|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1739 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ing has been given by the AO, in respect of remaining purchases. Therefore, uniform estimation and application of GP 4.5 is not sustainable. In view of this, we are of the considered opinion that the GP rate applied by the ld. CIT A at 3 in respect of tainted purchases is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT A , in respect of all the assessment involved in the present appeals are upheld and the appeals of the revenue, for all the assessment years are dismissed.” Since in the above order it has been clearly held that the estimation of profit at 3 in respect of tainted purchase is fair and reasonable and in the year before us the ld. CIT A has estimated the profit 3 on tainted purchases, therefore, respectfully following the above order, we confirm the action of the ld. CIT A . 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 28th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1738 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... by it since enhancement in capital gains arose out of a re-assessment proceeding. Despite this, assessee had deposited such sums in a Savings Bank account and there is no case for the Revenue that assessee withdrew the sum for any other purpose than construction of a house. Assessee though it had deposited only in an ordinary Savings Bank account, having made withdrawals therefrom only for the purpose of construction of a house, there was substantial compliance to the procedures. Just because the account was not nomenclatured as an account under Capital Gains Account Scheme, assessee could not have been denied deduction under Section 54F of the Act when he had satisfied all other conditions. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in giving the deduction to the assessee. No interference is called for. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 25th February, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1737 - ITAT AGRA
Claim for long-term capital gains - Income from undisclosed sources - The assessee claimed deduction u/s 054E. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and, therefore, he treated the long-term capital gains shown by the assessee to be the income from other sources by holding that the assessee could not prove the sale of shares and genuineness of the receipt of money. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition.
HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, I am of the considered view that the action of the CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the assessment of ₹ 12,19,538/- as the income from undisclosed sources as against the sale consideration of shares declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee from sale of shares. I accordingly direct the AO to assess the income declared from the sale of shares under the head income from Long Term Capital Gain.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1736 - ITAT JAIPUR
Cross-objection of the assessee - invoking of the provisions of s. 148 - reopening of the assessment - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] has held that intimation and assessment are different. The reassessment proceedings can be initiated on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The AO has received information from Investigation Wing which showed that the documents found during the course of search in the case of M/s Ashish International Group, showed substantial unaccounted sales to the retailers. The assessee was one of the parties to whom that group has made unaccounted sales. The AO therefore, had reason to believe that the assessee has made unaccounted purchases. Hence, from the reasons recorded by the AO, it is clear that he has sufficient material for holding that there is an escapement of income and therefore, the AO has rightly issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act.
disallowance of telephone expenses - HELD THAT:- The AO has disallowed 50 per cent of the telephone expenses. The disallowance made by the AO is excessive. After considering both the parties, we feel that it will be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowance of telephone expenses to the extent of 1/6th.
disallowance of 1/4th expenses of petrol/diesel expenses, car insurance, repairs and maintenance of vehicle and depreciation expenses - HELD THAT:- After hearing both the parties, it will be fair and reasonable to restrict the disallowances to the extent of 1/6th of the expenses.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross-objection of the assessee both are partly allowed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1735 - ITAT MUMBAI
Application filed u/s 254(2) - rectification of errors - It is the plea of the revenue that in the present case, the facts necessary for adjudication of the additional ground of appeal are not available on record and therefore the Tribunal ought to have refused to admit the additional ground of appeal. The revenue has prayed that the above mistake in the order of the tribunal should be suitably rectified.
HELD THAT:- There is no averment in the application that the issue sought to be raised by the AO in the present application was argued when the appeal was heard and the tribunal has failed to consider such argument. We have already extracted the order of the Tribunal on the admissibility of the additional ground of appeal. A perusal of the same would show that the only argument raised by the learned D.R. when the appeal was heard was that a claim not made by way of a revised return of income cannot be entertained and he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd.[2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] . The learned counsel for the Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jai Parobolic Springs Ltd. [2008 (4) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court after considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC [1996 (12) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and Goetz (India) held that power of the tribunal to entertain additional ground is not in any way restricted by the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. In these circumstances, it is not open to the revenue to raise by way of an application u/s.254(2), a new argument which was never advanced when the appeal was heard. It is not open to the revenue to urge an argument by way of application u/s.254(2) of the Act, which was never urged when the appeal was heard. On this short ground the application u/s.254(2) is liable to be dismissed.
