|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 697 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the service provider on behalf of the appellant to their customers of the appellant. It is undisputed that appellant is contractually obligated to their customers for providing repairs and services during the warranty period which he has out sourced to another organization. The said organization was raising the bill on the appellant for the services provided. In our considered view, the services provided by out sourced person would not be falling within the purview of additional consideration for sale. Prima facie, the stay order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may cover the situation. In view of the foregoing, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 766 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ctivity of smuggling and the scheduled properties acquired by the detenue, and the said “reasons to believe” do not show as to how a nexus is sought to be established between the income allegedly derived from the illegal activity of smuggling, and the acquisition of the said properties. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, since the “reasons to believe”, as recorded by the competent authority appear to be wholly insufficient, the notice issued under Section 6(1) of SAFEMA cannot be said to have been issued validly. The competent authority did not derive the jurisdiction to issue the same in the absence of the recording of the valid “reasons to believe”. Consequently, the orders passed on the said notice by the competent authority on 28-11-1994, and by the appellate Tribunal on 8-3-1996 and the rectification order dated 8-5-1996 cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 765 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cant decisive difference has been found and hence the seized betel nuts cannot be said with certainty to be of foreign origin. The aforesaid questions have also been considered in detail by another Bench of this court in case of R.G. Holdings Private Limited vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2008 (2) PLJR 538. In the said circumstances and in view of absence of any material to show that the goods were smuggled goods or were of any third country origin, the respondents authorities should not have detained the truck and betel nuts loaded on it nor they should have seized the same which acts are clearly violative of the well settled principles of law. 22. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention and seizure of the betel nuts and the truck on which it was loaded are hereby quashed and the authorities are directed to release the truck and the betel nuts loaded thereon, immediately after receipt/production of a copy of this order.
-
2011 (11) TMI 764 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estimating the additional gross profit at 4.9% - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Assessing Officer compared profits of the assessee with the comparable cases in the market where the profits of persons engaged in export of diamond was high. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that in the assessment year in question, the gross profit has increased compared to the gross profit in the earlier years. The Tribunal has recorded finding that the assessee has maintained the carat wise stock register which is the regular practice prevalent in the diamond trade. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that in the present case, the books of account maintained by the assessee could not be rejected without pointing out defects, if any, especially when the books maintained to the same effect in the earlier years have been accepted by the Revenue. No fault can be found with the decision of the ITAT.
-
2011 (11) TMI 763 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... urt in the case of Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. supra and submitted that the issue whether deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act is allowable to the assessee after reducing the deduction allowable u/s 80IA of the Act or not has been decided in favour of the assessee. 9. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act should be computed without reducing the deduction u/s 80IA allowable to the assessee. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court which is binding on us, therefore, respectfully following the same, we do not find any error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court at the close of hearing in the presence of the parties on 30th November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 762 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Claim of deduction u/s. 80IA on the interest received on margin money - Appeal admitted - [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA on the interest amounting to ₹ 86,66,390/- received on margin money?
-
2011 (11) TMI 761 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... The demand of the duty of reversal of Cenvat credit and the interest thereof is correct. The order of first appellate authority is modified to that extent. The respondent-assessee is liable to pay interest. The lower authorities will adjust the amount paid as duty by the assessee and intimate the differential duty payable and interest thereof to assessee-respondent. 9. Since the issue involved in this case is regarding interpretation that the provisions of Rule 3(4) had to be settled by the Larger Bench, we do not find any reason for visiting the respondent-assessee with any penalty. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent which sets aside the Order-in-Original regarding the confirmation of the demand of the reversal of the Cenvat credit and the interest thereof is set aside while upholding the Order-in-Appeal which sets aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. 11. The appeal disposed of as indicated hereinabove. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 760 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- There can be no addition on any account and, consequently, the stand of the Ld. CIT (A) in sustaining 50% of ₹ 1.05 crores requires to be deleted. It is ordered accordingly.
In a nut-shell, the addition of ₹ 1.05 crores made by the AO u/s 69C of the Act is deleted. The other grievance of the appellant being that the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in not allowing consequential higher deduction u/s 80HHC of the Act. Penalty deleted.
-
2011 (11) TMI 759 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - short deduction of tds - Held that:- Provisions of section 40(a)(ia) would apply only in case of non deduction of tax and not in case of short deduction of tax. The Tribunal has also held that in case of short deduction of tax, the assessee could be declared in default under the provisions of section 201 and corresponding tax along with interest could be collected from the assessee.
Therefore no disallowance is required to be made under section 40(a)(ia). We also note that in this case the assessee had deducted tax but there were small amounts of shortfall which in many cases are less than ₹ 10 in each case and in some cases less than ₹ 1/-. Therefore, plea of the assessee that the shortfall was only because of some clerical error or rounding off error has to be accepted as reasonable. No case for making any disallowance. Accordingly we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition and the same is, therefore, upheld.
