|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 927 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1254 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed with the other evidence.” 24. We may, keeping in view the aforementioned backdrop, consider the effect of the purported statements made by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.” 7. The provision under which statement of a co-accused is admissible is Section 30 of the Evidence Act. The law in this regard is well-settled. Therefore, a conviction cannot be based solely on the confessional statement of a co-accused because a statement of co-accused under Section 30 can be used only to lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused, that is, it is one more circumstance in the basket of circumstances of the prosecution. 8. Thus, in view of the discussion above, I do not find that the impugned judgment is either perverse or illegal. No ground to grant leave to appeal is made out. 9. Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1253 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to drop the demand of duty payable by the petitioner. The other contentions of the petitioner that the penalty cannot be imposed; demand of interest under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944 is not sustainable; that appropriation of duty along with interest from the amount due from the petitioner is illegal; that quantification of duty payable by the petitioner is incorrect and other contentions supra are devoid of merit. 18. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. As a result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 19. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application as stated supra, under Rule 21 of the Rules, 2002 for remission of payment of central excise duty on the alleged loss of SKO if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1252 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t the assessee has maintained separate books of account in respect of exhibition activity. In this view of the matter, the first question raised by the revenue cannot be entertained. 4. As regards second question is concerned, counsel on both sides agree that the said question is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Institute of Banking reported in 2003 264 I.T.R. 110. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 5. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in all the three assessment years before us. We respectfully following the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in assessee’s own case viz. M/s. Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council (supra) confirm the orders of the Ld. CIT (A). 6. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cted by the JPC and SEBI regarding the Security Scam 2001 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was justified in holding that the disallowances of interest of ₹ 17,47,23,076/relating to the funds lent as interest free loans to sister concerns was not tenable ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that speculation loss can be set off against income from other sources without appreciating the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? 2. As regards question (iii) is concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in the assessee’s own case being Income Tax Appeal No.4280 of 2009 has been rejected by this Court on 11th January 2011. Hence, question (iii) cannot be entertained. 3. The appeal is admitted on questions (i), (ii) and (iv). 4. To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal No.4280 of 2009.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1250 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 11. Respectfully following the above decisions and keeping in view that there is no finding of the AO that the details furnished by the assessee are found to be incorrect or false we are of the view that, under such circumstances, the penalty is not leviable. Further making of wrong claim is not at par with concealment or giving of inaccurate information, which may call for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view also finds support from the recent decisions in CIT vs. Sidhartha Enterprises (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H) and CIT vs. Shahabad Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 73(P&H). Accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO. The grounds taken by the revenue are therefore, rejected. 12. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1249 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... o not agree with the ld. AR that the issue is debatable. The claim of the appellant is not allowable and is mistake apparent from record in as much as it is not supported by any material on record and is also contrary to the P&L a/c enclosed with the return. The order of the AO is confirmed. Ground no.1,2 & 3 are dismissed.” 4. We find that the Assessing Officer has initiated rectification proceedings u/s 154 of the Act to re-compute rebate u/s 88E of the Act by disallowing the claim of expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income allowable. We find that this issue is highly debatable and even it is not clear how the business expenses can be disallowed by invoking rectification u/s 154 of the Act. Since this is a debatable issue we need not to go into merits of the case and we quash orders of the lower authorities and allow the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 05.08.11
-
2011 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Taxability in India - income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1247 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... needed. 37. Mr. Khambata, the learned Additional Solicitor General, at this stage, prays that the operation of this order be stayed keeping in mind the importance of the matter and that the matter is receiving the attention of the Supreme Court of India. I have considered this prayer. The Applicant has been ordered to be released on bail after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter. I do not think that there is any apprehension or danger of the Applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence, within the time that would be needed for approaching the Supreme Court of India. The Applicant would be available to the Investigating Agency in the event of the bail granted in his favour being cancelled. As such, I see no necessity of staying the operation of this order. The prayer is, therefore, rejected. 38. Mr. Bagaria, the learned Advocate for the Applicant, prays that the Applicant be allowed to deposit cash in lieu of surety. The prayer is rejected.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1246 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... peals) in his order has recorded a finding that in the facts of the present case, the balance written back in respect of the expenditure incurred amounting to ₹ 6,53,961/is liable to be considered as business income eligible for deduction under Section 80HHC. In such a case, whether the decision of this Court in the case of Dresser Rand India Private Limited (supra) would apply is the question. 5. Since this aspect of the matter is not considered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by consent, the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside on the fourth question and the said issue is restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration and in accordance with law. While passing fresh order, the assessing officer shall also take into consideration, the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Pfizer Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 62 (Bom). 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1245 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d as causing prejudice to the respondents? The answer in this regard is not hard to seek. The principle is rested upon a public policy enunciated in the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit”. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense and also affords safe and certain guide for the administration of law. By virtue of the intervention of a Court, which intended to examine the veracity of the claim made in the case, no party can be construed to have been prejudiced by the delay that occasioned in testing the question by the Court. Since, the order that was passed by this Court on 10-11-2010, is likely to cause prejudice to the respondents, it is only appropriate for this Court to declare that the time between 10-11-2010 up to today, shall be excluded from reckoning for purposes of Sub- Section (3) of Section5 of the PML Act. For the above reasons, I do not see any merit in this writ petition and hence, it is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1244 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arned counsel for the Revenue, we have taken a decision on merits. In view thereof, there can be no question of a recall of the decision which has already been taken on the merits. Dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... overriding fundamental principles known to the law of the land. