|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1510 Records
-
2015 (1) TMI 1420
Demand of service tax - Sponsorship Service - sponsorship of a sports event, which has a commercial element - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of CITIBANK NA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI-I [2015 (12) TMI 146 - CESTAT MUMBAI] whereby the demands were made on the same grounds - appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1419
The Supreme Court of India in 2015 (1) TMI 1419 - SC Order, granted leave after condoning delay in the case. Madan B. Lokur and C. Nagappan, JJ. were the judges. N.K. Kaul, ASG, Arijit Prasad, D.L. Chidanand, and Mrs. Anil Katiyar appeared for the Appellant, while Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, and Rupendra Singh represented the Respondent.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1418
DTAA benefit - Proof of establishments abroad - Permanent establishments or branches outside India generated income - HELD THAT:- AO was satisfied that the benefit of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement is admissible provided the proof is produced in relation to payment of taxes by the Assessee abroad. If the Assessee has permanent establishment abroad, then, the Assessee would have to produce evidence regarding payment of taxes pertaining to the income of these establishments abroad.
On production of such evidence, the Assessee would be entitled to the benefit. That evidence was always available and as noted by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The authorities did nothing but follow their earlier orders based on identical facts and circumstances. The finding of fact, therefore, cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1417
Benefit of Section 11 & 12 - charitable activity as per Section 2(15) - HELD THAT:- The proviso to Section 2(15) is applicable to objects of general public utility. The same was also clarified vide CBDT Circular No. 11 dated 19.12.2008. Since assessee company is directly engaged in preservation of environment as per Section 2(15), the proviso as pointed by AO is not applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, AO was not justified to conclude that assessee is not doing any charitable activity.
With regards to AO’s contention that assessee is carrying out business activity and is in the nature of profit making, we find that benefit of exemption cannot be denied on the ground that it had made surplus/profits as long as it is not meant for private profit of seller. Profit making is not predominant object of activity. CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee is doing charitable activity as per Section 2(15), benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Income-tax Act is available to it. CIT(A) was justified in directing AO to treat the activity of assessee company as charitable and further rightly directed to delete the addition. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1416
Addition of loan - two loans from parties who are regular assesses and confirmations were fully filed before AO as well as before CIT(A) - whether appellant has discharged the primary onus and AO has nothing against it? - difference in PAN is because in top of the certificate PAN of appellant is given and near the signature PAN of party is given - HELD THAT:- In the application it is, inter alia, stated that the evidences filed by the assessee were not placed on record and in the remand report called for by CIT(A) it was, inter alia, stated that assessee did not file any particulars/ source of income of parties, their creditworthiness etc. and accordingly CIT(A) observed that no confirmation letters from the creditors were filed before the AO and the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditor, creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction.
After hearing both the parties, as the evidences filed by assessee before AO were not considered, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of AO for deciding the issue de novo after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard - Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1415
Imposition of tax on advertisement - Vires of Section 193 (1), 193 (2) (i) of the Act read with Section 541 (48) of the Act - Held that:- It is well settled law that while interpreting a statute, meaning should be assigned to each and every word, line by line, word by word and the statute as a whole - According to Maxwell, a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of a statute will normally be rejected.
Hon'ble Supreme Court by catena of judgment held that while interpreting any section of a statute, every word and provision should be looked into in context to which it is used and not in isolation - reliance placed in the case of Grasim Industries Limited v. Collector of Customs [2002 (4) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
The respondents cannot exclude the proviso while interpreting Section 192 of the Act while framing Rules in question. The respondents while framing Rules, have not considered the proviso which provides that no tax shall be levied on any advertisement which is not a sky-sign. Accordingly, the Rules seems to be comprehensive in nature and inclusive of sky-signs hence suffer from violation of statutory mandate.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1414
Winding up of the company - Section 20(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Held that:- Since, none of the secured creditors objected to winding up of the company, namely, M/s Electronic System Punjab Limited, the recommendation made by BIFR is hereby accepted - Accordingly, the company, namely, M/s Electronic System Punjab Limited is ordered to be wound up. The Official Liquidator is appointed as Liquidator of the company and he is directed to take over the charge of the records, moveable and immovable assets of the company.
