|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 876 Records
-
2010 (2) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Act was issued to the assessee on 12.6.2007. It being a case of processing the return of income, there is no finding in the AO’s order with regard to the applicability or otherwise of section 269 T of the I.T. Act to the assessee’s case. It was within the purview of the AO to bring the assessee’s case to scrutiny and to make regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was also within the powers of the AO to, at the appropriate stage, initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against the assessee. No such action was taken. Rather, the penalty was imposed on the basis of the findings in the case of the assessee’s wife. 11. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) clearly erred in upholding the penalty order. The said order is, as such, quashed. 12. Since the order under appeal stands quashed as above, nothing further remains to be adjudicated at this stage. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1223 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... that AO shall provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee while deciding the matter afresh. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for a statistical purpose.” 6. Respectfully following our aforesaid order, we restore the issue back to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication after providing opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The issue with regard to the validity of reassessment proceeding shall also be decided by the AO in the course of fresh assessment proceedings in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), after considering the objections of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue as well as cross objections filed by the assessee are treated to be allowed for statistical purpose. 8. This decision was pronounced in the open court immediately after the hearing was over on 16th February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1222 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case by non-supply of the enquiry report to the respondent. We are also of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the respondent cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent. The charges related to the conduct of the respondent in a financial institution whereby taking advantage of the official position he attempted to procure unlawful pecuniary benefits for himself. The charges related to misappropriation, fraud and irregularities with regard to the maintenance of accounts. He had been siphoning off money belonging to the account holders. He was holding a position of trust in the Bank, which he betrayed. We are of the opinion that the Chairman has correctly observed at the personal hearing given to the respondent that the Bank has already been sympathetic and lenient enough. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1221 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as been appealed against in Hon ble High Court of Chennai. He fairly agrees that he is not aware as to whether any stay has been granted. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondent submits that in addition to the decision in case of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd., the decision in case of M/s Kamdar Associates & Others had also held that no interest is payable on duty which arose as a result of provisional assessment. 3. In view of the Tribunal s decisions cited by the learned advocate, I find that the issue is covered by the precedent decisions of the Tribunal and accordingly reject the appeal. The cross objection filed by the Respondent also gets disposed of. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (2) TMI 1220 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... without an application from the assessee. As it is noticed that the facts are identical. Following the decision of this bench in the case of Bishan Swaroom Ram referred to supra, the assessments in the case of the I.T.A. No. 3332-34,3585-87/Del/2008 assessee for the above three Assessment Years in the said appeals are held to be barred by limitation. 5. As the assessments have been held to be barred by limitation, the other grounds as raised in these appeals by the assessee do not require our consideration and consequently they are not being adjudicated upon. 6. As the assessments have been held barred by limitation, the issues as raised by the revenue in its appeals also do not survive for consideration and consequently, the same are not being adjudicated upon and consequently are treated as dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 8. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 05th Feb., 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1219 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent Mr. S. Ganesh,Sr.Adv., Mr. Akshat Shrivastava,Adv., Mr. P.P. Singh,Adv., And Mr. Inderjeet Yadav,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed
-
2010 (2) TMI 1218 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the Applicant produced the necessary clearance from the C.O.D. to pursue the Appeals therefore the order dismissing the Appeals and Stay Petitions is recalled and Appeals and Stay Petitions are restored to their original numbers. Stay Petitions are to be taken up for hearing on 22.03.2010. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
-
2010 (2) TMI 1217 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase for sanction of the scheme of amalgamation Annexure-“A”. Hence, the following order. (1) The scheme of amalgamation Annexure-“A” proposed by the companies herein is hereby sanctioned and is binding on the petitioner-Companies, their shareholders and creditors; (2) The date of incorporation of the Transferor company shown as 5-5-2004 is to be read as 22-11-2002 in the scheme of amalgamation in paragraph 1.1(i) of the scheme of amalgamation Annecure-“A”. (3) The Transferor company shall stand dissolved without there being an order of winding up; (4) Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this order on the registrar of companies in the State of Karnataka, within 30 days; (5) Petitioners are directed to serve a copy of this order and affidavit of assets on the inspector General of Stamps in the state of Karnataka to have his say in the matter of stamp duty payable on transfer; (6) Office is directed to draw up a decree in Form No. 42.