Where the Tribunal has overlooked the relevant material on record, there would be an error apparent from record which can be rectified by setting aside the order for fresh consideration. Where a material fact brought to the notice of the Tribunal has been lost sight of, the Tribunal has the power to rectify the mistake so committed; provided the material fact has an important bearing on the ultimate decision. The mistake pointed out in the application u/s.254(2) by the revenue in the present case cannot be said to fall in either of the above categories.
we are of the view that the present application u/s.254(2) of the Act is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1734 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ders of the Revenue authorities. 6. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful consideration of the materials available on record, it is observed that the certificate placed at page 116 of paper book on which the ld. AR relied upon, is not available with the ld. CIT(A). It is evident from the date of certificate that is 25th April, 2009 and the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has failed to furnish certificate before him., therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration in view of the certificate on which the ld. AR has placed reliance upon. We further direct ld. CIT(A) to segregate the cash withdrawals made by the assessee for his day-to-day requirements from the disallowance made u/s 40A(3) of the IT Act. 7. In the result the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.03.2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1733 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ssee as regards the applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, although raised before the Commissioner, was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have gone on the question of absence of machinery provisions for recovery of duty at 8 . 5. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise to consider the issue as regards the applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules as well, as the subsequent amendment to the provisions on the relaxation of Modvat credit and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law taking into account, the decision of this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 1609 and 1610 of 2005, dated 19-7-2010 and C.M.A. No. 2080 of 2005, dated 2-7-2010. 6. The civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1732 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ourse, is wholly and exclusively industrial alcohol' (SCC p. 742, para 23)." 26. Eventually Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that the opinion as expressed by the High Court cannot be sustained and while setting aside the same, the matter was remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. 27. From the above, the inference which could have been easily drawn is that the industrial alcohol cannot be subject matter of any regulation or control by a State, it being not alcoholic liquor for human consumption. 28. Accordingly, it is held that the impost imposed by the State Government under Rule 22 of the Rules whereby the permit fee for issue of permit for denatured spirit has been enhanced from 30 paisa per bulk litre to 60 paisa per bulk litre is bad. As a corollary, the respondents are directed to refund the permit fees collected by them on denatured spirit purchased by the petitioner under the amended rules. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1731 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... drawals made from the saving account with Punjab National Bank which in turn was utilized for the deposit on the aforesaid dates. Thus ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 4. The facts in I.T.A.No. 40/Chd/2011 are mutatis mutandis to the facts in I.T.A.No. 39/Chd/2011. The assessee has furnished on record the copy of the bank statement which reflected the cash withdrawal of ₹ 7 lacs on 28.9.2005 and re-deposit of cash of ₹ 1,02,000/- on 16.11.2005, ₹ 3,50,000/- on 29.11.2005 and ₹ 50,000/- on 30.11.2005. In view of the explanation of the assessee utilizing the earlier cash withdrawals being the source of cash deposit on the abovesaid dates, and in line with our above order in paras here-in-above we find no merit in the addition of ₹ 5,02,000/- and hence the same is deleted. 5. In the result, both the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/Chd/2011 and I.T.A.No.40/Chd/2011 are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1730 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 2005. The relevant details of particulars of total commercial papers pertaining to the year under consideration are also not on record, which are necessary for deciding the issue under consideration. Under these circumstances, since the above facts are required to be brought on record after verification, we remit the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue in accordance with law after considering the discussion made as above and after providing the opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” 7. Following the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case, we remit this issue to the record of the AO for verification of various facts as pointed out by this Tribunal in the above order and decide the issue as per law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the open court on 25 th, March 2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1729 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... wish to commend the team of doctors of Mumbai who helped us viz. Dr. J. V. Divatia, Professor and Head, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai; Dr. Roop Gursahani, Consultant Neurologist at P.D. Hinduja, Mumbai; and Dr. Nilesh Shah, Professor and Head, Department of Psychiatry at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Corporation Medical College and General Hospital. They did an excellent job. 146. We also wish to express our appreciation of Ms. Pinki Virani who filed this petition. Although we have dismissed the petition for the reasons given above, we regard her as a public spirited person who filed the petition for a cause she bona fide regarded as correct and ethical. We hold her in high esteem. 147. We also commend the entire staff of KEM Hospital, Mumbai (including the retired staff) for their noble spirit and outstanding, exemplary and unprecedented dedication in taking care of Aruna for so many long years. Every Indian is proud of them.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1728 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... available on record, we find that the activity in buying and selling shares is quite frequent, justifying the inference that the assessee is trading in them. The rule of consistency cannot be applied to the year under appeal. Our above view is further fortified by the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of M/s Upendra V. Dadia vs. ACIT in ITA No. 485, 1068 and 1193/Mum/2009 order dated 18th February, 2011 wherein facts were in para material to the facts discussed hereinabove. Thus, we respectfully follow the decision of the coordinate Bench on similar facts and decide the appeal of the revenue in its favour. The CBDT Circular No. 4 of 2007 further supports the case of the revenue, therefore, it is purely a business income. We accordingly confirm the stand of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Finally, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives of both the sides on Ist March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1727 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... submits that while considering the waiver cum stay, the Tribunal ought to have considered the prima facie merit of the case as well as financial condition of the applicant. During the pendency of the statutory appeal, the Tribunal is required to look into the prima facie merit of the case as well as financial condition of the applicant. Further, the appellate authority is required to consider the relevant factor like financial hardship and other relevant facts because the condition of deposit will make the purpose of filing of appeal itself nugatory. