|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 832 - ITAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... uestion of law involved. Therefore, respectfully following the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal (supra) we hold that the penalty is not exigible, as the appeal was admitted by the High Court in the present case. Even otherwise, the penalty is also not leviable in the view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “a mere making of the claim which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee and such claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.” In view of the above, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 20th day of June, 2013, Chennai.
-
2013 (6) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... essment order did not contain any reason, it did not reflect the application of mind of the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Administrative Commissioner. The said decision of the Tribunal also does not contain any decision on the crucial issue of deferred expenditure and the quantification thereof. Under such circumstances, we do not find any legal infirmity or other ground to visit the decision of the Tribunal. 2. Be that as it may, we are also told that following the Administrative Commissioner's order, the Assessing Officer had passed revised assessment orders and that was carried in an appeal, and by now, it is pending before the Tribunal. Obviously, there is nothing in the orders impugned in this appeal, that would stand in the way of the Tribunal giving elaborate consideration of that appeal on all grounds available to the appellant/assessee, in accordance with law. With that observation, this appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2013 (6) TMI 830 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... error to be corrected by the Commissioner. As regards the penalty, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act was different from those relevant to the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules. In the circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of re-quantification of the demand of duty on the basis of the assessee’s worksheet and also to decide afresh whether the assessee was liable to pay penalty. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that consequent on the remand order passed by the Tribunal, the Commissioner had passed a fresh order on 29-1-2009, which is again a subject matter of appeal before the CESTAT in E/196/2009. 6. Having regard to the abovesaid fact, we do not find that the order of the Tribunal calls for any interference. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 829 - ITAT DELHI
| |
|
Depreciation u/s 32(1)(i) & 32(1)(ii) - Disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia) - Revene filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) for deleting three disallowances regarding computer software, peripherals to computers and non-verifiability of various expenses incurred by assessee. - HELD THAT: - Assessing officer did not bring on record any material to justify the disallowance of various expenses incurred. Also, relying on Delhi High Court judgement disallowances of depreciation was deleted by Ld. CIT(A). Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders of Ld. CIT(A).
Departmental appeal dismissed
|
-
2013 (6) TMI 828 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... with the objectives of the assessee and not to provide personal benefit to Maharaja Gaj Singh ji. Further, the administrative expenses of ₹ 1,90,627 were also incurred for official use. The detailed explanation and break-up of the expenses is submitted at pages 91-95 of the PB. In the aforesaid circumstances, the action of the assessing officer in disallowing deduction for expenses incurred and in denying exemption under section 11 of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case. The same, therefore, are deleted and Ground No. 9 is allowed. 8. Ground No. 10 of this appeal reads as under "10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance brought forward deficit from past years for setting off from the surplus of current year without assigning any reasons therefor." 8.1 Ground No. 10 of this appeal was not pressed. This ground stands dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 827 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y giving break up of areas sold in various years as placed in paper book page 49 but it is not clear as to whether the areas mentioned in earlier year were actually declared in the P&L A/c of earlier years. Therefore, this ground of appeal is also remitted back to the office of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication who after going through the complete records of earlier years will arrive at the conclusion as to whether there was a real difference or not. 16. As regards ground No.3, we are of the opinion that the interest on loans was paid for business purposes and the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition and we do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this ground. 17. In view of the above, ground No.1 & 2 is allowed for statistical purposes whereas ground No.3 is dismissed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 19. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 826 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... n the order of the AO in allowing credit of only ₹ 22,69,830/-. However, the second aspect of the issue raised before us is the source of payment of income tax of ₹ 7,30,170/-. The said aspect has not been considered by the authorities below. It is not even clear from the perusal of the orders whether the said amount has been paid during the year or in the succeeding year. In view of the facts not being available from the perusal of the record before us, we deem it fit to restore the issue of factum of determining the year and source of payment of ₹ 7,30,170/- back to the file of AO who shall give a finding in this respect after verifying the factum of the payment of ₹ 7,30,170/-. Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. The ground No.2 raised by the revenue is, thus allowed for statistical purpose. 