|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 10772 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 648 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d, therefore, the assessee had incurred a liability of warranty expenses during the year under consideration as and when the goods were sold to customers, which is entitled to deduction under sec. 37 of the Act. 33. Respectfully following the Tribunal’s order passed in A.Y. 2003-04, we upheld the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of assessee’s claim for provision of warranty expenses. 34. Thus, the ground No.4 in both Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005- 06 raised by the revenue is rejected. 35. The ground raised by the assessee regarding chargeability of interest under sec. 234B is consequential in nature and the Assessing Officer shall recompute the interest chargeable under sec. 234B on the income finally determined in the present case. 36. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in both the Assessment Years are allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed. 37. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 26th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 647 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... course of hearing the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee is following consistently to offer for taxation the part released of retention money against bank guarantee in the assessment year in which right to receive the said release of retention money accrued to the assessee unconditionally. The learned Departmental Representative also did not dispute the above contention of learned Authorized Representative at the time of hearing. 10. In view of above facts and decisions, and particularly that similar issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Associated Cables Pvt. Ltd. (supra) which has been followed by the learned CIT (A), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Ld.CIT (A). Hence, we uphold his order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the department. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 646 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... , about the omission of proviso to Section 80G(5)(vi) read with the Board's Circular, has not been considered by the ld. DIT(E) while rejecting the assessee's application for renewal of exemption. We, therefore, restore this matter back to the file of the DIT(E) with the direction to treat the approval of exemption granted earlier u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee in perpetuity, provided the earlier exemption granted u/s 80G of the Act to the assessee was to expire on or after 1.10.2009 and, in that case, the question of renewal of exemption u/s 80G would not arise. Otherwise, the DIT(E) shall examine the matter afresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee to produce all the details as required by him and shall decide the issue as per law contained in that behalf. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated to be allowed in the manner as indicated above. Order was pronounced in the open court on 21st December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 8. On going through the grounds of appeal, we find no valid reason stands advanced by the Revenue for enhancement of the redemption fine and penalty. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that there is no malafide on the part of the importer does not stand rebutted by the Revenue. Need to re-export of the impugned goods arose only because the importer could not get licence from the Drugs Controller of India. There is no dispute that the goods were correctly declared by the by the appellant. In such, a scenario, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 9. Miscellaneous application stands filed for early hearing of the appeal. Inasmuch as the appeal stands disposed of, miscellaneous application for early hearing is also disposed of. 10. Miscellaneous application and stay petition alongwith appeal get disposed in the above manners. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ncurred by the society is only on behalf of the members and no nexus of expenditure to the income is established, then the claim of expenditure cannot be entertained. 13 The assessee has raised an additional ground as under “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld Assessing Officer as well as the ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the income of RS 695700/- from letting out of suitable portion of the building to outsiders for commercial purposes and accumulation of common profit for building up reserve fund is for mutual concern. Therefore, is not taxable on the principles of mutuality.” 14 It is apparent from the additional ground that this ground is an alternative ground to the main ground nos.1 & 2 of the assessee; therefore, in view our findings on ground no.1, the additional ground raised by the assessee has become infructuous. 15 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 21st day of Dec 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 643 - ITAT MUMBAI
delete duplicate ... ... ... ... ..... ncurred by the society is only on behalf of the members and no nexus of expenditure to the income is established, then the claim of expenditure cannot be entertained. 13 The assessee has raised an additional ground as under “Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld Assessing Officer as well as the ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the income of RS 695700/- from letting out of suitable portion of the building to outsiders for commercial purposes and accumulation of common profit for building up reserve fund is for mutual concern. Therefore, is not taxable on the principles of mutuality.” 14 It is apparent from the additional ground that this ground is an alternative ground to the main ground nos.1 & 2 of the assessee; therefore, in view our findings on ground no.1, the additional ground raised by the assessee has become infructuous. 15 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 21st day of Dec 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 642 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. -vs.- ITO, Ward-11(2), Bangalore delivered on 16.07.2010. Therefore, effect of this decision should have been considered by ld. CIT while passing order under section 263 in order to find out whether the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. In view of above decision, rebate under section 88E was to be allowed from the tax computed as per provisions of section 115JB to find out whether after set off of rebate under section 88E, any tax liability remained or not. Admittedly the tax liability as per MAT provisions was ₹ 7,56,694/- and rebate admissible under section 88E was ₹ 26,98,260/-. Therefore, in any view of the matter, no prejudice was caused to the revenue by nonconsideration of provisions of section 115JB by Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. CIT’s order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the grounds of appeal taken by assesese are allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 640 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... High Court in the case of CIT vs Tiny Tots Education Society (supra) has held that the income of the assessee, being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust and as such, it could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing the income for purposes of Section 11 of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow depreciation and reduce the same from the income of the trust for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the Trust. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is thus upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open court on 21st December, 2011, immediately after the hearing was over.
