|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 917 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 1135 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s the Assessee received excess sum of ₹ 23,988 which was written off by the Asssessee. The account is thus squared in the books of the Asssessee. Thus the difference between the Assessees books and that of DB is only the Tax deducted at source of ₹ 8,980. If this is added then the total in both the books would be ₹ 4,00,893. It appears that the only discrepancy is the dates of payment as shown by the Assessee and as shown by DB in its books. We are of the view that it would be appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and remand the issue to the AO for ascertaining the correct dates as per the realisation of the payment through cheques. The AO will afford the Assessee opportunity of being heard and decide the issue as per the directions given above. The ground is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of Sept., 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1134 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... refore, decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by upholding the order of the C.I.T.(A) who has allowed the deduction of payment of cess on green leaves in computing the composite income from tea business of the assessee under rule 8 of the I.T. Rules. We may further mention that identical issue was the subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Empire Plantations (India) Ltd. and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.2.2005 in I.T.A.No.1600 (Kol)/2004 for A.Y. 2000-01 has allowed the claim of the assessee. 5.1. The fact that the SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in respect of AFT Industries Ltd. vs CIT (270 ITR 167) will not have any effect since the Hon’ble Apex Court has neither set aside the orders of the Calcutta High Court nor granted any stay. 6. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1133 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
|
Assessment of trust - Interest Free Loan given in violation of Provisions u/s 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) - Assessee Society gave interest free loan to Treasurer of the society and no provision for accrued interest was made by him. A.O. added the surplus to the total income of assessee society - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT VERSUS VIJETA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [2011 (8) TMI 805 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], it was held that, the interest was charged, as alleged by the assessee, it should have been reflected in the books of accounts of the assessee as well as in the audit report but the same was not reflected in any document. In the instant case, the assessee was liable to show this interest as income in the books of account as per mercantile system of accounting. Thus, the A.O. has rightly concluded that the appellant has given interest free loan to treasurer is in violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and also giving loan without any adequate surety in violation of Section 13(2)(a).
In the present case, A.O. has denied exemption u/s 11 in view of the provision of Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2)(a). Respectfully following the decision made in aforementioned case, we, therefore, restore the order passed by the A.O. - Decision against Assessee.
|
| |
-
2011 (9) TMI 1132 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... owed. Dairy Income 67. The issue has already been decided by us hereinabove in the case of appeals preferred by the assessee for the A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 386 to 390/PN/2-009 wherein after dealing with the issue, we have ultimately upheld the first appellate order in this regard. Following the decision taken therein, we do not find substance in the ground raised on the issue in the present appeals preferred by the revenue. The same is accordingly rejected as the first appellate order in this regard is reasoned one, to which, we fully concur with. 68. In result, appeals are partly allowed. 68. In summary, ITA Nos. 241 to 243/PN/2009, 383/PN/2009, & 385/PN/2009 are allowed; ITA Nos. 245 to 250/PN/2009, 381, 382 & 384/PN/2009, 386 to 387/PN/2009 & 753 to 759/PN/2009 are partly allowed; and ITAs 318/PN/2009, 752/PN/2009, 316 to 317/PN/2009, 388 to 390/PN/2009 and 244/PN/2009 are dismissed. 69. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd September, 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1131 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nformed to the authorities, then the authorities shall not serve any notice calling upon the authorities to pay penalty. It is unfortunate that in spite of statutory provisions, the authorities have issued show cause notice claiming penalty. So tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside those orders. As the said order is strictly in accordance with law we do not find any legal infirmity that calls for interference. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law framed is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his Court upheld the said order in CEA No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April, 2011. 3. Following the aforesaid judgment and the reasons set out therein, we do not see any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. The substantial question of law stands accordingly answered in the light of the judgment in CEA No. 1/2009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April 2011.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1129 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also contends that the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. It is not disputed that no stay has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, mere pendency of a lis, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be a ground for this Court not to proceed with the matter, or dismissing the petition, which is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which is binding on this Court. 30. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, holding that, on harmonious reading of the rules and circulars, the DTA is entitled 100 drawback. The impugned order, of revisional authority, cannot be sustained. 31. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and that of the appellate authority is restored. 32. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 33. No costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1128 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee by following its decision in the case of the assessee for assessment years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The appeals filed by the revenue against the decision of the ITAT relating to AY 1995-96 to 1998-99 have been dismissed by this Court on 10/6/2008 on account of delay in filing the appeals. No steps have been taken to restore those said appeals and thus the orders passed for AY 1995-96 to 1998-99 have attained finality. No case is made out for setting aside the decision of ITAT. In these circumstances, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1127 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cate JUDGEMENT Heard 2. No Ground, We do not see any substantial question of law that merit for admission. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1126 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and has not concealed any particulars of income from the revenue department. The dispute arises on account of difference of opinion between the assessee and the revenue department and ultimately in the quantum proceedings, the learned CIT(A) noted in the appellate order that there was nil demand against the assessee and there was no revenue effect. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly concluded that it is not a case of concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty on such a matter was, therefore, rightly cancelled by the learned CIT(A). We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in canceling the penalty. In the result, departmental appeal in ITA No.210/Ahd/2009 has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. 