|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 871 Records
-
2013 (3) TMI 758 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... n account of possible personal usage. Even before the ld. CIT(A) no specific reason for the addition has been pointed out in the Remand Report called for by the ld. CIT(A). Admittedly no expenses can be disallowed unless specific defect in the expenses can be pointed out. Just because a particular expenditure is not amenable for verification would not give ground for an adhoc disallowance so also unless the personal use is not shown no adhoc disallowance can be made. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the addition as made by the AO and as reduced by the ld. CIT(A) without pointing out any specific defect is unsustainable on the facts as emanating from the orders of the lower authorities. In the circumstances the adhoc disallowances stand deleted. 8. Ground Nos. 7 and 8 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature which do not call for any adjudication. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.03.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 757 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .S. Mahadevan, adv. And Sri V. Jayaram, Sri A.C. Yadurayagowda, adv. Sri Premnath, Court Commissioner.For The Respondents ORDER Learned counsel for the applicants has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the Company Application. Since the dispute is pending before the Company Law Board, reserving liberty to the applicants to raise such issues before the Company Law Board, this Company Application is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2013 (3) TMI 756 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance for non-deduction/ non-payment of TDS u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS on Non- Resident Payments u/s 195 - Amount was paid by the assessee to its holding company in Netherlands, which was in turn paid by the holding company to trainers for providing training to assessee's employees. AO observed that the provisions of s.195 were attracted in respect of such payment, for which assessee was required to deduct tax at source before remitting the said payment, which it did not. AO made the disallowance invoking the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia). - HELD THAT:- For invoking the provisions of s. 40(a)(ia), it is of paramount importance to ascertain the chargeability of the amount to tax in the hands of such trainers who were eventual receivers. Otherwise, the provisions of section 195 cannot apply and ex consequenti, the application of s. 40(a)(ia) is ruled out. AO directed to decide the question of chargeability then decide the whether s. 40(a)(ia) applies or not. - Matter restored back.
-
2013 (3) TMI 755 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he Tribunal further shall cause prejudice to both sides. Therefore, we set aside the orders at page 70 to 74, at page 76 and at page 67 of the appeal folder and direct the appellant to make application before learned Commissioner (Appeals) within 15 days of receipt of the order to fix the hearing. On such prayer, the authority shall fix appropriate date for hearing of stay application of appellant and pass appropriate order. 7. On the date fixed, without seeking any adjournment, appellant shall appear and explain its case to consider its prima facie case if any by learned Commissioner (Appeals). That authority shall reconsider the stay application afresh on its own merits. 8. It is also stated that learned Commissioner (Appeals) to save time, shall issue notice within 15 days of receipt of this order for carrying out aforesaid direction. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, stay application is disposed and the appeal is remanded to learned Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2013 (3) TMI 754 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ase and the facts and circumstances relating to confirmation of tax demand whether with intention or without intention of the assessee to cause prejudice to Revenue. He should have open mind to hear the appellant thoroughly on penalty issue under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 and then reach to a rational conclusion. It may again be reiterated that mere confirmation of tax demand has not granted liberty to Revenue to confirm penalty if shelter under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 is available. With aforesaid observation Misc. (ROA) is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (3) TMI 753 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... similarly. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In ITA No.5199/M/2011 the sole grievance of the Revenue is identical to ITA No.5196/M/2011 for similar reasons, on similar facts the ground is decided similarly. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. (7) ITA Nos. 4802/M/2011 (Assessee) & 5416/M/2011 (Department) (A.Y. 2009-10) 27. In ITA No.4802/M/2011 the sole grievance is identical to ground no. 2 of ITA No.4796/M/2011 for similar reasons, on similar facts the ground is decided similarly. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 28. In ITA No.5416/M/2011 the sole grievance of the Revenue is identical to ITA No.5196/M/2011 for similar reasons, on similar facts the ground is decided similarly. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 29. In the result, both the appeals for the A.Y. 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 752 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eafter, we direct the Adjudicating Authority to decide the issue as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer limit of four months’ time from today. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (3) TMI 751 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s or odd was given to the assessee on loan. Shri Pravin Hirji Thakkar appeared before the AO, who also confirmed in having advanced the loan to the assessee. The loan was given through proper banking channel. Three ingredients i.e. identity of the person, genuineness of the transaction and source of the loan given, have been proved in this case. Shri Pravin Hirji Thakkar appeared before the AO, who confirmed having given loan to the assessee from the source of his income of ₹ 2.24 crores or odd. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) was justified in holding that onus lay upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the loan is discharged. 7. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). 8. Resultantly, appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 1st day of Mar.2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 750 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l. 4. It is well settled that the penalty proceedings are independent and separate from quantum proceedings. Therefore, mere rejection of a claim in quantum proceedings would not ipso facto lead to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For imposition of penalty, the ingredients of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act must be satisfied. In this case, it is not the submission of the Revenue that penalty is imposable as there has been concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. At the very highest, it can only be a case of a claim of being taxed under a particular head of income being not accepted. The Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Limited reported in 322 ITR 158 has held that mere rejection of a claim would not lead to imposition of penalty. In the above circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 749 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... se of searched persons is unreasonable and arbitrary. No reason is forthcoming from the department for the delay in issuing the notice u/s 158BD while claiming that no limitation is provided under the Act. The Act does not envisage that the notice u/s 158BD could be issued at any point of time. Therefore, by respectfully following the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Bimbis Creams & Bakes (supra) and the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Khandubhai Visanji Desai & Os (supra) we hold that the issue of notice u/s 158BD after expiry of one year and three months is arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the consequential order passed by the assessing officer cannot stand in the eyes of law. Hence, the same is quashed. 10. In the result, appeal of the taxpayer in IT(SS)A No.01/Coch/2011 is allowed and the appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A. No.02 & 03/Coch/2011 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 748 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is correct in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Act? 2) Counsel for the parties state that similar questions were raised by the revenue in respect of the same respondent assessee before this court in Income Tax Appeal Lodging No.2378 of 2009. This Court by its order dated 30/11/2009 did not entertain the appeal filed by the revenue. For the reasons stated by this Court in order dated 30/11/2009 in Income Tax Appeal Lodging No.2378 of 2009, we see no reason to entertain these appeals. 3) All the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (3) TMI 747 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ereinafter referred to as "the Act", in the income of the assessee-respondent. The case of the assesee-respondent was that the deposits were received towards share application money for allotment of shares by the investors. The Assessing Officer took the view that since the assessee has failed to discharge the burden as laid under Section 68 of the Act credit entries were not duly explained. The order of the Assessing Officer has been set aside in appeal by the first Appellate Authority and the order of the first Appellate Authority has been confirmed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has followed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (216-CTR-195). Following the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, this Court has held in numerous cases that addition under Section 68 of the Act in such cases is not called for. We do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed summarily.
