|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 2843 Records
-
2015 (10) TMI 2733 - ITAT COCHIN
International transaction - advances given by the assessee to its AEs in UK and USA - Held that:- ITAT, Cochin Bench in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 is contrary to the assertions made by the assessee in support of the aforesaid ground. It has specifically dealt with the scope of expression “international transaction” as amended by Finance Act, 2012 retrospectively. It was held that the advances given by the assessee to its AEs in UK and USA came within the ambit of international transaction as per the amendment made in the provisions of section 92B of the Act. We are bound by the decision rendered by the previous Bench in assessee’s own case. There is no occasion for us to comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the judgments relied upon by the assessee as the case of the assessee is covered against the assessee by the Tribunal order dated 29/11/2013. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Erroneous imputing of interest on advances - Held that:- We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the Ld. AR. The Ld. AR has failed to bring on record any distinguishing feature between the present case and case of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09. In the assessment year 2008-09, an identical issue came up for consideration before the ITAT, Cochin Bench in assessee’s own case wherein the assessee had charged interest at the rate of 5% on the advances made to its AE Suntec Germany and charged no interest on the advances made to its AEs in USA and UK. The Bench in para 9.4 (extracted above) held that commercial expediency cannot be a ground for not charging interest on the advances given to Suntec US and Suntec UK and upheld the charge of interest at the rate of 5% on the advances made to its AEs in USA and UK.
Non-allowance of tax credit in the case of the assessee by the Revenue - The assessee has submitted that it was given a tax credit of ₹ 8,50,979/- only instead of ₹ 35,95,891/-. - The assessee has further given details of ₹ 27,44,912/- for which the tax credit were not given - Held that:- Assessing Officer is directed to grant tax credits due to the assessee in accordance with law as reflected in income tax records. Thus, Ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2732 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Issuance of F-Forms - KVAT/CST Act - the consignee agents of the petitioner in Kerala, have already closed down their business - Held that:- The said prayer cannot be granted, since it would be almost impossible for the respondents to conduct a verification of the details that are sought to be incorporated in the F-forms at this distance of time - petition dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2731 - SC ORDER
Computation of book profits u/s 11JB – Treatment of provision of bad and doubtful debts – Effect of amendment - Held that:- We do not find any merit in these petitions. - The special leave petition are accordingly dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2730 - SC ORDER
Addition u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B - default related to payment of provident fund (PF) - employer and employees contribution - there are further contributions viz. voluntary provident fund, employees state insurance corporation, group savings, linked insurance.
SLP admitted.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2729 - KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner wants to transport the grantes, stones and metal already quarried - Held that:- The first respondent shall verify whether the petitioner has quarried based on the valid permit. If the petitioner has extracted the metal on valid permit, necessary O(A) forms shall be issued to the petitioner - petition disposed off.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2728 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Reverse Charge Mechanism - relevant time - appellant had availed the services of the Consultant, who are situated abroad - case of appellant is that the Service Tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism is applicable from 18-4-2006 only and prior to that tax liability would not arise on the appellant - invocation of extended period of limitation - Penalty - Circular No. 276/8/2009-CX-8A, dated 26-9-2009.
Held that:- The Service Tax demand for the period April, 2009 to Dec., 2009 is to be upheld as confirmed by the adjudicating authority along with interest, as undoubtedly Service Tax liability is due under the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - the Service Tax liability for the period April, 2009 to December, 2009 upheld along with interest.
Penalty - Held that:- There is no necessity to impose the penalty on the appellant as the entire issue was disputed and it is a question of interpretation - penalty set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2727 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of Tender Notice - quashing of e-tender process - non-submission of draft by some of the bidders (containing the tender cost and earnest money) required to be filed along with the tender - Held that:- A careful reading of the impugned judgment and order would show that none of the aforesaid aspects have been borne in mind by the High Court and it has failed to appreciate the same in a proper perspective while exercising its judicial review power. The High Court has erred in quashing the decision of the Appellant-Corporation regarding the cancellation of its earlier tender notice and also the subsequent tender notice issued afresh by it on 13.12.2012 for the same works.
