|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 10772 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 627 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ever, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. (319 ITR 306) have held that amendment to section 43B by the Finance Act, 2003 is retrospective in nature, as the same had been inserted to remove intended consequences. The effect of the said judgment is that contributions deposited before the due date of filing of return of income has to be allowed as deduction. o p /o p Following the said judgment, the various benches of the Mumbai Tribunal have been allowing the claim both in relation to the employer’s contribution and employee’s contribution, if deposit is within the due date of filing the return of income. We, therefore, direct the AO to allow the deduction if contributions have been paid before the due date of filing the return of income after necessary verification. o p /o p 10. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed in terms of the order above. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (12) TMI 626 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e said bank accounts had flown back to the assessee. Given such facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the basis for treating the liabilities totaling to ₹ 1,07,27,834/- as ingenuine or bogus was not well founded and not properly grounded’ could not be controverted by the ld. DR. The only provision in the Income-tax Act is u/s 41(1) which provides for treating the cessation of liabilities as the assessee’s income. In this particular case, no attempt was made to prove or to show that the liabilities totaling to ₹ 1,07,27,834/- had ceased to exist and that the provisions of section 41(1) was applicable. In our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to delete the addition of ₹ 1,07,27,834/-. We uphold the same. The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 29.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 625 - ITAT MUMBAI
Allowability of business expenses u/s 37 - assessee has to carry out the business activity and directed the AO to enhance the assessment - business loss - bad debts written off - claim u/s 41(1) - addition being the amount credited to capital reserve on account of waiver of principal amount of loan allowed by Centurion Bank.
-
2011 (12) TMI 624 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the course of search in the statement recorded under s. 132(4) had stated that the amount of ₹ 25 lacs was unaccounted expenses though they were genuine expenses and an amount of ₹ 1.38 crore has been paid to middlemen for removal of encroachment in the land and since the Department has not proved that the amount has not been spent and has been utilised for some other purpose and further considering the fact that the assessee made a conditional offer, therefore, although the same is justified for addition in the quantum assessment, however, the same is not sufficient to attract the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c). In this view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that no penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied on the amounts of ₹ 25 lacs and 1.35 crore respectively. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 623 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... od and rates adopted for calculating the depreciation, have to be the same as have been adopted for the purpose of preparing such accounts including profit and loss account and laid before the company at its annual general meeting in accordance with the provisions of section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. 5.2 In view of the specific provisions contained in sub-section (2) of sec. 115JB of the Act, especially when the ld. CIT(A) merely followed the aforesaid decision in accepting the claim of the assessee while the Revenue have not brought to our notice any contrary decision nor any other material, so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal are dismissed. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.4 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is also dismissed. 7. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 8. In result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 622 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - expenditure to ISE, which is the holding company of the assessee - Held that:- The amount in question is only reimbursement of the actual expenses and there is no element of any margin or profit.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Penalty for violation of bye laws of Stock Exchange - Held that:- As decided in case of Angle Capital & Debit Market Ltd [2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the amount paid as penalty was on account of irregularities committed by the assessee’s clients. Such payments were not on account of any infraction of law and hence allowable as business expenditure. In such a case the explanation to section 37a would not apply. Accordingly, when the payment made on violation of bye-laws cannot said to be payment of any infraction of law and cannot be disallowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 621 - ITAT BANGALORE
TDS u/s 194H - disallowance of claim of commission paid - Held that:- AO in his remand report has accepted that the assessee incurred expenditure by way of royalty to the Government organization viz., KSTDC for stopping the Bangalore sight seeing coaches at the business premises of the assessee and that the other documents submitted in connection with the payment towards travel agents for bringing the customers to the business premises of the assessee were in order. The AO also mentioned in the remand report that a surprise check for making spot enquiries was made on 28.10.10 to obtain clinching evidence against the assessee and during the course of enquiries conducted, it was found that the assessee had been incurring expenditure by way of commission to drivers and the commission agents for bringing the customers to the business premises of the assessee. The AO accepted the claim of the assessee in his remand report. In the present case, when the AO during the course of remand proceedings made spot enquiries and was fully satisfied with the claim of the assessee, in our opinion, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the addition made by the AO.
