|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 10772 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 668 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed. ITA No.2236/Mum/2010 24. This appeal by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to assessment year 2004-2005. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer imposed penalty in respect of addition made by him towards irrecoverable advance amounting to ₹ 56,09,117. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty by holding that there was no willful concealment despite the fact he had sustained the addition in quantum proceedings. While disposing off the assessee’s appeal in quantum proceedings we have decided this issue in assessee’s favour thereby deleting the addition. In that view of the matter there remains no foundation for imposing any penalty on this issue. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 667 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... equal amount was paid in the next year, there appears to be bona fide case of the assessee and hence, for natural justice, in our considered opinion, the assessee deserves one more opportunity in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of AO for a fresh decision. We want to make it clear that the burden is on the assessee to bring the evidence on record in respect of this contention that it was a provision for ascertained liability by showing the allocable surplus for the present year as per the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 or any other relevant material to establish that it was a provision of ascertained liability. Thereafter, the AO should pass necessary order according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee stands allow for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 09/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 666 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... is available. For ready reference the relevant para at Sl. No. 5 is reproduced as under - 5. Is the credit of Business Auxiliary Service (B.A.S.) on account of sales commission now disallowed after the deletion of expression activities related to business? The definition of input services allows all credit on services used for clearance of final products upto the place of removal. Moreover activity of sale promotion is specifically allowed and on many occasions the remuneration for the same is linked to actual sale. Reading the provisions harmoniously it is clarified that credit is admissible on the services of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. 3. In view of the above Board circular where it has been clarified that the credit is admissible in respect of service tax paid on the services of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis, the impugned order is set aside, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and appeal is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 665 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... that explanation 5 of Section 32(1) is applicable only from 01-04-2002. It was observed that if the legislature actually intended to nullify the effect of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the Mahendra Mill decision, the Explanation added could have been given retrospective effect in express terms. On the other hand, the legislature itself thought that the Explanation should work only prospectively and did not intend to render the decision, rendered prior to the amendment relating to assessment year in question, nullified. In the instant case, the assessment year involved is 2000-01 and therefore, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra Mills, 243 ITR 56 will be squarely applicable. Moreover, the issue is debatable and we therefore, hold that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in canceling the order u/s 154 of the Act 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09-12-2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 664 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... D/2011, dated 11-10-2011, has recorded as under “5. I have considered the submissions and I find that as submitted by the ld. Counsel, extended period was not invoked in the show cause notice and demand for interest was beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharavathy Conductors Pvt. Ltd., is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also. Accordingly, even though on merits demand for interest has to be sustained and is sustained, but on the ground of limitation, the demand cannot be upheld. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.” 6. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the case before us. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. 8. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 663 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cuted a registered deed of conveyance for 1.75 acres of land in favour of M/S.Abad Constructions Pvt.Ltd. It cannot be therefore said that the Assessee acquired rights under the agreement only on 17.5.2004 when the Assessee made final payment in full and final discharge of all dues to GCDA. We therefore hold that the right to purchase lease hold rights in the property of 1.75 Acres (which is part of the 3 Acres) was acquired by the Assessee on 4.11.1994 when GCDA issued letter accepting the Assessee’s bid/offer, as claimed by the Assessee. Consequently, the loss in question has to be assessed as a long term capital loss as computed by the Assessee. We may add that the manner of computation of long term capital loss has not been disputed by the AO. For the reasons given above, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the Revenue. 14. In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 21st day of Dec. 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 662 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lowing decision of Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd . Vs ITO 312 ITR (AT) 01 (SB)(Mum). 3. In the first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed action of AO. 4. However, said decision of Special Bench of ITAT has been reversed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 328 ITR 81, wherein it has been held that Rule 8D of I.T. Rule is prospective in nature and is applicable from assessment year 2008-09. In view of above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the matter to AO with a direction to re-decide the disallowance to be made, if any, in respect of exempted income after giving due opportunity of hearing to assessee and considering such evidences as may be filed as per law. Therefore ground of appeal taken by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 2nd day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 661 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and furnish to the holder of the passport or travel document on demand a copy of the same unless in any case, the passport authority is of the opinion that it will not be in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interests of the general public to furnish such a copy. 2. In a situation where a travel document is sought to be impounded the procedure under Section 10(5) must be read in such a way that the rule of natural justice is ingrained through that provision. That principle could be said to be satisfied only after serving a notice of such intention and calling upon the affected party to show cause against such revocation or impounding. Without going through the fundamental precept of principles of natural justice, the power to direct surrender of a document does not exist under the scheme of the passport. The impugned action is quashed and the writ petition is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 660 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ordered and is not in lieu thereof. That being the position, we cannot direct the release of seized goods on payment of Excise duty and penalty, which may be imposed. 