The High Court has failed to see that the Appellant-Corporation adopted a fair and transparent method by inviting the bids for the re-tender notice issued by it. The High Court has not found any malafide intention on the part of Appellant-Corporation in inviting the fresh bids after taking the decision to cancel its earlier tender notice. The Appellant-Corporation, being the custodian of public finance, took its decision objectively with a bonafide intention to serve the best interest of the public in general - the Appellant-Corporation has not committed any wrong in cancelling its earlier tender notice and issuing subsequent tender notice afresh inviting bids from the eligible contractors.
The decision of the High Court in quashing the Appellant-Corporation's decision of cancelling the earlier tender vide corrigendum dated 30.11.2012 and also the subsequent e-tender process is vitiated in law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2726 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Punishment and penalty imposed on petition - it was alleged that petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of cash and that the petitioner has failed to perform his duties as Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in terms of Rule 13 of the Central Government Accounts (Receipts of Payments) Rules, 1983 - The contention of the petitioner is that Mr. Simon was an administrative Officer of his equivalent rank, and was involved in similar offence but punishment on Simon is meager as compared to him.
Held that:- It is no doubt true that one Mr. Simon was also held responsible for such misappropriation. Separate enquiry was conducted against him and he was also punished Merely because, the lesser punishment is imposed on him, it cannot be said that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have imposed the same punishment on the petitioner also. The punishment depends on the gravity of the proved charge. Since, it is found that the petitioner has not maintained a separate account for non-Government money related to recovery from salary of the staff not verified the daily balance; not recovered cash and as such he did not keep the cash in safe custody on day to day basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly concluded that the petitioner is liable for punishment as imposed by it.
The Disciplinary Authority has also concluded that Simon being the Cashier, he was also jointly responsible, but the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner is on the higher side as compared to Simon's misconduct.
Since, we find that the sentence imposed on the petitioner is just and proper and as the said order is rightly confirmed by the central Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, no interference is called for - petition dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2725 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - undisclosed investments u/s. 69 - Held that:- No doubt the assessee contended before the Tribunal that the notices were issued without mentioning the reason for reopening and though it was submitted that some of the shares mentioned by Mr. Mukesh Choksi were not purchased by the assessees-herein but the fact remains that no material whatsoever was furnished before the Tribunal to cross verify the statement of assessees-herein. No other alternative except to uphold the orders passed by learned CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2724 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Maintainability of appeal - parallel remedy sought against same cause of action - Appellant explains that against the appellate order appellant is also before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in CMA - Held that:- Law being well settled that parallel remedy cannot be sought against same cause of action, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2723 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 43B in respect of contribution to PF - Held that:- For the AY 2002-2003 in the assessee‟s own case, wherein the Tribunal adjudicated the identical issue and allowed the assessee‟s claim u/s 43B of the Act. On perusal of the said decision of the Tribunal for the AY 2002-03 in the assessee‟s own case we direct the AO to examine and apply the ratio laid down in the said Tribunal‟s order.
Disallowance of prior period expenses - Held that:- As submitted that forfeiture of customs duty / lapse of duty drawback are allowable expenditure under section 37 of the Act. In support of this, he relied on various precedents. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the relevant material placed before us, we find this matter should be remanded to the file of the AO with a direction to examine and adjudicate the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground no.2 is allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of unreconciled sundry creditors - Held that:- AR submitted that even after repeated requests, the Revenue Authorities have not provided the relevant material filed by the creditors in response to the notice issued u/s 133(6) of the Act as well as the basis on which „the amount debited by the assessee‟ has been arrived to determined the shortfall. As well, the Revenue Authorities also have not provided sufficient opportunity to furnish the reconciliation which is against the principle of natural justice. Considering the above, Ld AR requested to remand the matter to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and decision in the matter.