-
2013 (3) TMI 746 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s Court vide the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2012 has found that no case for interference at that stage is made out. In the circumstances, the observations as aforesaid have been made. Be that as it may, we are making it further clear that whatever we have said in the order dated 31.07.2012 shall not in any way come in the way of the concerned authorities for deciding the petitioner's objections as already directed and the authorities shall be free to pass order in accordance with law. Making the aforesaid position clear we observe that in place of “the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine”, it be treated and read as “the writ petition is disposed of”. We would like to further make the position clear that the words “tentative opinion” will also not come in the way of the authorities while deciding the petitioner's objections in accordance with law. With the aforesaid modification, the review petition stands disposed of.
-
2013 (3) TMI 745 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce returnable on 1st April 2013. Respondents may continue with the assessment, final order pursuant to the impugned notice shall not be passed without the leave of the Court. Direct service is permitted.
-
2013 (3) TMI 744 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... ces given to the subsidiary companies during the relevant year. 33. In view of the above and following our own order in assessee’s own case during the assessment years 2001-01 to 2006-07 (surpa), it is held that there is no nexus between borrowed funds and investments made during the relevant previous year. In other words, the borrowed funds were used on the facts of the case, for business purposes. In such a situation, the provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the I.T. Rules, have no application. Reference in this context is made to the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hero Cycles reported in 323 ITR 518. The disallowance of interest expenditure made by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 14A read with rule 8D is accordingly directed to be deleted and ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. 34. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.274(Asr)2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2013.
-
2013 (3) TMI 743 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y learned counsel for the parties and in view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents in reply to the petition in paras 5.37 and 5.40 as extracted above, we dispose of this petition by observing that the directions contained in para 5 and its sub-paras of the impugned order passed by CIT(A) shall not be construed to be of binding nature by the AO and it will be open for AO to proceed with the assessment proceedings in accordance with law uninfluenced by the said impugned observations/directions contained in the impugned order. 8. With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the writ petition. We further make it clear that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the other part of the order dt. 30th Nov., 2012 passed by the CIT(A), the petitioner is free to approach the Tribunal with a prayer for condonation of delay and the Tribunal shall consider such prayer for condonation of delay, keeping in view that the petitioner was prosecuting the remedy before this Court.
-
2013 (3) TMI 742 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... od of holding. The assessee before us filed complete details of assessments and accounts i.e. copies of assessment orders for AY 2004-05 to 2006-07 in its paper book which clearly reveals that the variation in investment is accepted by the revenue as income from capital gains. Once this is an established position, that assessee maintained the distinction in books of account between its investments and stock in trade and also maintained distinction of short term investment as well as long term investment and such investments were accepted by revenue in earlier years all along, now they cannot take u-turn and change the head of income without any basis. Accordingly, we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly upheld the claim of the assessee in accepting the sale of investments as short term capital gains or long term capital gains, as the case may be. Both the appeals of revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed. 8. Pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (3) TMI 740 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal while confirming the addition of ₹ 2.73 Crores under Section 68 of the Act in the hands of the Appellant? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, was the Tribunal justified in not admitting the additional evidence of loan creditor Mr. Mahendra Mansingh Arora in the form of Return of Income, Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account for Assessment Year 2006-07 filed before the I. T. Department on the ground that the same were not filed before the Respondent No.2 earlier without appreciating that the Appellant cannot be penalized for the default of loan creditor?
-
2013 (3) TMI 739 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... appellant submits that an identical matter was decided in the case of Arvind. Fashions Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore by this Tribunal reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 178 (Tri.-Bang.) and the Revenue went in the appeal against the said order before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble High Court vide 2012 (27) S.T.R. J112 (Kar.) upheld this Tribunal’s view that the payment of royalty towards Technical know-how is not taxable under the category of ‘Consulting Engineer’s Service’. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. 4.1 We are of the considered view that the service received by the appellant does not come within the category of ‘Consulting Engineer’s Service’ as payment of royalty for supply of technical know-how is not covered in the scope of this service. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (3) TMI 738 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ce being intangible, its provision and consumption take place simultaneously. Therefore, when the workers have been employed by the units in the SEZ, it is consumed there. Inasmuch the appellant has agreed to produce the evidence before the adjudicating authority such as register of adult workers and muster roll during the impugned period maintained by the service recipients, that would be sufficient evidence for the services utilized within the SEZ. Accordingly, we remand the case back to the adjudicating authority for consideration of the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. The appellant is also directed to produce the adult worker’s register and muster roll in respect of the labour supplied by them to the units in SEZ to prove their eligibility to claim the benefit under Notification No. 4/2004. 6. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. All issues are kept open. Stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
............
|