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1216 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of manufacture and production of article or things. The business of assessee relates to cutting and polishing of marble stone as also mentioned by the A.O. in the assessment order. The assessee procures rough marble blocks, which is first cut or chiseled using a hammer and a chisel. Thereafter the block is cut into the form of slabs. Thereafter, these slabs are placed under a polishing machine to make the surfaces smooth. Then edges of the tiles are cut using circular saw blades, therefore, for this purpose the assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80IB of the Act. However, the working of calculation needs verification at the end of A.O. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of A.O. with the direction that he will verify the working and allow the deduction under section 80IB to the assessee in accordance with law. 6. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 12.02.2010
-
2010 (2) TMI 1215 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the amounts advanced for business transaction between the parties, namely, the assessee-company and M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd. was not such to fall within the definition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) . The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 20.2. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid case can be squarely applied to the facts of the present case. The transaction in question is purely a business transaction and which has benefited both the assessee-company and ECPL. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 212 lacs. 21. As regards the quantum of addition, since we have held that the amount deposited by ECPL cannot be considered as deemed dividend within the meaning of section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961, this question need not be answered. 22. In result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of Revenue is dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 12 /02 /2010
-
2010 (2) TMI 1214 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . The Tribunal held that the assessee had claimed the loss as business loss under a bona-fide belief that he was entitled to do so. It is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are distinct and independent of each other. No doubt, the findings in the assessment proceedings would have significance in the penalty proceedings also but they are not decisive or determinative. This position has been established in several decisions which include CIT Vs. Khoday Eswarsa and Sona, 83 ITR 369 (SC) and CIT Vs. J.K. Synthetic (Delhi), 219 ITR 267. With respect to the fact that the assessee had accepted the view taken by the Assessing Officer that the loss due to trading in shares was in the nature of a speculative loss, the Assessee contended that in the penalty proceedings, it can take up the plea that the claim made in the return was bona-fide. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1213 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... aw. 7. Ground No. 2 pertains to the disallowance of a sum of ₹ 4,471/- under section 36(1)(va) and ₹ 9,122/- under section 43B being payments of Provident Fund. The amounts are covered by section 43B and the same were disallowed having not been paid within the due date. It was submitted that the amount under section 35(1) (va) cannot be allowed whereas there is an amendment to section 43B with reference to allowing amount paid before filing the return. Retrospective application of the amendment was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd.319 ITR 306(SC). Accordingly, the amount of ₹ 9,122/- is allowable. 8. We have considered the issue. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld retrospective application of the amendment brought to section 43B, the A.O. is directed to allow the amount of ₹ 9,122/- covered by section 43B. The ground is partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1212 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 93 TTJ 658 Motorola Incorporation, 270 ITR (AT) 62 Sonata Information Technologies Ltd., ITA No. 1561 to 1580/Bang/2004 dated 31.1.2006. 8. Computer programme cannot also be treated as patent and invention. Computer programme cannot said to be an invention and therefore cannot be said to be covered by the Patient Act. Computer software cannot also be treated as process. End user of the software in the case of shrink-wrap software does not have any access to source code. He has only right to use the software for his personal or business use. For all the above reasons, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) was right in concluding that payment received by the assessee was not in the nature of royalty and cannot therefore be brought to tax. We uphold the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the appeal by the revenue. 9. In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 5th Day of February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1211 - ITAT MUMBAI
Estimation of income - bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- We find from the trading and profit and loss account of the assessee for the year ended 31st march, 2005 relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the opening stock and closing stock was shown at ₹ 3.55 lakhs and ₹ 12.37 lakhs respectively. Purchases worth ₹ 67.53 lakhs were made against which the sales of ₹ 66.45 lakhs were reflected. When we consider the quantum of the purchases held by the AO to be bogus vis-à-vis the total quantity of sales and closing stock, it becomes clear that some goods were in fact purchased by the assessee which were subsequently sold, as but for the inclusion of such quantity purchased the sale of the quantity declared is not possible.
At the same time the AO also brought the inquiry to the logical conclusion that the purchases from these three parties were bogus. In view of the fact that it has been amply established that the purchases recorded in the books of account from these three parties were bogus with a view to suppress the profit, now need to zero in on the correct rate of net profit which could be applied under these circumstances. Therefore, it will be just and fair if the net profit rate of 5% is applied on the goods sold which were allegedly purchased through these parties.