Disallowance of travelling expenses for sales team - Held that:- AR relied on the Apex Court judgment in the case of Calcutta Co Ltd [1959 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it has been held that any sum representing the estimated expenditure which had to be incurred by the assessee in discharging a liability. Alternatively, it is the submission of the assessee that since the expenses are actually incurred during the FY 2003-2004, the expenses should be allowed for AY 2004-05 corresponding to the FY 2003-2004 - this matter should also be remanded to the file of the AO to adjudicate the issue afresh
Disallowance of expenses under the head advertisement and sales promotion - Held that:- AR submitted that since, the assessee is method of accounting is mercantile system the treatment given by the assessee is correct and no disallowance is called for. After hearing Ld Representatives of both the parties, we find it relevant to remand the matter to the file of the AO to examine and adjudicate the issue after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Disallowance of travelling and conveyance expenses - Held that:- In assessee's own case for the AY 2002-2003 wherein the identical issue was adjudicated by the Tribunal and restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify whether the plant and machinery were used for other than the manufacturing purpose, and directed to grant depreciation in case such plant and machinery were used. Therefore, it is prayed that considering the commonality of the issue, the matter may be decided in the same lines.
Transfer Pricing adjustment made in respect of the international transaction related to import of finished goods - Held that:- We remand this issue of most appropriate method to the file of the CIT (A) to decide the same after hearing the assessee and in the light of the order of the Tribunal for the AY 2002-2003. CIT (A) is also directed to pass a speaking order on the other aspects of benchmarking events i.e selection of comparables.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2722 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation claim u/s 32 - asset used by directors of the Assessee company - claim of foreign Assessee company in relation to certain vehicles registered under its name, but given to its employees for their use - Held that:- As relied upon the decision of Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company v. CIT [2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] where it was held that once the directors of the Assessee company are entitled to use the vehicles of the company for their personal use as per the terms and conditions of their appointment, it cannot be said that the same was a personal expenditure. In other words, it continues to be business expenditure and is not disallowable as such. The Court is not persuaded to hold a different view in the matter - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2721 - ITAT NEW DELHI
Reassessment - validity of notice issued u/s 148 - Assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal u/s 150 - Held that:- an appellate or revisional authority cannot give a direction for assessment or reassessment which goes to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the AO if his jurisdiction had ceased due to the bar of limitation - if the issuing of a notice had become time-barred at the time of the order, which was the subject-matter of the appeal, then section 150 (1) cannot be invoked for making an assessment or reassessment - hence the proceedings initiated u/s 147 for the AY 2002-03 are impermissible and, therefore, the AO is not empowered to reopen the same u/s 150(1), considering the restriction placed by section 150 (2) - appeal by revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2720 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Long term capital gains - selection of year for assessment - year of transfer of asset - Held that:- From a perusal of the order of the first appellate authority as well as of the Tribunal, we find that the registered sale agreement was executed on 27th January, 2005 and the sale consideration was paid on 10th January, 2005 and 31st March, 2005. Possession was also handed over to the buyer.
In view of the aforesaid, the "transfer" was complete as per the provision of Section 2(47)(6) of the Act. Explanation 2, which was added by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962 is clearly applicable in the instant case. The long term capital gains could only be computed in the year when the property was transferred, namely, in the financial year 2004-05 that is (3) assessment year 2005-06.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2719 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance being deposits written off - busniss loss or capital l0ss - Held that:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd [1962 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] for what was the money laid out? Was it to “ acquire an asset of an enduring nature for the benefit of the business, or was it an outgoing in the doing of the business? If money be lost in the first circumstance, it is a loss of capital, but if lost in the second circumstance, it is a revenue loss. In the first, it bears the character of an investment, but in the second, to use a commonly understood phrase, it bears the character of current expenses.”