Let notice of the winding up be published in the newspapers namely, 'Indian Express' (English) and 'Dainik Bhaskar' (Hindi) both Punjab editions and in the Official Gazette of Government of Punjab.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1413
Validity of reopening of assessment - non-supply of reasons for re-opening - Held that:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2002 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT) has clearly held that where the AO issues notice u/s 148 and the assessee seeks the supply of reasons for reopening of assessment after filing a return of income in response to notice u/s 148, then, the AO must supply the same and if the assessee files any objections thereto, the AO has to first dispose of the objections before proceeding with the re-assessment of income.
As relying on case of VSNL [2011 (7) TMI 715 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and also Alana Cold Storage vs. ITO ( [2006 (9) TMI 123 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]) holding that the re-assessment is bad in law for non-supply of reasons for re-opening. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2015 (1) TMI 1412
Nature of receipt - entertainment duty collected by the assessee - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- After considering the impugned order and on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that the ld.CIT(A) is justified in holding entertainment duty collected by the assessee is a capital receipt as it is in conformity with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT V/s Chapahalkar Brothers [2013 (6) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. Accordingly, we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground taken by the revenue.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1411
Invocation of revisional jurisdiction Under Section 166B of A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act - period of limitation prescribed for invoking the revisional powers - Held that:- In the case at hand, while the entry sought to be corrected is described as fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice impugned before the High Court as to when was the alleged fraud discovered by the State. A specific statement in that regard was essential for it was a jurisdictional fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in the notice issued to the Respondents. The attempt of the Appellant-State to demonstrate that the notice was issued within a reasonable period of the discovery of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At any rate, when the Government allowed the land in question for housing sites to be given to Government employees in the year 1991, it must be presumed to have known about the record and the revenue entries concerning the parcel of land made in the ordinary course of official business.
In as much as, the notice was issued as late as on 31st December, 2004, it was delayed by nearly 13 years. No explanation has been offered even for this delay assuming that the same ought to be counted only from the year 1991. Judged from any angle the notice seeking to reverse the entries made half a century ago, was clearly beyond reasonable time and was rightly quashed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1410
Addition u/s 68 - bogus share transactions - Held that:- AO has not doubted the purchase of the shares. He has doubted the sale consideration of the shares, as there was substantial increase in the value of shares. In order to establish the sale transaction to be genuine, the assessee has placed copy of the quotations of the Stock Exchange as on 12.3.2003, in which the rate of shares of Nageshwar Investment was shown at 58.20 and 64. The shares were sold on 23.3.2003 at ₹ 67.05 per share, though the quotation as on 23.3.2003 is not available on record, but in the light of the quotation dated 12.3.2003, the contention of the assessee that shares were sold at ₹ 67.05 per share cannot be doubted.
No doubt was raised by the AO in the purchase of shares. The sale consideration declared by the assessee should not be doubted only for the reason that the value of the shares have been increased to 30 times within a span of 15 months. In the case of share transaction, sometimes the value of shares may increase many fold within a span of short period. But for this reason, the transaction cannot be doubted - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1409
Deduction u/s 80IA for Captive Power Plant - whether no profit derived from the Power Plant as the power was not sold but stood consumed in manufacturing units of the assessee company - expression derived of - Held that:- The expression “derived” used in the said section 80- IA(1) in the beginning as well as in the last part of sub-section (4) makes it abundantly clear that such profit or gain could be obtained by one’s own consumption of the outcome of any such undertaking or business enterprise as referred to in sub-section ( 4) of section 80-IA. The dictionary meaning of the expression ‘derive’ in the New Oxford Dictionary of English states ‘obtaining something from a specified source’. In section 80-IA(1) also no restriction has been imposed as regards the deriving of profit or gain in order to state that such profit or gain derived only through an outside source along would make eligible for the benefits provided in the said section
Following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of sister concern of the assessee we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A) qua the issue of deduction under section 80IA in respect of captive power plant as well as the valuation of power by applying the tariff charged by the state electricity Board. Accordingly, the ground No. 1 and 2 of the revenue’s appeal are dismissed.