We hold that the net profit rate of 5% be applied. On the application of such net profit rate, the effective addition We, therefore, uphold the addition partly 0 This ground is partly allowed.
Addition u/s.68 - unexplained deposits cash in bank account - assessee as replied that cash sales was made which amount was deposited in the bank partaly and for remaining amount assessee explained that the same was the earlier withdrawals from the bank itself which was re-deposited - HELD THAT:- We find that the cash of ₹ 18,70,000 was deposited by the assessee in his bank account. It is axiomatic that the source of deposit in the bank is always out of cash balance available at the beginning of the day as adjusted with the receipts and payments for the day. There cannot be any question of making addition u/s.68 in respect of entries of deposit in the bank through the regular books of account. We, therefore, order for the deletion of the addition. This ground is allowed.
Addition on account of low withdrawals - HELD THAT:- Since the AO himself had estimated the total expenses at ₹ 2.33 lakhs and if the above said three amounts of withdrawals are reduced, the remaining amount comes to around ₹ 73,000. it is a question of making estimate of house hold expenses and taking into consideration that the assessee was carrying on business from his residence and had claimed telephone and electricity charges at ₹ 19,364 as business deductions, in our considered opinion, it will be just and fair if the ad hoc addition of ₹ 50,000 is sustained on account of low household withdrawal. We order accordingly.
Appeal is partly allowed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1210 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , P. V. Dinesh, Sindhu T. P., P. V. Vinod, Mohammed Sadique, Rajesh P. For Respondent -- ORDER Issue notice. Until further orders, there shall be stay of the impugned order.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1209 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... extent was sustained. However, in respect of the share application money to the extent of ₹ 81,40,000/- received from other parties, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the said addition because of the fact that the assessee had filed confirmation letters from them and that notices issued to them had been served and the parties had also replied to the same confirming the making of the payments towards share application money. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), therefore, found that the onus, which was on the assessee, stood discharged. The identity of the subscribers was established and they had also confirmed having made the payments. In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 81,40,000/-. These findings of fact were confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by virtue of the impugned order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1208 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re of the properties earned by the offences, by way of reciprocal arrangement in the contracting countries. o p /o p However, if we accept the State’s contention that the provisions of Chapter VII-A are for all and sundry offences in India, it would be illogical. o p /o p 14. If such a construction as claimed by the petitioner is given then it would mean that even for the offences which are local in nature and committed within the State, still the property connected with those offences shall be forfeitured to the Central Government. That would obviously be an absurd result. o p /o p 15. Lastly, we cannot ignore the likely misuse of the provisions in Chapter VIIA if the whole Chapter is made applicable to the local offences generally. Such does not appear to be the intendment of the Legislature in introducing Chapter VII A. o p /o p 16. In view of the above we approve the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and confirm the same. The appeals are dismissed. o p /o p
-
2010 (2) TMI 1207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve finding that if the contract was genuine and bonafide the goods could not have been subjected to the confiscation and redemption fine. 18 The Revenue did not challenge the orderinoriginal. As a matter of fact, part of the original order was in favour of the Revenue and part was in favour of the Respondent. The Revenue was expected to challenge the order to the extent it held that the contract entered into by the Respondent was bonafide, genuine and real. The moment adverse finding became final and conclusive, the Tribunal could not have held that the contract was not real, genuine and bonafide. If that be so, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal that the goods could not have been subjected to the confiscation and redemption fine. Thus, having examined the rival legal submissions advanced and the view taken by the Tribunal, we answer the questions in favour of the Respondent and against the Revenue. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ase of M/s J. Radical Entertainment (I) P. Ltd. also. In the B.K. Sood case supra, the Tribunal held that in case of f ilm producers, f ilms are stock-intrade. In the face of such consistent decisions by the jurisdictional Tribunal in different cases, only because the department is in appeal in one case, cannot be a ground for disallowance sustainable in appeal. The disallowance deserves to be deleted.” 4. The learned DR has relied upon the orders of the AO whereas the learned AR has relied upon the orders of the CIT(A). 5. We have heard the learned representatives of the parties and perused the record. We find that the CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO following the orders of ITAT. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the revenue in both the assessment years under consideration are dismissed. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Pronounced on this 9th day of February, 2010
-
2010 (2) TMI 1205 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ncerned, we are hereby granting ad interim stay restraining the Department from taking any coercive steps till further orders particularly when considerable amount has been paid.
............
|
