|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 14645 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1706
... ...
... ... ..... which it carried on business during the relevant assessment year and 25 per cent of the gross receipt is attributable to the said business. Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the Tribunal has made any effort to bring on record any evidence to justify the same. 10. That being the situation, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal as well as the assessment order in so far as the same relates to imposition of tax liability on the 25 per cent of the gross receipt upon the appellant in the circumstances mentioned above, and observe that the questions of law formulated by us, while admitting the appeal, have not, in fact, arisen on the facts and circumstances of the case, but the real question was, whether the tax liability could be fastened without establishing that the same is attributable to the tax identity or permanent establishment of the enterprise situate in India and the same, we think, is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1705
... ...
... ... ..... and copy of account of the lending party in the books of account of the assessee. The confirmed copy could not be filed because the representative of the concern could not be contacted. The assessee has now filed the confirmed copy of account of the above concern. Since many other credits have been accepted by the Assessing Officer on the basis of evidence in the shape of confirmed copy of account the credit in the account of Shree Ganesh Ispat Co is also taken to be genuine. The assessee succeeds on this ground.” 11. Since the Ld. CIT(A) has accepted this loan because the confirmation and PAN Number was filed before him and he was satisfied that some loans have been accepted by the Assessing Officer on similar confirmations, therefore, in our opinion the issue has been correctly decided by him and there is no need to remand the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. 12. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1704
... ...
... ... ..... luation report taking the value as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 49,34,000/- with respect to this property, the assessee’s share comes to one third i.e. ₹ 16,44,666/-. It means that the AO should have computed the LTCG after taking the fair market value of this property as on 01.04.1981 as the assessee is holding this property w.e.f. 01.10.1976 (as mentioned in the valuation report). In view of the above, we are of the view that let the AO take the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as the assessee has submitted fair market value from a registered valuer at ₹ 16,44,666/- (his one-third share) and compute the LTCG after indexing w.e.f. 01.04.1981. Accordingly, this issue of assessee’s appeal is set aside to the file of AO for recomputation of LTCG in terms of the above. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013..
-
2013 (12) TMI 1703
... ...
... ... ..... Empowered Standing Committee dated 26.8.2013 (Annexure-4), it clearly indicates that they had considered the two panels. They had not disapproved it. Approval was a fait accompli. 6. Thus again, the action of the Municipal Commissioner cannot be sustained either in fact or in law. It is, accordingly, quashed. Annexure-3 and consequential order, as contained in Annexure-5, are set aside. The decision of the Municipal Commissioner to appoint other persons ignoring the panel made on 5.3.2013 cannot be sustained. 7. Before parting, I may point out that Municipal Corporation is nothing but a form of local self-Government. The Corporation has to function upon decisions by the Corporators. The Municipal Commissioner there is to carry out the directions of the Corporators. He is not an authority above the Corporators. He has to serve the Corporators and not vice versa. The sooner he realizes his position the better will be for the democratic institution. The writ petition is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1702
... ...
... ... ..... siness of the undertaking. Though it does not par take tile character of a profit and gains from the sale of an article, it is the income which is derived from the consideration realized by export of articles. In view of the definition of 'Income from Profits and Gains' incorporated in Subsection (4), the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption of the said amount as contemplated under Section 10B of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit to the aforesaid amounts also. We do not find any merit in these appeals. Therefore, the first substantial question of law raised in ITA No.428/2007 is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and the first substantial question of law in ITA No.447/2007 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the second substantial question of law in both the appeals do not arise for consideration. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1701
... ...
... ... ..... only if the same survives an examination on facts, i.e., satisfies the test of s. 12AA(3) on facts. We decide accordingly. 5. As regards the assessee's stay petition, the prayer was limited to, drawing reference to the decisions in the case of ITO vs. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi 1969 71 ITR 815 (SC) and ITO vs. Khalid Mehdi Khan 1977 110 ITR 79 (AP) qua the inherent power of an appellate authority to grant stay, to stay the demand for a period of 3 months, by which time the tribunal's order in the instant case would ensue. We having heard the appeal on merits, were disinclined to, even as observed during hearing, interfere in the matter; no case for financial hardship having been even otherwise made out. In fact, in view of our disposal of its appeal, the assessee's application becomes infructuous. Result In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and its stay petition is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on December 31, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1700
... ...
