become a member or shareholder of depositor or lender or borrower. The finding of the AO is contrary to the facts. Since the assessee society is providing credit facilities to its members only, therefore, clearly entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act - Decision in Favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1171 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... to only determining the carry forward of losses from the records. 34. The counsel for the Revenue did not seriously object for sending back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for determining the correct amount of carry forward losses. 35. We have heard both side, perused the materials on record. We set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-examine and determine the correct losses to be carried forward since it is only a reconciliation of losses as per the records. The assessee may submit the reconciliation losses to the Assessing Officer in support of its claim and the Assessing Officer shall consider the details furnished by the assessee and determine the correct losses to be carried forward. 37. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I.T.A. Nos. 471& 472/Mds/2012 are partly allowed and I.T.A. Nos. 473 & 160/Mds/2012 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 30th of August, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1170 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... would have been valid if the assessee had not recorded any purchases in the books of account and had effected sales outside the books. We, therefore, order for the deletion of addition of ₹ 2,61,627, being investment at the rate of 25% of total purchases. 9. Insofar as the application of additional gross profit rate of 5% is concerned, we are fully with the Revenue because there could have been no other possible reason to incorporate bogus purchases in the books of account except for making cheap purchases from the market and recording bogus purchases at higher level. Since the Revenue is not in appeal against the order passed by the learned CIT(A), it shows that the Department has accepted that such actual purchases were at 5% less than the declared bogus purchases. We, therefore, sustain the addition to the tune of ₹ 52,325. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 29th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1169 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 enclosing a copy of additional evidence application dated 16.11.2011 before us which was ignored by the tax authorities below and we noted that they decided the case without considering and giving any findings in regard to additional evidence adduced by the assessee. 9. During the arguments on application of assessee u/s 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963, both the parties have submitted that the additional evidence which ought to be considered by the authorities below the matter deserves to be restored to the file of the DRP-II, New Delhi and we restore the same to the file of the DRP-II, New Delhi with a direction that the application of additional evidence be considered and matter be decided afresh de novo. 10. Accordingly, we are inclined to decide this appeal as indicated above and in the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.8.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1168 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ptive addition. In the result, considering the totality of the circumstances of the case as also the case laws referred hereinabove, we are of the conscientious view that the learned CIT (Appeals) has rightly reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer" 4. The aforesaid findings are arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of relevant material before it. It is the finding of the Tribunal that some variation during few months in the electricity consumption cannot be a ground and the addition made by the Assessing Officer on that premise was on presumption. It is in the realm of appreciation. No error was committed by the Tribunal in arriving at such finding. The finding being in nature of finding of fact, the present appeal does not raise any substantial question of law for consideration. It is well settled that the appeal under section 260A of the Act cannot be entertained when the order of the Tribunal rests on fining of facts. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1167 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) has thrown any light on this aspect as to whether there was nexus between the expenditure i.e. interest and the purpose of the business and giving the interest free loan to the sister concerns to acquire the controlling interest. We therefore, deem it fit and proper to set aside this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated upon afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As regards the deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act is concerned, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the AO is directed not to disturb the above deduction but the only issue is to be adjudicated upon by him is relating to remaining amount of interest i.e. ₹ 40,14,765/- claimed by the assessee on account of expenditure relating to the payment of interest. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes (Order Pronounced in the open Court on 31-08-2012 )
-
2012 (8) TMI 1166 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsidered by the Assessing Officer. Merely because of the fact that it has not been mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment order, it could not be treated to be the income chargeable to tax having escaped assessment and material evidence after due diligence could not be discovered by the Assessing Officer. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment are wholly illegal, and based on change of opinion. Therefore, the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is liable to be set aside, and the order passed by Assessing Officer, whereby objection of the petitioner was rejected by the Assessing Officer, is also quashed. In the result, the order passed by Assessing Officer dated 09.11.2011, as well as the notice dated 30.03.2011 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are quashed. 16. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1165 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... M/s. Khaitan & Co. ORDER Leave granted. Place this appeal along with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32081 of 2011. Parties to complete their pleadings within eight weeks.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1163 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... reciation in the case of charitable institution is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (1982) 135 ITR 485 in favour of the assessee. Therefore, it cannot be held that the issue was still debatable after the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and therefore all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, the assessee has merely supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and has taken no grounds in the COs against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 22nd of August, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1162 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... on by the A.O. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, all the grounds of the Revenue in ITA No.571(Asr)/2011 are dismissed. 10. As regards the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.572(Asr)/2011 in the case of Sh. Chander Shekhar, the facts are identical except return was revised within six days of filing the original return and the AO made disallowance of 25% in place of 30% in the case of Sh. Ashok Kumar, mentioned hereinabove. Since the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in the case of Sh. Ashok Kumar, in ITA No.571(Asr)/2011, where the Revenue’s appeal has been dismissed, following the same being on identical facts, we dismiss all the grounds of the Revenue. Thus, the grounds of both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 571 (Asr)/2011 & 572 (Asr)/2011 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1161 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he assessee's own fund. 5. Basing its decision on aforementioned authority of Munjal Sales Corporation (supra) and also since the Tribunal in the year 1995-96 had upheld the say of the assessee and the facts in the instant case (for the Assessment Year 2002-03) being identical, it upheld the order of CIT (Appeals ). 