-
2011 (11) TMI 758 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... portion of this order, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed; ITA No. 400/Mds/2011, issues in item Nos. 1,5,6 & 7 decided above, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed; ITA No. 401/Mds/2011, issues of item Nos. 1,5,6,7 & 8 decided above, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed; ITA No. 402/Mds/2011, issues in item Nos. 1,5,6,7 & 9, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed; ITA No. 403/Mds/2011, issues in item 1,5,6 & 9 decided above, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed; ITA No. 404/Mds/2011, issues in item Nos. 1 & 5, results in the appeal of the assessee being partly allowed and ITA Nos. 405 to 409/Mds/2011 having single issue being the issue No.5, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 28. In the result, ITA Nos. 399 to 404/Mds/2011 are partly allowed and ITA Nos. 405 to 409/Mds/2011 are allowed. 29. The order was pronounced in the court on 18/11/2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 757 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 41 ITD 142 held that the said amounts are liable to be taxed in the year in which the benefits actually accrue to the assessee and not in the year in which the license is granted. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. M/s.Mafatlal Industries Limited, being Income Tax Appeal no.424 of 2009 decided on 22nd September 2009 has upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Jamshri Ranjitsinghji Spinning & Weaving Mills Limited (supra). 3. In this view of the matter, we see no merit to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 756 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ght forward business loss u/s. 72 and unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) of the Income-tax Act is not to be set off against the profits of eligible undertaking before working out the quantum of exemption u/s. 10A of the Act. Since, in the present case, the view taken by the AO was in consonance with the view taken by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case of CIT, LTU v. M/s. Intellinet Technologies India Private Limited (supra), therefore it cannot be said that the assessment order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the AO was either erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We therefore, by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove think it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT and the assessment order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Assessing Officer is restored. 10. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 755 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from business and interest earned on fixed deposits which does not have an immediate nexus with the export business, it would be treated as income from other sources. The court opined that when the interest was earned on the fixed deposits for the purposes of availing of credit facilities from the bank, it did not have such a nexus with the export business and therefore, had to be necessarily treated as income from other sources and not the business income. 8. Thus, insofar as earning of interest on fixed deposit is concerned, the determinative test is as to whether such interest has ‘immediate nexus’ with the export business.” 9. This aspect will be examined by the Assessing Officer when he passes a consequential order under Section 250 of the Act read with Section 260A of the Act. 10. The question of law is accordingly answered in affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant-assessee but subject to the aforesaid clarification/direction.
-
2011 (11) TMI 754 - ITAT MUMBAI
License fee in respect of composite letting activity carried on by the assessee are chargeable to tax under the head “income from house property” - Held that:- The ‘license fee’ from letting out activity is assessable under the head “income from house property” and not income from business. See M/s. Shambhu Investment [2003 (1) TMI 99 - SUPREME Court].
Computing the annual letting value (ALV) notional interest on the interest free deposits cannot be added - Held that:- This issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (Full Bench) in the case of CIT vs. Monikumar Subba [2011 (3) TMI 497 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2011 (11) TMI 753 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .4 is accordingly dismissed.” 29. In our considered opinion, when it is the case of Revenue that certain funds were generated in a particular year by the assessee by inflation of purchases, then, the logical conclusion would be that such surplus funds were utilised for investments in stock, assets, expenditure, etc. This is the principle that was laid down by various Courts of law. We refer to the following case laws for this proposition - • CIT v/s K.S.M. Guruswamy Nadar & Sons 1984 149 ITR 0127 (Mad.); and • CIT v/s Jawanal Gemaji Gandhi, 1985 151 ITR 0353 (Bom.). 30. As this exercise has to be done afresh by the Assessing Officer, we set aside this ground to the file of Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purpose. 31. In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed in part and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th November 2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 752 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ed is not under dispute. The stock sold as scrap has been accounted for in the books of account. No such defect has been pointed out by the A.O. that such sale of scrap had not been accounted for in the books of account. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, the A.O. is not justified in making the addition and that too the double additions, once the assessee having declared as sales of the stock as scrap and secondly by making the addition by the A.O. again of the same stock as income of the assessee. Such double additions are not admissible under law. In the circumstances and the facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus, ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Ground no.3 is general in nature and therefore, do not require any adjudication. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.50/Agr/2011 is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 16.11.2011)
-
2011 (11) TMI 751 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... effect from April, 1, 1989, so the contention of the Ld. DR with respect to grounds of appeal that this explanation has not been correctly considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court is actually unwarranted and outside the scope of appeal before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, however, no party before us actually argued regarding reassessment proceedings with reference to the definition in Sec.147 under which the Assessing Officer has power to ‘assess’ or ‘reassess’ any escaped income and that too when the return has only been processed u/s.143(1) of the Act which subject has been succinctly dealt with in the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of ACIT Vs.Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd. 2007 291 ITR 500 (SC). Therefore, we are left with no option but to confirm the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. 3. In result, the appeal of Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 750 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee’s own case, being Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1183 of 2011 has been dismissed by us today i.e. 25th November 2011. 2. For the reasons stated therein, the present appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 749 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nder. The two mobile phones without valid IMEI number have been confiscated. The Settlement Commission has directed the respondent to deposit penalty of ₹ 30,000/- and also pay a fine of ₹ 20,000/- in case the respondent wants redemption. The said amount of ₹ 20,000/- was to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the order. Counsel for the petitioner states that ₹ 20,000/- which was payable towards redemption fine has not been paid by the respondent. Thus the respondent would not get benefit of redemption. It is noticed that at the time of hearing before the Settlement Commission, no one was present on behalf of the Revenue and they did not render assistance. There is no ground or justification for the same. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the quantum and the factum that the petitioner did not appear before the Settlement Commission, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
-
2011 (11) TMI 748 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ral Excise, Surat Vs. Zandu Pharmaseutical Works Ltd., reported in (2006) 12 SCC 453 has held that addition of perfume to coconut oil to produce perfumed oil constitutes a manufacturing process. Moreover in the present case it is not in dispute that the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act has been allowed to the assessee in the first year of manufacture and that order has attained finality. 3. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the assessee is engaged in the manufacturing activity and hence entitled to avail deduction under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
............
|