11. No other point is argued or pressed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee and the departmental appeal, both are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1125 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion and this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not interfere with the same unless the change in the user is found to be arbitrary. The process involves consideration of competing claims and requirements of the inhabitants in present and future so as to make their lives happy, healthy and comfortable. We are of the opinion that town planning requires high degree of expertise and that is best left to the decision of State Government to which the advise of the expert body is available. In the facts of the present case, we find that the power has been exercised in accordance with law and there is no arbitrariness in the same. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. CONTEMPT PETITION ) NO.43 OF 2007 16. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.2047 of 2007, we are not inclined to entertain the contempt petition. The Contempt Petition stands dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1124 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R Delay condoned. Issue notice to show cause as to why the appeal be not admitted. Mr. Tarun Gulati, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent and seeks time to file counter affidavit. Let counter affidavit be filed within eight weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, may be filed within four weeks thereafter. No stay.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1123 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , as stated above, is charged to compensate the Department for loss of revenue. Be that as it may, as stated above, the Scheme of Section 11A of the Act has since undergone substantial change and, in thecircumstances, in our view, the judgement of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited supra has no application to the facts of this case. In our view, the judgement of this Court in the case of SKF India Limited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 9. As the issue is squarely covered by the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of International Auto Ltd. (Supra) where an earlier decision of SKF India Ltd. (Supra) is reiterated in this very authority where also similar view was expressed . In this premise, this appeal needs to be allowed and order of the Tribunal in the present case needs to be quashed and set-aside. Rule to the above extent is to be confirmed. Accodingly, this Tax Appeal stands allowed with consequential relief and stands disposed of.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plit the entire CENVAT credit into 415 entries in spite of taking the entire credit on a single entry on 29 November 2008 shows nothing but mens rea. Nothing more is necessary to prove the element of mens rea. The defence that the appellant was having a credit balance of ₹ 20 crores at any given point of time also would not come to their rescue in view of their deliberate attempt to split the single entry into 415 entries and taking the credit once again. Conclusion 21. The materials produced by the revenue clearly show that the assessee was instrumental in taking the credit for the second time with full knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that there were no materials before the revenue to take deterrent action against the assessee. The issue raised by the appellant was rightly decided against them. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the matter. 22. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Mps are closed. No costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1121 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the Settlement Commission. However, the respondent failed to comply with the direction given by the Settlement Commission for deposit of the additional demand, and therefore, the said application got abated. In view of the statement, we feel that this appeal is rendered infructuous. It is dismissed accordingly.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1120 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Liability of tax on sub-contractor - the main contractor has discharged the entire Service tax on the cost value of the contract - Revenue's grievance is limited to the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demand and penalties without actually verifying as to whether the prime contractor had discharged the tax on the full value of the contract or not.
Held that:- Inasmuch as the verification is one of the essential fact for setting aside of demand, we are of the view that matter should be remanded to the original adjudicating authority for carrying out the verification of the above factual fact and decide the consequent duty liability of the respondents - matter on remand.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1119 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay any duty. 4. The revenue contends that the duty is payable based on the sale price of the manufacturer. 5. Therefore, the issue between the parties, which arises for consideration in tis appeal, relates to the determination of the duty payable under the Act. The said determination of duty is to be done by the Apex Court under Section 130(L) of the Central Excise Act as held in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/s MANGALORE REFINERIES AND PETRO CHEMICALS LIMITED in CEA No. 6/2007 disposed off on 01-09-2010. In that view of the matter, even the ancillary and other issue are also to be decided by the Apex Court. Hence, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable reserving liberty to the appellant to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court. All other contentions urged by the revenue challenging the impugned order are kept open to be agitated. Registry is directed to return the certified copied of the order of the Tribunal and other documents, if any, to the appellant.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1118 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - canteen services - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, Commissionerate Versus Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P.) Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that it becomes a condition of service as far as the employees are concerned - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1117 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... had passed a fresh order on 24th October, 2005. It is stated that the said order was not questioned by the Revenue before the High Court or before this Court. Admittedly, the respondent has complied with the order of the Settlement Commission. In view of the statement, this appeal is rendered infructuous. It is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1116 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... rges’ is to be addressed by the AO and on verification, the addition, if any on this account is to be made in the hands of the assessee, in line with the directions of CIT at page 11 of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act. 13. The assessee vide Ground No. 1 & 2 had raised the issue of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act which is upheld, as the assessee has failed to address the said issue. The addition of ₹ 9,45,84,074/- made on account of disallowance of freight charges paid is hereby directed to be allowed in the hands of the assessee and consequently, Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised by the assessee are allowed. The issue in Ground No.5 & 6 is against the applicability of provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act and in view of the admission of the ld. AR in this regard, the abovesaid Ground is dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd of September, 2011.
............
|