Deduction u/s 801A in respect of power generated from steam - whether steam is a by-product of the power generated and hence cannot be considered a power? - Held that:- As noted the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in Sial Sbec's case [2004 (3) TMI 342 - ITAT DELHI-C] and held that steam generated by the Industrial Undertaking comes within the meaning of power as per section 80IA, and would hence qualify for benefit. - Decided against revenue
-
2015 (1) TMI 1408
Possession of property - Restrain from interfering in possession of the premises in occupation - defendant denied the title and possession of the Plaintiff over land in suit - Relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land - Held that:- The argument of defendant cannot be agreed, for the reason that had it been a case of mandatory injunction requiring restoration of possession of land to the Plaintiff or demolition of the construction raised by the Defendants, what the Defendants have pleaded before us, could have been accepted but the present suit is for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the land which is described with boundaries and its municipal number. Therefore, it cannot be said that the decree passed by the trial court is un-executable.
Advocate Commissioner's report, in the present case, is against the weight of the oral and documentary evidence on record which sufficiently proves that Plaintiff was in possession over plot No. 358, and for several years he was paying the house tax as was found by the trial court on the basis of house tax receipts and extracts of house tax Assessment Register. It is not disputed that plot No. 357 belonging to the Defendants was in south of plot No. 358, and house of the Defendants was situated over their plot. The trial court has decreed the suit only in respect of plot No. 358.
The decree passed by the trial court is restored - appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1407
Accrual of income - Addition on account of accrued interest on loans which are classified as "Non-performing Assets" - applicability of provisions of sec. 43D - assessee is a Co-operative Bank carrying on the business of banking - Held that:- Merely because the said amount, accrued was not realized immediately cannot be a ground to avoid payment of tax, but if in his account it is clearly stated though a particular income is due to him but it is not possible to recover the same, then it cannot said to have been accrued and the said amount cannot be brought to tax. Therefore, we reverse the finding of CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to verify whether the assessee has followed the mercantile system of accounting or not? Secondly, if this amount is accrued to the assessee, but it is not possible to recover the same then it cannot be said to have been accrued and the said amount cannot be brought to tax. The Assessing Officer should verify from the P & L a/c and decide the matter as per law after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
TDS u/s 194A - assessee is a cooperative society and has paid interest to its Members - disallowance of interest on term deposit in excess of ₹ 10,000/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- As decided in ACIT vs. The Belgaum District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Belgaum [2015 (1) TMI 743 - ITAT PANAJI] terms clause (v) which is general in nature will not apply to the co-op bank. The provisions of Section 194A (1)(viia) is clearly applicable and therefore the ‘assessee’ has to deduct T.D.S. on income credited or paid in respect of deposits except which falls under that provisions. Assessee cooperative bank is liable for TDS u/s. 194. We therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1406
TDS u/s 194A - addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - assessee has paid interest on term deposit in excess of ₹ 10,000/- without making TDS - assessee contended that the provisions of TDS are not attracted in view of sub section(3)(v) of section 194A as interest payment to that extent has been made to members of bank - Held that:- The issue is now controversy that the assessee has paid interest on term deposits to the members/depositors without deducting the TDS u/s 194A of the Act.