11. We may observe here that the adjudication proceedings are pending since 25-1-2011. For one reason or the other, it has been held up. As the legible copies of relied upon documents has already been supplied to the petitioner on 19-12-2011, we direct the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation within a period of one month from today and the Respondent No. 1 or the authorised officer, who had issued the notice dated 25-1-2011 shall pass the final order in accordance with law within one month thereafter. 12. So far as M/s. Vasudev Udyog and M/s. Mayank Metal are concerned they are not before us and, therefore, we are not passing any order in respect of these two firms. The authorities may proceed in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 659 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... llowable on windmill installed by the oil manufacturer. The additional depreciation is allowable in case of any new machinery or plant which is acquired or installed by the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of an article or things. It is nowhere mentioned that machinery or plant acquired by the assessee should be a plant or machinery utilized in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or things. Thus the requirement of Section 32(1)(ii)(a) are satisfied. Moreover, the AO took one of the possible view. Therefore, the order cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT , 243 ITR 83. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT is cancelled. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 658 - ITAT MUMBAI
Whether claim of the loss disallowed by virtue of provisions of section 94(7) attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Held NO - This is a bonafide mistake happened at the level of compiling the data. The application of provisions of section 94(7) were not examined nor invoked. Since the assessee has declared large amount of profits in transactions on purchase and sale of shares, this aspect could have genuinely missed the attention of persons concerned. Since no malafide intention can be attributed to assessee in claiming loss in these transactions, we are of the view that penalty under section 271(1)(C) is not warranted. Various case law relied upon by the assessee also supports the contentions made. However, without getting into the legal parameters, on facts of the case we are of the view that there occurred a bonafide mistake in not examining the provisions of section 94(7) on these transactions. Moreover, though there are disallowances in the course of the assessment proceedings, mere disallowance does not attract penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C).
-
2011 (12) TMI 657 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... end in view of our findings for the assessment year 2006-07. If the amount is less then no addition will be made because the advance in immediately preceding year has already been treated as deemed dividend. 4.1 The second ground of Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,710/- made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. 4.2 We have heard both the parties. The employees contribution before due date of return is allowable u/s 43B of the Act .Reliance is placed on the following decisions - 1. CIT vs AIMIL Ltd. & Others,312 ITR 508 (Del) 2. CIT vs Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 CTR 268 (SC) 4.3 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 5,710/- 5.0 In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment year 2006-07 is allowed and that of assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 09-12-2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C.
Held that:- The error in the impugned orders of the High Court transgresses judicious discretion. The process adopted by the High Court led to greater injustice than securing the ends of justice. The path charted by the High Court inevitably reflects a biased approach. It was a misplaced sympathy for a cause that can be termed as being inconsistent to the legal framework. Law is an endless process of testing and retesting as said by Justice Cardozo in his conclusion of the Judicial Process, ending in a constant rejection of the dross and retention of whatever is pure and sound. The multi-dimensional defective legal process adopted by the court below cannot be justified on any rational legal principle. The High Court was swayed away by considerations that are legally impermissible and unsustainable.
In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders challenged herein are declared to be nullity and as a consequence, the FIR registered by the CBI is also quashed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 655 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the appellant no.1 company has changed its structure and in view thereof is entitled to a fresh opportunity. 11. We are again not satisfied. Once the appropriate agencies have found it unsafe to allow inroads in the country to a particular foreign entity, merely because such foreign entity undergoes a mutation would not change the position. Such mutation cannot wash away the taint with which the investment was found to be suffering. 12. The senior counsel for the appellants on the basis of the information gathered and filed by way of the additional documents has lastly urged that the conclusions against the appellants remain inconclusive and the appellant is entitled to a direction for further inquiry. However on the basis of the intelligence inputs which have been shown to us, we are not inclined to direct any further investigation when the respondents themselves have not deemed the same necessary. 13. We therefore do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
-
2011 (12) TMI 654 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - whether input tax credit was liable to be reduced proportionately by 25% to the extent of manufacture of tax exempted "Chaff" ("Chokar") in the process of manufacture of "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji", which are taxable wheat products and for manufacture of which the wheat was purchased by the respondent-assessee upon payment of Sales Tax/VAT and full input tax credit in respect of which was claimed u/s 18 of the Act against the tax payable by the assessee on the sale of "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji" during the period in question? - Section 18 of the VAT Act of 2003.