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, revisions are partly allowed. The order 26.2.2011 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that 90 of the disputed tax shall remain stayed till disposal of the first appeal and the applicant shall deposit 10 of the disputed tax within fifteen days and also furnish the security for the remaining amount to the subjective satisfaction of the assessing authority.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1726 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n has rightly contended that assessing authority has no right to recover interest on the amount of entry tax levied under the orders of recovery made under section 39(4) of the Act of 2005. For the aforesaid reasons, we partially allow this petition. We uphold the assessment of entry tax made by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, West Circle, Muzaffarpur. We hold that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest over the amount of entry tax levied by the assessing officer. The impugned orders of recovery made under section 39(4) of the Act of 2005 are quashed and set aside insofar as the interest is sought to be recovered on the amount of entry tax assessed. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes will, within two months from today, modify the impugned orders and issue orders of recovery of entry tax in accordance with law and in consonance with the above discussion. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The parties will bear their own cost.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1725 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... has noted that the fact remains that there was discrepancy quantity wise in the inventory and the said matter has not been refuted by the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before him. Under the circumstances, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed that estimate is needed to be made while the Assessing Officer had applied ₹ 59.48 rate. Assessee offered ₹ 33.56 per meter. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has proceeded to apply the rate of 37.96. In our considered opinion in absence of direct evidences estimate is inevitable on the facts and circumstances of the case. In our considered opinion, Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has made a reasonable order, which does not need any interference on our part. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. In the result, the both the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/03/2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1724 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... come in the hands of the Vimal Devi Chajjer of Chajjer Group. Vimal Devi Chajjer has returned agricultural income for consecutive assessment years 2001-02 to 2006-07. The Assessing Officer has disallowed a portion of the returned agricultural income and treated it as income from other sources. We have gone through the detailed reasoning given by the assessing authority. We find that the disallowance made by the assessing authority is just and proper. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities on the question of partial disallowance of agricultural income are upheld. 33. In result, the appeals filed by all these assessees except Vimal Devi Chajjer are allowed. In the case of Vimal Devi Chajjer, the appeals are allowed on the question of surplus arising on sale of shares but dismissed the ground against partial disallowance of agricultural income. Therefore, her appeals are treated as partly allowed. Orders pronounced on Wednesday the 23rd day of March, 2011, at Bangalore.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1723 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ” 5. This decision is in consonance in the order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Shri Ram Kumar Malhotra (2010)-TIOL-512-ITAT-Mum held as follows - “The Tribunal following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of New Shailaja Co-operative Housing Society ltd. Vs.ITO (2009 TIOL 58 ITAT-Mum), ITO Vs. Loita Court Co-op. Hsg. Sco. Ltd. (2008 TIOL 404 ITAT-Mum), Jethalal D. Mehta Vs. Dy.CIT (2 SOT 422)(mum) and Meheshwar Prakash 2 CHS Vs. ITO, 20 DTR 269 (Mum) held that the CIT(A) was right in holding that the gain arising on transfer of FSI/TDR is chargeable to tax under the head ‘capital gain’ and not ‘other sources’. However, as there is no coast of acquisition of the asset transferred, there will be no liability to capital gains.” 6. Consistent with the view of the Coordinate Bench, we uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss this appeal of the revenue. Order has been pronounced on 30th Day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1722 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e dispensed with and so also the notice in the government gazette and has submitted that the notice shall be given to the individual secured creditors by hand delivery and necessary affidavit shall be filed of such service. Considering the submission, it is hereby ordered that the meeting of the secured creditor of the applicant be convened and held at the registered office of the applicant on 15th April 2011 at 11 a.m. It is further ordered that Mr. Kamlesh Gondaliya, Director of the applicant, is hereby appointed as the Chairman of the meeting failing him Mr. N.R. Shah, Company Secretary, shall act as Chairman. The quorum for the meeting of the secured creditor shall be two in number. The notice for the meeting shall be served by hand delivery to all the secured creditors. The Chairman shall report to this Court the outcome of the meeting within 15 days of the conclusion of the meeting of the secured creditors. This application stands disposed of with the above directions.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1721 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - extended period of limitation - Held that: - it is clearly established from the records that the petitioner had knowledge and therefore provision of extension of the period of limitation would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case - appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1720 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... without straight away allowing the ground, in view of the requirement of the fairness in administration of the justice, CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order giving his finding on merits too after according the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also find there is some discrepancy noted by the revenue in making furnishing the details in the return relating to the details of the corpus donations as discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order while dealing with the other grounds. 46. Considering the fact, this ground is raised without prejudice to the ones, which have been set aside for the reasons given in the above paragraphs, in our opinion, this ground must also be set aside to the files of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground is set aside. 47. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 18th March, 2011.
............
|