-
2011 (12) TMI 620 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e profit for working out the deduction under sec. 80-IC is concerned, this ground has not been adjudicated by the Learned CIT(Appeals) in assessment year 2005-06, therefore, we remit this ground to the Learned First Appellate Authority for adjudication. 7. As far as the gain on account of exchange difference is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer has assessed this amount under the head “income from other sources”. However, this amount has resulted to the assessee on the unrealized sales made by the assessee. It deserves to be treated at par with the sales realized by the assessee. Learned First Appellate Authority has rightly treated it as a business income and we do not find any error in the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals). In this way, the appeal for assessment year 2005-06 i.e. 3245/Del/2010 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal for assessment year 2006-07 i.e. ITA No.3246/Del/2010 is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court
-
2011 (12) TMI 619 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s fair and justifiable to estimate the income at 10 of the total receipts of ₹ 1,15,05,086 and the Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 10. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), assessee preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 11. We heard both parties. We find no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A), as the CIT(A) has adopted the rate of 10 on the basis that the bench mark for income in civil constructions is at 8 in the cases of small entrepreneur whose total receipt is less than 40 lakhs, whereas in the case of the assessee before us, having voluminous of business, the estimation adopting a rate of 10 is reasonable. In the absence of reliable book results, taking into consideration various factors in the case of the assessee, we feel that the CIT(A) has been fair and just in estimating the income at 10 of the receipts. Hence we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 12. 1In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.12.2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 618 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in the preceding years and not in the A.Y. 2003-04. Nothing is there on record for the A.Y. 2003-04 to prove that the assessee has understated the income for the A.Y. 2003-04. We, therefore, concur with the view of the Ld. CIT (A) that the alleged understatement of the income has no relevance to the A.Y. 2003-04. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition and we accordingly confirm the same. 7. The Ld. Counsel submits that the revenue has also declared ground on the DEPB which is by a mistake and has no relevance with the present assessee. He further submits that no issue is arising in respect of the addition u/s.41(1), hence, the ground on the said issue is wrongly taken. As the issue of the DEPB and addition u/s.41(1) has no relevance with the assessment made by the A.O. the said grounds are infructuous and we dismiss the same. 8. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 28th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 617 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y is 20 grams or less. Admittedly, the net weight of the samples drawn was 16 grams as can be seen from the Analyst Report itself. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Rule 32 (b) read with Rule 32 (f) proviso, it is not incumbent upon the petitioners to label the sample with the details envisaged by Rule 32(b) as the net weight of the product was 16 grams only. Consequently, it cannot be held that the petitioners were guilty of misbranding the product. Thus it is clear that the petitioners are not guilty of either adulteration or misbranding of the sample. The claim of violation under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act consequently is misconceived. The prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.429 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District is hereby quashed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 616 - SC ORDER
Applications for substitution are allowed - Permission to file special leave petitions is granted - The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 615 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... to investment in shares but there has been no disallowance of similar nature for the earlier years. In view of the huge profit earned by the assessee from year to year as also accumulated resources available to the assessee we hold that investment should be considered as having been made out of internal accruals and no part of the borrowals can be said to have been utilized for the purpose of investment. Unless the assessing officer proves that the borrowed fund have been actually been utilized for the purpose of making investment in shares, no adhoc disallowance can be made under Section 14A. The decision of the Punjab and Hariyana High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd reported in 323 ITR 518 supports this view. 7. In the circumstances we delete the addition of ₹ 321000/- made under Section 14A towards notional interest on the quantum of investment made in shares. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 14.12.2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 614 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... granted earlier. In view of peculiar facts, the CIT was directed to examine afresh the registration u/s 12AA by condoning delay.” o p /o p Facts being similar, so following the same reasons, we restore this issue to the file of the CIT to examine the issue afresh. According to the learned AR the trust was granted all the benefits such as exemption u/s 12A, eligibility u/s 80-G etc., for past many years. Merely for the reason that the assessee trust is not able to produce the registration certificate u/s 12A, the department cannot now take a stand that the trust was not granted registration. The burden is on the revenue to demonstrate that such registration was not granted. In view of the facts stated above, the CIT is directed to examine the issue afresh in the light of above legal discussion and grant relief to the assessee as per law. o p /o p In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on 30-12-2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (12) TMI 613 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Sales promotion expenses - Allowable business expenditure - exemption on excise duty refund - Capital receipt -
-
2011 (12) TMI 612 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Scope of revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Issues which were considered and decided by the CIT(A), cannot be made subject to the provisions of Section 263 of the Act by the CIT, as is evident from the reproduction of sub-clause ‘c’ of Explanation to Section 263(1) of the Act:
-
2011 (12) TMI 611 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r. Siddhartha Jha, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. O R D E R Delay in filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26671-26674/2011 is condoned. Leave granted. The appeals will be heard on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2011 (12) TMI 610 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... on production capacity and accordingly, the duty liability shall be reworked and the corresponding penalty of equal amount reworked under Section 11AC upheld. (iii) Interest demands on the amounts at (i) & (ii) are upheld. (iv) Penalty of ₹ 42 lakhs imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, on TAG is set aside. (b) Appeal No. E/559/08 is disposed of by upholding the confiscation of the goods. The redemption fine of 50,000 is upheld. Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed is also upheld. However, the demand of ₹ 2,85,634/- is set aside for the reasons recorded earlier. (c) Appeal No. E/70/2008 filed by Shri H.S. Nataraj, M.D. of TAG is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs imposed on him is upheld. (d) E/826/08 by M/s Embee Agencies is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- imposed on them is upheld. (e) E/825/08 by M/s Whab Stores is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed on them is upheld. (Pronounced in open court on .)
-
2011 (12) TMI 609 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here was no basis to pass the order of detention and the matter must be viewed from the point of time when the order was made. We may also note that unlike the decision in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant Vs. Union of India and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 31 the concerned authorities do have a case that the detenu was continuing with his operations which are sought to be prevented in law. In fact, we put it to the petitioner whether the petitioner is inclined to amend the Writ Petition and to seek judicial review. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the petitioner is pressing for orders as it is. We must state that we have not had the benefit of perusing the grounds of detention and for all purposes, despite the execution of the order, it remains a pre-execution challenge. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances presented before us and on our understanding of the law, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petition.
-
2011 (12) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Whether the computer peripherals like CD writer, Printer, Network Cables, switches, isolators etc. are entitled to depreciation @ 60% or depreciation at the normal rate applicable to plant and machinery - Held that:- In view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this question has to be decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
............
|