Held that: - for the period in question before this Court in the present case, namely, 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2006 is prior to the amendment w.e.f. 02.04.2008 and, therefore, bran of wheat or Chaff/Chokar was exempted goods under Schedule-I of the VAT Act and there is no dispute on this from the side of the assessee - Admittedly, while the wheat bran, the exempted goods, were sold as exempted goods and were obtained in the process of manufacture of taxable goods viz. "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji" as merely byproduct Section 18 of the Act of 2003 does not make any distinction between such byproduct or final product, which are taxable goods for the manufacture of which the raw material, namely, wheat was used.
Input tax credit in the present case, was rightly reduced and was allowed only proportionately to the extent of manufacturing and sale of taxable goods by the assessee in the present case, namely, "Aata", "Maida" and "Suji", manufactured out of raw material (wheat) and such input tax credit could not be allowed to the extent of sale of VAT exempted goods, namely, wheat bran (Chaff/Chokar), which has been assessed by the Assessing Authority to the extent of 25% of the input tax credit and reverse tax has been imposed on the respondent-assessee.
Revision petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of Revenue.
-
2011 (12) TMI 653 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... l itself for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case has been finally decided by this very Bench in the appellant’s own case for an earlier period. He produces copy of our Final Order No. A/1946/2011-WZB/AHD, dated 16-11-2011 2012 (278) E.L.T. 271 (Tribunal) . 5. Learned SDR would submit that the issue involved in the final order dated 16-11-2011 is in respect of the very same assessee and the period in this case is subsequent period as was decided. 6. On perusal of Order dated 16-11-2011, we find that the issue involved in that case and in the case in hand are identical and the same and in respect of the very same assessee. Since we have already upheld the assessee’s contention in that appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, stay petition and appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 11,35,000/- dt. 1.10.2011. The departmental representative concerned points out that there is no tally between the payment claimed by the appellants and the records of the department. We need not look further into this controversy inasmuch as, indisputably, the order for pre-deposit is yet to be duly complied with. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants in Appeal No. C/550/09 submits that their writ appeal against the Tribunal’s stay order is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. He prays that the matter be kept in abeyance till the appellant gets appropriate orders from the Hon’ble High Court. We are not inclined to accede to this request inasmuch as the appellant did not choose to pre-deposit any amount in terms of the Tribunal’s direction and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. 4. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 651 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- It is not the case of the Revenue that the gross receipts shown by the assessee are not correct or it is not a case of estimation of income we are of the view that there is no concealment on the part of the assessee which may call for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and accordingly, the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) is deleted. The grounds taken by the assessee are , therefore, allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 650 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the ld. CIT(A), while deleting the addition of ₹ 10,34,382/- on account of peak credit in the bank account has observed that the credit which has been taken as peak on 24.1.2006 is outside the relevant accounting year 2004-05 relevant to Assessment Year 2005-06. The ld. D.R. could not controvert the above finding of the ld. CIT(A) by bringing any cogent or relevant material on record. Further, the Assessing Officer also could not controvert the explanation of the assessee that all the entries in the books of account were duly recorded in the books of account of the assessee and the books of account clearly show the source of such deposits. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 16th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 649 - CENTRAL SALES TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY
... ...
... ... ..... ngal and Jharkhand which have collected the tax to transfer the refundable amount to the State of Andhra Pradesh in the context of the order based by authorities below that is being affirmed by the order in this appeal. It was pointed out that what was paid by way of tax to those States would not exceed the tax now demanded by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh could not raise any valid objection to it. I am satisfied that a direction must be issued to the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand, to transfer the refundable amount of tax based on this order, to the State of Andhra Pradesh to which tax under the Act is due in respect of the transactions in question. In the result, I confirm the order of the Appellate Tribunal and dismiss the appeal but directing the States of West Bengal and Jharkhand, to transfer the refundable amount of tax to the State of Andhra Pradesh to which tax is due on these two transactions. I make no order as to costs.
............
|