-
2011 (12) TMI 639 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ment or evidence on this ground of appeal, the addition made by the Ld. AO is upheld. The assessee fails in ground of appeal No. 1. 10. I shall now adjudicate ground of appeal No. 3 wherein no arguments had been put forth by the Ld. AR. As such, the addition deserves to be upheld in ground of appeal No. 3.” 3. We find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has not made any discussion about these two issues and failed to consider the material on record. The order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority on the issues impugned in the present appeal cannot be in accordance with the mandate of sub section (6) of section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore, we allow the appeal of assessee and set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). Both issues are restored to the file of Ld. First Appellate Authority for readjudication. Ld. First Appellate Authority shall decide the issues after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 638 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ficient opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say that while redeciding the issues, the AO shall pass a speaking order, bringing out clearly as to when the trial production ended and commercial production started. The assessee is also directed to co-operate in the assessment and place all the relevant facts within their specific knowledge and produce all the relevant books of accounts including production records and quality control reports before the AO. With these observations, ground nos. 1 to 6 in the appeal are disposed of. 6. Ground no. 7 in the appeal being general in nature nor any submissions having been made before us on this ground, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.8 in the appeal, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 7. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 8. In result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes.. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2011 (12) TMI 637 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he sales outside the books of account. For not having found anything contrary to the findings arrived at by the CIT A and on cumulatively examining the facts, which were presented before the Tribunal, it upheld the findings of the CIT A which applied the gross profit ration as against the undisclosed sales made by the assessee for the purpose of making the additions. Thus, it could be seen from the order of the Tribunal, on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, it concluded the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It found sufficient material on record to uphold the findings arrived at by the CIT A and for so doing, it had given cogent reasons in its order. For having found no material to come to any conclusion that the order of the Tribunal is suffering from any infirmity, or has given rise to any question of law for the consideration of this Court, this Tax Appeal requires no further meritorious consideration, and is therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 636 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cases do not meet the requirements of law as the DRP is a quasi judicial authority and is under an obligation to provide cogent and germane reason for deciding the issues in favour of or against the assessee. Therefore, we restore both these appeals to the file of DRP to re-adjudicate all the issues raised before it after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and after considering all the submissions made in this regard by way of a speaking order giving cogent and germane reasons for not accepting the claim of the assessee or for accepting the claim of the assessee as the case may be. As we are restoring all the issues to the file of DRP, we do not express any opinion as the matter will be re-adjudicated by the DRP as per the directions given in this order and as per the provisions of law. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes both the appeals are considered to be allowed in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 29.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 635 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... reason to take a contrary view and hence, by respectfully following the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and of Hon’ble apex court cited by Ld.AR of the assessee, we hold that in the present case, the notice dated 01-06-2005 issued by Assessing Officer u/s.158BD r.w.s 158BC is not valid as the same does not meet the requirement of law as ruled by Hon’ble apex court in the case of Manish Maheshwari (supra) and therefore, we quash the block assessment order and allow the additional ground of appeal. 13. Since, we have quashed the block assessment itself, therefore, other grounds raised by assessee in CO are not to be decided because the same are infructuous, and similarly, the appeal filed by Revenue is also to be dismissed as infructuous and we order accordingly. 12. In the result, the CO filed by assessee is allowed while the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 09/12/2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 634 - ITAT KOLKATA