16. In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 14th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 825 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the contention of Learned DR that considering the position of Shri Miglani as Secretary of UPDA. The document should be construed as belonged to assessee. 20. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to differ with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench and make a reference for the constitution of a larger bench. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT, Bangalore, we allow the preliminary grounds raised by the assessee that no documents belonging to the assessee were found and, therefore, no assessment under sec. 153C of the Act can be framed in their cases. Consequently, all the assessment orders are quashed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 23.11.2012.” 5. Respectfully following the order of the ITAT in the assessee’s own case, we allow the preliminary ground of appeal raised by the assessee and quash the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 824 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e assessees in as much as when the capital gain is held to be arising in the hands of the assessee from sale of shares as claimed by the assessee and not from sale of property, the basis taken by the authorities below to treat the same as short term capital gain no more survives and the said capital gain thus a chargeable of tax in the hand of assessee as long term capital gain a shown in the returns of income. We, therefore, allow ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2008-09. 11. As regards ground no. 4 of the appeals of the assessees for A.Y. 2008-09, it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to the assessee’s alternative claim has become infructuous as a result of our decision rendered on the main issue involved in ground no. 1 and 2 of the assesse’s appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 12. In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 823 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... n case of CIT V. Ghanshuyam (HUF) (supra) was rendered on 16.7.2009. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that some part of interest payment compensation would form part of compensation. The Assessing Officer has not bifurcated which part of the interest is u/s 28 of “land Acquisition Act” and which other part is taxable. Therefore, at the time of filing of return the issue was really debatable. Since after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the assessee has fairly accepted the addition by not filing the appeal. In any case in the similar circumstances penalty was held not to be leviable by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT V. Bharat Lal Dagar (HUF) (supra) because the issue was debatable. Therefore, in these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the penalty and accordingly we confirm his order. 8 In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 11.6.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 822 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d to have been paid, there is no logic in disallowing such expenditure by holding that it was excessive. It is for the assessee to determine the way in which it has to carry on its business. The assessee has to decide the percentage of commission which is to be allowed by him considering all the attending circumstances and the business exigencies. In our considered opinion, the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting this addition.” 7.1. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Voltamp Limited(supra) has held that commission paid to sole selling agent of the assessee-company had close connection between them but evidence shows thus increase of the sale due to efforts of the agent. Thus, commission is allowable. 8. Respectfully following the aforementioned decisions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A), the same is upheld. 9. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 821 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ssee diverted business fund to the partner’s to the extent of ₹ 2,77,268/-, in the light of the fact, the A.O. has rightly disallowed 12 interest. The contention of the ld. Authorised Representative that this debit balance in partner’s account are on account of depreciation is not acceptable because debit is always debit whether it is on account of depreciation adjustment or otherwise. The assessee can not be permeated to take interest on capital only on credit entries ignoring debit entries. Even otherwise also, to the extent of debit balance in partner’s account the borrowed fund has been diverted, therefore, to that extent interest is no allowable under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) of ₹ 33,272/- is sustained. Order of CIT(A) on the issue is confirmed. 13. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 820 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ipal Corporation. 13. The revenue is relied on decision in case of S.S. and Co. Octroi Contractors (supra). In the said case the issue is different. There is no dispute between the petitioner and Income-tax Department. It is a dispute between the petitioner and State of Punjab and Haryana. We therefore hold that the agreement between the assessee Municipal Corporation and the society is not in the nature of a contract which is contemplated in Sec. 194C of the Act but is an assignment of the right to ply the buses and hence, the basic mandate of Sec. 194C is not fulfilled. Moreover, the assessee Corporation is collecting the royalty and not making the payment to the society. We, therefore, allow the grounds taken by the assessee Municipal Corporation in all the four appeals. 14. So far as appeal no. 717/PN/2011 as it is infructuous the same is dismissed. 15. In the result, ITA No. 717/PN/2011 is dismissed as infructuous and ITA Nos. 