We find that in the case of Shreee Basaveshwar Co-operative Bank [2015 (7) TMI 1287 - ITAT PANAJI] for the assessment years 2011-12 vide order dated 05-01-2015, wherein we find that the assessee is required to deduct a tax at source in respect of time deposits in excess of ₹ 10,000/- interest payment to members of the assessee bank. The co-operative bank and co-operative society both are different and independent. The co-operative bank was registered under the Banking Regulations Act 1949. The co-operative society was registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959 only. Therefore, we are of the view that TDS is required to be made on time deposit on interest payment after 01-07-1995. - decided against assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1405
TDS u/s 194A - assessee is a co-operative bank and engaged in the business of banking - no TDS had been made for the interest payments on term deposits to members which were liable for TDS @ 10% as per provisions of section 194A(3)(i)(b) - Held that:- We find that in the case of Saraswat Co-operative Bank [2014 (10) TMI 860 - ITAT PANAJI] for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 vide order dated 01/10/2014, wherein we find that the assessee is required to deduct a tax at source in respect of time deposits in excess of ₹ 10,000/- interest payment to members of the assessee bank. We have already held that the co-operative bank and co-operative society both are different and independent. The co-operative bank was registered under the Banking Regulations Act 1949. The co-operative society was registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act 1959. Therefore, we are of the view that TDS is required to be made on time deposit on interest payment after 01-07-1995.
In terms clause (v) which is general in nature will not apply to the co-op bank. The provisions of Section 194A (1)(viia) is clearly applicable and therefore the "assessee" has to deduct T.D.S. on income credited or paid in respect of deposits except which falls under that provisions. We therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1404
Deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a) from windmill power generation - Since the assessee is having losses in earlier years AO was of the opinion that the assessee is not eligible for the deduction as per provisions of section 80IA(5) - Held that:- The assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act for the year under consideration in a manner whereby the initial assessment year referred to in section 80-IA(5) of the Act is to be taken as the A.Y. 2004-05 and not the A.Y. 2002-03 as canvassed by the Revenue. Resultantly, we therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recompute and allow the deduction to the assessee u/s 80-IA.
Disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule 8D - whether disallowance u/s.14A can be made when the assessee has not received any exempt income nor claimed any such exempt income in the return? - Held that:- Since in the instant case the assessee has not received any dividend income out of the shares held as investment and since no disallowance u/s.14A has been made in the preceding as well as succeeding assessment years, therefore, we agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that no disallowance u/s.14A can be made under the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance
-
2015 (1) TMI 1403
Reassessment of Turnover under CST Act - time limitation - Section 6 (7) of the CST Act - according to petitioner, Ext.P3 notice ought to have been issued within 4 years from the end of the year to which the assessment related - Held that:- The issue of limitation raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is covered in his favour by Ext.P5 judgment that is produced in the writ petition - petition is allowed on the issue of limitation.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1402
Levy of Value Added Tax and Entry Tax - case of petitioner is that this writ petition has been filed directly without taking recourse to the remedy available u/s 46(5) of M.P. VAT Act and by contending MP VAT Act is highly discriminatory and ultra vires to the constitution - Held that:- During the course of hearing it now transpires that after filing of the petition an appeal has been filed before the competent authority under Section 46(5) of MP VAT Act along with application for waiver of pre deposit amount. Once the appeal is pending before the competent authority and question of waiver and stay of recovery is subjudice before the competent Appellate Authority it is not appropriate for us to interfere into the matter.
On the appellant's depositing 10% of the amount as proposed by the impugned order within a period of 10 days from today before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall take up the appeal for hearing.
-
2015 (1) TMI 1401
Exemption u/s. 11 denied - assessee has received capitation fee on behalf of students and the registration under 12AA(3) has already been cancelled by CIT, Central-III, Kolkata - Held that:- Registration can be cancelled only in those cases where the registration has been granted under sub-sec. (ib) of sec. 12AA of the Act.
This section nowhere empowers the Id CIT. to cancel or withdraw the registration granted u/s. 12A of the Act. In the absence of such express power, in our opinion, the registration granted u/s. 12A of the Act cannot be cancelled by invoking provisions of Sec. 22AA(3) of the Act. Identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT (Exemption) vs. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust [2011 (4) TMI 563 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
CIT(A) has denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act on the entire premise that the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act has been cancelled but the same has been restored by the Tribunal. There is no other reason for denying exemption in the orders of the lower authorities. - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