Deduction under section 80G(5)(vi) - rejected the renewal application filed in Form No. 10G for claiming deduction - Held that:- Since the assessee was having valid exemption upto 31.03.2010, because of ignorance of the A/R of assessee, a mistaken application for renewal of exemption was filed, the same should not have been rejected for violation of the provisions of section 11(1)(a). In case, there is a violation of the provisions of section 11(1)(a), the relevant additions could have been made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the Trust disallowing the exemption to the assessee accordingly. But in any case, renewal of exemption under section 80G(5)(vi) cannot be denied. Accordingly, we direct the DIT(Exemption), Kolkata to allow the exemption and this issue of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 633 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on and instead, they pay the monthly subscription after deducting the amount of dividend earned. Members who have bid for the chit in auction have the liability to keep the contribution to the chit till the end of the chit period and the prized members get dividend in future months also. Usually the discount, namely, the sum of money, which the prized subscriber is required to forgo, decreases over periods. The person getting money in the last period received the full scheme amount.” 5. In view of the above findings of the various courts, we are of the opinion that the CIT(A) is justified in holding that the payment of dividend to the subscribers of a chit towards dividend does not partake the character of interest and accordingly the assessee is not liable to deduct TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and not liable for interest u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 632 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the footing that depreciation was not thrusted upon the assessee in the earlier assessment orders cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the first question raised by the Revenue cannot be entertained. 4. As regards the second question is concerned, the ITAT has remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer with direction to follow the Special Bench decision in the case of Lalson Enterprises (89 ITD 25). Since the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain the second question. However, the Assessing Officer while giving the effect to the order of the ITAT and passing the fresh order shall take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Star Ltd (326 ITR 56) wherein the Special Bench decision in the case of Lalson Enterprises 89 ITD 25 has been considered. Accordingly, the second question also cannot be entertained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 631 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der Section 260A of the Act have not been preferred by the Revenue. No case is made out to establish that the earlier decisions of the ITAT were erroneous or contrary to law. Hence, the second question cannot be entertained. 3. As regards the third question is concerned, the ITAT has remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer with instructions to follow the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Lalson Enterpses (89 ITD 25). Since the ITAT has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, we are not inclined to entertain the third question. However, the Assessing Officer while giving the effect to the order of the ITAT and passing the fresh order shall take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Asian Star Ltd (326 ITR 56) wherein the Special Bench decision in the case of Lalson Enterprises reported in 89 ITD 25 has been considered. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 630 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... trading, for which separate accounts had been maintained. Further, in the Assessment Years 2002-03 and 2004-05, the AO himself accepted the similar income declared by the assessee as capital gain. The capital gain declared by the assessee was again accepted by the AO for the Assessment Year 2007-08 u/s.143(3). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, it will not be appropriate to assess the income declared by the assessee from sale and purchase of shares as business income. We see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) accepting the claim of the assessee particularly, when the similar claim had been accepted by the Tribunal in Assessment Year 2005-06 and department had also accepted the claim in the earlier years as well as in the subsequent year. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is, therefore, upheld. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 629 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ana in the case of Subhash Chand Verma Vs. CIT (supra) for the proposition that even the monies were received from the bank the gift can be held as non-genuine, however, we are of the view that the principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court in the said cases do not apply the present case as the AO has not disputed the genuineness of the gifts and has not drawn any inference that the gifts are bogus. The only reason for treating the amounts as unexplained cash credits due to the creditworthiness not proved by the assessee. Since creditworthiness is proved beyond doubt, the CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the AO in the case of respective assessees. Therefore, we uphold the orders of the CIT(A) in both the cases under consideration and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in both the appeals. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 628 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s job in accordance with his licence. In such circumstances, it would have been just and proper for the respondents to permit the petitioner no.1 to work as Customs House Agent. Not having done so, the respondents authorities had committed an illegality. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner no.1 to act as Customs House Agent forthwith. However, I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the miscellaneous application pending before the Tribunal which is to be considered on merits where the petitioners are at liberty to raise all points which have been raised in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Learned advocates for the parties are permitted to take down the gist of this order and the respondents including the respondent no.1 shall act on the basis of such communication. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this order on the usual undertakings.
............
|