6. Resultantly on having found that Tribunal has rightly satisfied itself that there was sufficient funds available with the assessee-firm no interference is called for. Again, in the past for earlier assessment years, the decision of the Tribunal never came to be challenged by the Revenue, and even if done, the same was not quashed/set aside, with identical facts emerging for Assessment Year 2002-2003 also, contentions raised would have no sustainability. With abovementioned facts and with application of decision of Munjal Sales Corpn. (supra) all other contentions would pale into insignificance and hence, this appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1160 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1.23 crores, whereas the construction activity carried on by the assessee was at ₹ 1.20 crores. This, fact, by itself proves that the assessee had enough cash with itself, besides other non interest bearing funds available with it. 23. On these factual circumstances and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Health Care Ltd. (supra) as well as the decision of jurisdictional High Court at Bombay in CIT vs. Reliance Utilities & Powers Ltd. reported in 313 ITR 340 (Bom), we are of the opinion that the revenue authorities erred in making a disallowance of ₹ 9,47,708/-. 24. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of ₹ 9,47,708/-. The cross objection is allowed. In the result 25. In the result I.T.A. No. 6116/Mum/2011 by the department is dismissed. C.O.No. 143/Mum/2011 by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 08/08/2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1158 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rbitration and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion was right in rejecting the application. 7. The right of shareholders under section 397 or section 398 is a statutory right which by section 8 of the Act, 1996 cannot be ousted by a provision in the articles of association of the company. The matter which can form part of the petition under section 397/398 cannot be the subject matter of arbitration, for an arbitrator can have no powers such as conferred on the court by section 402. The argument that the parties have consented to the reference of the dispute to arbitration, no interference by the court is called for, can be of no avail as consent cannot confer jurisdiction nor there is any estoppel against a statute. CA No. 27/2012 is hereby dismissed. Respondents are hereby required to file counter affidavits to the company petition within three weeks. Rejoinder within three weeks thereafter, CP No. 8 of 2012 is to be argued on merits on 10th October, 2012 at 10.30 AM.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1157 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... matter to the file of the AO for deciding the issue, afresh in accordance with law in the light of aforesaid judicial pronouncements and after analyzing the view taken in the assessee’s own case in the preceding years and of course, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. With these observations, ground no. 2 in the appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is disposed of. 22. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.3 in the appeal of the Revenue for the AY 2007-08, and ground No.2 in their appeal for the AY 2008-09 as also residuary ground in the appeal of the assessee, accordingly, all these grounds are dismissed. 23. No other plea or argument was made before us. 24 In the result, appeal of the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 is dismissed while their appeal for the AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee for the AY 2008-09 is allowed, but both for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1156 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... A) who after considering the submissions found that the assessee deserves to succeed on this issue also. Accordingly, he allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. 7.4 The ld. DR stated that in view of the amended provision, the issue was rightly decided by the AO against the assessee. 7.5 The ld. AR fairly stated that in view of the amended provisions, this issue can be decided against the assessee. 7.6 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we hold that the AO was justified in holding that there will be no adjustment in the book profit of the assessee as the amendment was not allowable w.r.e.f. 01-04-2001. Since the amendment is prospective, therefore, we confirm the order of the AO while reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue 8.0 In the result, appeal of the Department for the assessment year 2004-05 is dismissed and the appeal for the assessment year 2005-06 is allowed in part. The order is pronounced on 28-08-2012 .
-
2012 (8) TMI 1155 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... al loss due to erosion in the value of shares, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the aforesaid claim in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. With these observations, ground no. 3 in the appeal of the Revenue in the case of M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., is disposed of. 18. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no. 3 in the appeal of the assessee in HCL Comnet Ltd. & ground no. 4 in the appeal of the Revenue in HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd., accordingly, both these grounds are dismissed. 19. No other submission or argument was made before us in these two appeals. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee in HCL Comnet Ltd. & appeal of the Revenue HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. are partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1154 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... of land done by the land development authority”. 5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bunty Builders (supra), we hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act based on the area of the plot as per 7/12 extract being 4500 sq. mtrs, which is more than the minimum stipulated area of one acre (4047 sq. mtrs). Accordingly, we direct the authorities below to allow the deduction u/s 80-IB(10) as claimed by the assessee. 2. Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge by Revenue. The facts being similar, following same reasoning, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) who has allowed the deduction u/s.80IB(10) based on the area of plot as per 7/12 extract being 450 sq. mt. which is more than minimum stipulated area of 1 acre (4047 sq.mt.). Same is upheld. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1153 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dent. Therefore, the Court below has put the cart before the bullock in holding that there was an independent transaction of a proposed agreement of sale in respect of which the cheque had been issued and that there was no loan transaction, as claimed by the appellant as he was not a man of means and did not have sufficient funds in hand to have lent such monies. This is a presumption that could not have been drawn by the Court below, on the basis of the defence that was set up by the respondent, in the absence of material in support of such a defence. 9. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court below is set aside. The offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act stands established. The respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 8,50,000/-, of which ₹ 8,25,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the appellant within a period of eight weeks, and in default, the respondent is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
........
|