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891/PN/2012 are allowed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 819 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ore, be assessed to tax. In the case of Sarswati Industrial Syndicate-Vs- CIT (186 ITR 278), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held so. 6. No doubt, Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment on amalgamation is dated 8th May, 2009 but it is categorically stated in the amalgamation scheme so approved by their Lordships that the “appointed date means 1st day of April 2008”. When learned Departmental Representative was confronted with this position, he did not have anything to say. He simply submitted that date of Hon’ble High Court’s judgment is dated 8th May, 2009. We do not think learned Departmental Representative is so naïve as to miss the vital distinction between date of order and the date from which amalgamation is effective. It is indeed a sad commentary on the state of affairs that such frivolous appeals are filed before us. We leave it at that. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 28th June, 2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 818 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... unal for fresh consideration in the light of the amendment made vide Finance Act, 2010. However, there is merit in the contention of the appellant that approval from AICTE is not required for conducting management courses, as such courses are not ‘technical education’. Since this decision is of very recent origin and was not before the adjudicating authority when the impugned order was passed, the matter has to go back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh determination as to whether the courses conducted by the appellant were recognized by law even without the approval from AICTE. Therefore, we remand the case back to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Other issues raised by the appellant regarding time bar, non imposability of penalty etc. are also kept open. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 817 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance made u/s. 40A(3A) - Held that:- Assessee is a distributor does not, in fact, make any purchase either of goods or services on the acceptance of delivery of the SIM cards or other service products and resultantly does not incur any expenditure in its respect. Once the payments are not of the nature of expenditure, there is no question of there was no question of disallowance of any expenditure by invoking provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act.
-
2013 (6) TMI 816 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ve of the provisions of section 40(a) (ia) of the Act and for that reason, expenditure is disallowed. Penalty cannot be levied for mere making of a claim of expenditure which is not sustainable and deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT (A) is justified. We place reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (Pvt.) Ltd. (322 ITR 158 SC). Accordingly the ground raised by the revenue holds no merit.” 10. Therefore, in view of the judicial pronouncements, we hold that penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) was not imposable in the present case on late deposit of TDS. In respect to penalty on other disallowances such as cash expenses, charity and donation etc. we hold that mere disallowance of expenditure cannot result into imposition of penalty. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any infirmity in the order of CIT (A). The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21st/06/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 815 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act, it was only the Jt. Commissioner or Addl. Commissioner who could grant the approval of the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. Their lordships further held that if the approval was not granted by Jt. Commissioner or Addl. Commissioner and instead it was taken from Commissioner of Income Tax, then the same was not irregularity curable u/s 292B of the Act and Hon’ble High Court held that the notice u/s 148 was not valid. Respectfully following the above judgment, we hold that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) rightly decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the reopening of assessment was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and was liable to be quashed. We have no reason or any other valid ground to take a different view in this regard. Accordingly, the sole ground of the revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on…28/06/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 814 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to attach equal importance to the non-observance of all conditions irrespective of the purposes they were intended to serve.” 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, more particularly, the finding given by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is not in dispute that all other conditions and limitations mentioned in Clause (2) of the notifications are satisfied and the rebate claim have been rejected solely on the ground of non-submission of the original and duplicate ARE1s, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority rejecting the rebate claim of the respective petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the respective petitioners shall be entitled to the rebate of duty claimed for the excisable goods which are in fact exported on payment of excise duty from their respective factories. Rule is made absolute accordingly in both the petitions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 813 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA - whether engaged in the business of development of infrastructural facility - whether a developer or mere works contractor - Held that:- assessee incurred expenditure for purchase of materials himself and executes the development work i.e., carries out the civil construction work - Government handed over the possession of the premises of projects to the assessee for the development of infrastructure facility - It is the assessee’s responsibility to do all acts till the possession of property is handed over to the Government - such activity is eligible for deduction under section 801A (4) of the Act. This cannot be considered as a mere works contract but has to be considered as a development of infrastructure facility - assessee has undertaken the development of the irrigation project within the scope of Explanation to section 80IA(4) - The project is a Turnkey project and it cannot form nor have a character of a works contract - Decided in favor of assessee
............
|