Also in the case of I.B. M World Trade Corpn.(1988 (12) TMI 23 - BOMBAY High Court) that the moneys advanced by the assessee in pursuance of these agreements to the landlord for the purposes of and in connection with the acquisition of the premises on lease were for the purpose of business. Naturally, therefore, when such advances are lost to the assessee, the loss would be a business loss and not a capital loss - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (10) TMI 2718 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of finance charges - utilization of loans taken - nexus of interest expenditure with the income earned - Held that:- The income of the assessee consisted of consultancy fee, royalty income, trade mark fee, share of profit& interest on capital from firm, dividend income etc. A.R also fairly admitted that the funds were taken from Vithal Kamat (HUF) over the years in many instalments and they have been utilized for all the purposes. Thus, the exact utilization of loans taken from Vithal Kamat (HUF) could not be proved at this stage. Hence, as submitted by Ld D.R, the nexus of interest expenditure with the income earned by the assessee could not be established by the assessee. Thus the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest expenditure. - Decided in favour of revenue
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The finance charges was disallowed u/s 36(1)(iii) and hence the same has already been excluded by the Ld CIT(A). The remaining expenses, in our view, could not be linked to the dividend income. Hence we agree with the contentions of Ld A.R that no disallowance of expenditure is called for in terms of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the I.T Rules. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of expenses confirmed by Ld CIT(A) u/s 14A - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (10) TMI 2717 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Extension of time for furnishing performance bank guarantee - validity of LOI issued by PNGRB in favour of IOAGPL - disqualification of IOAGPL is sought alongwith a declaration that the petitioner (SSL) be declared as the successful bidder.
Held that: - A higher performance bank guarantee was in public interest as it was a much greater 'guarantee' that the gas network for Ernakulam would get set-up in time and as per the stipulated parameters. Furthermore, the second option of cancelling the tender would set back the project in time which would also not be in public interest - the PNGRB cannot be faulted in going by the first option as it was in public interest and was also not in contravention of the tender conditions.
PNGRB has the option to cancel the proposed authorization in case the Performance Bond / Bank Guarantee is not furnished within the specified time. But, the other side of the coin is that PNGRB need not cancel the proposed authorization and may extend the time for furnishing the Performance Bank Guarantee. Thus, extension of time for furnishing the Performance Bank Guarantee is not contrary to the tender terms but is, in fact, an option available to PNGRB. It chose that option in public interest and therefore the grant of extension of time cannot be faulted and the petitioner cannot claim any right to seek quashing of this action on the part of PNGRB, particularly when the petitioner lost the race at the LOI stage and there was nothing in the tender terms barring the grant of extension of time to the successful entity - IOAGPL.
The PNGRB is free to accept the Performance Bank Guarantee for ₹ 4248 crores submitted by IOAGPL and to grant the authorization in its favour in terms of the 2008 Regulations and the tender conditions - petition dismissed.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2716 - ITAT BANGALORE
Transfer pricing addition - comparable selection criteria - functional similarity - Held that:- The assessee is into software design and development services thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Deduction u/s 10A - data link charges being excluded from the export turnover - Held that:- By virtue of definition of export turnover given Explanation-2(iv) to Sec.10A of the IT Act, 1961, interpretation sought by the assessee cannot be accepted. However, its alternative contention for exclusion of such amount from the total turnover also, while calculating deduction u/s 10A of the IT Act, 1961 is reasonable in view of case of CIT Vs M/s Tata Elxsi Ltd., (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT)
-
2015 (10) TMI 2715 - ITAT, JAIPUR
Registration of trust u/s 12AA - whether the objects are not covered u/s 2(15) and that the activities and objects are not charitable? - Held that:- What needs to be examined is that where an object of general public utility is not merely a mask to hide the true purpose or rendering of any service in relation thereto, and where such services are being rendered as purely incidental to or as subservient to the main objective of "general public utility", whether the carrying on of bona fide activities in furtherance of such objectives of "general public utility" will also be hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act.
In the instant case, the matter therefore, requires detailed examination in terms of main objects of Urban Improvement Trust, the relevant governing legislation / Notification under which Urban Improvement Trust was established as well as activities of the trust in order to decide whether trust is eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Thus, in the light of the above, the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT to decide afresh in light of Board Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19-12-2008 by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the proceedings. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (10) TMI 2714 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - tax was levied under the provisions of MAT under section 115JB on assessee - Held that:- As decided in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Vardhman Acrylics Limited [2014 (8) TMI 1144 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] the assessment having been made under the provisions of MAT under section 115JB of the Act, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on additions and disallowances made in regular income.
Since there were brought forward losses and depreciation, the return was filed declaring the income under the MAT and even after appeal effect, the income assessed under section 115JB of the Act, we find that the assessee being assessed under section 115JB of the Act, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied. - Decided in favour of assessee
............
|