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned communications at Exhibits A1 to A3 and the consequent assessment orders, have to be set aside and a direction would have to be issued to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to pass fresh orders finalizing the assessments after furnishing to the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard. There shall accordingly be an order and direction in these terms. The Petitioners shall appear before the concerned Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Customs entrusted with the hearing of the cases on 16 August 2011 together with an authenticated copy of this order. The adjudicating authority shall take necessary steps in accordance with law to finalize the assessment after furnishing to the Petitioners an opportunity of being heard and complying with the principles of natural justice, on an expeditious basis. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1242 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... g the eligible amount of deduction u/s. 80IB, in terms of our above observations. We direct accordingly. 11. Next grievance of the assessee relates to charging of interest u/s. 234D. The issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated 330 ITR 578, wherein it was held that section 234D is applicable only from Assessment Year 2004-05 and onwards, and not in the earlier assessment years, therefore, no interest under that provision of section 234D could be levied for the period prior to Assessment Year 2004-05. Since the assessment year under consideration is Assessment Year 2003-04, the provisions of section 234D is not applicable, accordingly we direct the A.O. not to charge any interest u/s. 234D of the Act. 12. In the result, appeals of the revenue in both the years are dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. Order pronounced in Open Court on 12 - 08- 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1241 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... AT against the order of CIT(Appeals), the issue is very much debatable and the penalty for concealment cannot be sustained on debatable issues. Further, the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench vide order dated 11-08-2008 in ITAT No.783/Ahd/2007 set aside the order of C.I.T. (A) and restored the matter to the file of the C.I.T.(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, accordingly the appeal was disposed of and the appellant has been allowed the deduction u/s.80IB (10) vide order of even date. Therefore also penalty does not survive. Accordingly the penalty levied is cancelled.” 7. In the light of the above discussion and the view taken by us, since the addition do not survive, therefore, consequence thereupon, we hereby hold that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. In the result, Revenue’s ground is dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 5th August 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ’ or ‘income from house property’. Merely because claim made by the assessee has been rejected, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed any particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars, so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had deleted the penalty. No fault can be found with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1239 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... not. It is the duty of the applicant to pay service tax in time and to file returns accordingly when they have provided taxable service. We are not concerned, whether they have not charged/collected service tax or not. But it is admitted fact that they have received remuneration of services provided. As the applicants have admitted their service tax liability of almost ₹ 5.71 crores, which they have paid also, we do not find applicants have made out a case for waiver of penalty during the pendency of the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the applicants have paid almost ₹ 7 lakhs towards penalty, we further ask the applicants to make a pre-deposit of ₹ 50 lakhs (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) apart from the amount already towards penalty, as penalty within twelve weeks and report compliance on 03.11.2011. On such compliance the balance amount of service tax and penalties shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1238 - ITAT PUNE
Validity of assessment u/s 153A r w s 153B - Held that:- CIT(A) was not correct in law in holding that assessment for the previous year in which search took place or requisition was made had to be completed under the normal provisions of the Act.
Considering the above reported decision of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion, the additional ground, which is legal in nature and raised by the assessee’s counsel for the first time before us is admitted and adjudicated in favour of the assessee making the assessment order invalid. Accordingly, the additional ground is allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1237 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ee that he was not required to maintain books of account and further the assessee co-operated with the department in recomputing his income as and when it was brought to his notice that provisions of section 44AF were not applicable. It was, therefore, contended that there was reasonable cause for assessee’s failure to maintain regular books of account and accordingly penalty be deleted. 4. We have considered the rival submissions carefully. Having noticed the factual position, we find no reasons to uphold the penalty, inasmuch as the bona fides of reasons canvassed by the assessee have not been disputed. We, therefore, considering the provisions of section 273B read with section 271A of the Act, set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty of ₹ 25,000/-. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on this 5th Day of August, 2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1236 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... -vis M/s AFPL are not fulfilled. It was, further, observed that shareholders of various different persons cannot be clubbed to decide the issue of fulfillment of conditions laid down in Sec 2(22)(e) of the Act. He was of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the assessee, support his findings. 8. In view of legal and factual discussions, including the case laws cited and relied upon by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity, in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and hence, the same are upheld. 9. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection No. 58/Chandi/2011 - AY 2007-08 10. In view of the findings recorded above, as also in the light of submission of the ld. ‘AR’ that the Cross objection intended to support the appellate order. The impugned cross objections is dismissed as infructuous. 11. In the result, appeal of the revenue and the Cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced on 24 .8.2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1235 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court and that of the Special Bench, as rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, neither the assessment order nor the appellate order consists of any discussion regarding the length of the period for which software was acquired against the payment of license fee. In such facts and circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to restore this matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to look into the length of periods of each software acquired during the assessment year under question and then to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble High Court and the Special Bench cited supra. In other words, in principle, the AO has to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court and Special Bench cited supra but after verification of the length of the period of each software acquired by the assessee. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2011.
............
|