... ... ..... nt Treasury, also give rise to Hawala transactions. Therefore in my views such cases have to be dealt with more seriously by imposition of harsher and deterrent penalty to discourage recurrence of such fraud. In this case the allegation of inflating the FOB value by a factor about 426 stands upheld by both the Members. While the duty unvalued on the goods is negligible, the DEPB benefit claimed is ₹ 11,26,137/- which is outsight plunder of Government Treasury. Therefore this case merits deterrent penalty. In view of this, I agree with the view of the Hon’ble Member (Technical). The point of difference stands answered accordingly. (Order pronounced on 19-12-2013) Sd/- (Rakesh Kumar) Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER 29. In view of the majority order, the penalty of ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) is imposed on the appellant. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (Manmohan Singh) Member (Technical) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1699
... ...
... ... ..... spect to deleting disallowance of ₹ 66,61,177/- out of ₹ 88,51,569/- on account of obsolete stock/stores, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence and on facts, the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT have confirmed the disallowance to the extent of 25% by observing that spares of the machinery could not be having any value including scrap value and further held that 25% of the total amount should be considered as scrap value and to that extent, the disallowance should be confirmed. 9 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that any question of law much less any substantial question of law arises. Under the circumstances, the present appeal qua question No.(C) also deserves to be dismissed and accordingly is dismissed. 10 As stated above, the present appeal is dismissed so far as question Nos.(B) and (C) are concerned and the present Tax Appeal has already admitted to consider the question No.(A) only.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1698
... ...
... ... ..... party (AM) have held after considering the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kurung Thai Bank PCL in ITA No.3390/M/1990 dated 30.9.2010 that provisions of section 115JB are not applicable to the assessee-banking-company and therefore assessee’s case is not covered by MAT provisions. In the said case, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act was quashed. Respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal on similar issue (supra), we vacate the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Act by allowing Ground No.3 of the appeal taken by assessee. 4. Since, we have vacated the order of Commissioner of Income Tax, we do not consider it necessary to adjudicate upon the other grounds taken by assessee on the question limitation of the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1697
... ...
... ... ..... om separate undertakings, restriction contained in above provision would not be applicable - Held, yes." Following the above we decide this issue against the assessee because there is mandatory provision of Section 801A(9) which makes it clear that deduction u/s 801A has to be reduced for computing deduction under other provisions of the Act. Recently this issue has been discussed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of M/S Broadway Overseas Limited, Suranussi vs. CIT, ITA No. 234 of 2009 (O&M) dated 22.11.2013 in detail. After detailed discussion and following the decision of Coordinate Bench it was observed that deduction u/s 80HHC is to be granted only after reducing the deduction to the extent already allowed u/s 801B. Therefore, following these decisions, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 31 In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1696
... ...
... ... ..... he suit property was a self-acquired property by operation of law as discussed hereinabove, both when the grandfather later when the father inherited it. The plaint was devoid of any particulars setting up a claim through an HUF. Therefore, the arguments of the appellant are untenable. 6. There is a body of authority to the effect that though a family might be joint, there is no presumption that property of someone is HUF property. Understood from this perspective, the appellant-plaintiff was under an obligation to prove in the first instance that his grandfather's acquired the suit property through devolution of HUF interest. He clearly did not adduce any evidence in support of such claim. Consequently, the Single Judge's finding that succession was to be in terms of Section 8, cannot be faulted. 7. We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed along with the applications.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1695
... ...
... ... ..... ng the application of section 1414, as explained by the hon'ble court in Godrej & Boyce (supra), upholding the order by the tribunal passed following the decision in ITO v. Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 117 ITD 169 or does the same represent an out of context reading of the said decision by the jurisdictional high court, which is therefore not germane or relevant to the issue? 6. Whether, even on facts, can it be at all said that no expenditure in relation to the dividend income stands incurred by an assessee where the shares yielding such income are held as stock-in-trade? The Id. Third Member (TM) has since, i.e., per his separate order dated27.11.2013, concurred with the view expressed by the AM vide para 12 of his order. The assessee's appeal is accordingly decided as per the majority view. 4. In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on December 06, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1694
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) in the circumstances of the case, taking due cognizance of the specific directions of the Tribunal, has correctly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.” 8. Hence, we dismiss the revenue’s appeals as the document found is a dumb document and the A.O. without considering the corroborative information which was available in the compact disc has added the amounts. The amounts added have already been reflected in the books of M/s. Sujana Metal Products Ltd for the respective financial years relevant to the assessment year. The seized material being not corroborated by any independent evidence, cannot be considered as a document in proof of unaccounted investment and hence, to be deleted. In the present case, a single paper which is seized A/SUIC/B6/18 is a dumb material found during the search. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. 9. In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1693
... ...
... ... ..... me-tax, Rajkot-I and the orders relied upon by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee-trust. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University (supra) held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. The decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of O.P. Jundal Global University (supra) has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Shree Govindbhai Jethalal Nathvani Charitable Trust in ITA No.402/Rjt/2013 also. Respectfully following the same, I set aside the impugned order of ld Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I and direct him to grant the approval u/s 80G(5) of the Incometax Act, 1961 to the assessee-trust. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed. This order pronounced in open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1692
... ...
... ... ..... similar revision in respect of assessee for the assessment year 2009-10 has already been dismissed. This revision pertains to the assessment year 1010-11. In this assessment year tax liability was created against the assessee for the reason that it had purchased goods from an unregistered dealer. The tribunal by the impugned order dated 22.3.2013 has returned a categorical finding that the selling dealer was duly registered at the relevant time and that all sales were made against the tax invoice and the payment was made through bank. In view of the above, as the goods purchased by the assessee were all tax paid, there was no question of any liability of the entry tax. The revision has no merit and is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1691
... ...
... ... ..... sale, including the name of proposed buyer, proposed sale consideration and the terms and conditions of sale, if any etc. iii. It is further directed that the company shall also provide an opportunity to the Petitioner granting him 15 days time to bring a better buyer. In case, he brings a better offer with the same terms and conditions, it shall also be considered by the Board of Directors and/or shareholders in the Board meeting and/or EOGM. However, it is left open to the Rl Company either to accept or reject it but whatever decisions taken by the Rl Company, the reasons thereof will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Further, the Petitioner's objections if any, made during the course of such meeting will also be recorded and disposed off by the Rl Company. iv. C.P stands disposed of in the above terms. v. Interim order, stands vacated. C.A, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. vi. No order as to costs. vii. Let copy of order be circulated to all concerned.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1690
... ...
... ... ..... me escaped assessment for which the reasons were recorded and only thereafter in respect of some other items of escaped income. If, however, the income, escapement of which was the foundation for recording of reasons to believe, is not assessed or reassessed in the order under section 147, then it is not mere open to the AO to independently assess any other income, which comes to his notice subsequently. 12. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedents, we uphold the order of ld. CIT(A) that the AO was not competent to continue with the proceedings under section 147 in this case and the assessment lacks jurisdiction and hence the same is void ab initio. Since we have allowed the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee, adjudicating on the merits of the case is only of academic interest. Hence, we are not dealing with the same. 13. In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. This Order is pronounced in the court on 20th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1689
... ...
... ... ..... ected to reexamine and reassess the candidature of the petitioner for promotion by considering his qualifications as graduate, and in terms of Para 17.2.1 of the Policy of 2008 he is declared en-titled for the requisite marks under the Qualifications head. The respondents are directed to undertake this exercise afresh, and if the petitioner is found suitable for promotion after reassessment of his merit and suitability, then requisite consequential orders be issued in this behalf after making room for him by demoting the incumbent lowest in the ranking list to maintain cadre strength. In case the petitioner is found suitable for promotion, then he shall be entitled for all consequential benefits from the date the incumbents lower in ranking list were promoted in the cadre of Assistant. The respondents are directed to make compliance of the directions as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1688
... ...
... ... ..... llant(s) will be liable to pay the arrears of tax along with interest, as may be determined by this Court under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Entry Tax Act, 2007, at the time of final disposal of the appeal. The request of the learned senior counsel appears to be reasonable and if it is granted it would not prejudice the case of the respondents in any manner whatsoever. In view of the above, we accept the prayer so made by Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1687
... ...
... ... ..... 7 (Director of Income Tax International Taxation Delhi II, New Delhi versus M/s Schlumberger Asia Service Ltd.), on 24th July, 2009, whereby and under, it has been held that the payment made included the amount of custom duty payable and, accordingly, that part of the payment will not come under Section 44BB of the Income-Tax Act. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the said pronouncement and, accordingly, refer the matter to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.
........
|
