|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1743 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - capital goods - Sliver/combed/carded cotton falling under Ch. 5202 - whether credit would be available when this heading remained specifically excluded from the purview of capital goods under erstwhile Rule 57Q as it stood during the material time?
-
2013 (12) TMI 1607 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Amendment in shipping bill - Refund claim denied on the ground that the shipping bill does not state about duty drawback claim - Held that: - the amendment in shipping bill should have been allowed and is accordingly being allowed by this Tribunal.
Reliance placed in the case of Man Industries (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (EP) [2006 (3) TMI 513 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], wherein it was held that the request for conversion of shipping bill was made in terms of the statutory rights available to the appellant under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section entitles the proper officer of Customs to direct amendment of any document, after it has been presented in Custom House.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1606 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rough the provisions of Notification No. 13/2001. The said notification grants exemption from SAD on goods imported subject to the condition that the goods are exempted from whole of the customs duty leviable thereon under the First Schedule, and the whole of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. In other words, only when the goods are exempted from both the BCD and CVD, the benefit of exemption would apply in respect of SAD. In the present case, the appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 94/96. The said notification grants exemption from Basic Customs Duty and does not exempt from CVD. It is also on record that the appellant has paid the CVD at the time of importation. In view of the above, the appellant is not eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 19/2001-Cus. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1605 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Addition to be made under section 40A(3)- payments made on Sundays and Holidays - Held that:- In the present case, there is no denying the fact that persons to whom payments were made in cash are villagers and may not be having bank accounts. It is also a fact that payment has to be made to them immediately to secure the lands in question which may require the payments to be made in cash on Holidays and Sundays, otherwise, they would have sold the lands to some other persons. In these circumstances, if the assessee would have insisted for payment by way of cheque or DD or have deferred it, it might have resulted in a loss of business opportunities as the land owners would not have agreed to sale the lands to the assessee. Therefore, the expression ‘required to be made’ understood in this context and keeping the intention of legislature in mind can be construed to mean that payments required to be made for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In these circumstances, payments made on Sundays and Holidays have to be held to be coming within the ambit of Rule 6DD(j), hence provisions of section 40A(3) will not apply to such payments. Therefore, payments made in cash atleast to the extent made on Sundays and Holidays cannot be disallowed u/s.40A(3) of the Act. We, therefore, direct the AO to verify such payments made on Sundays and Holidays and delete the addition of these amounts.
So far as addition of the rest of the amount sustained by the CIT(A) we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to interfere with the same. It is not only a fact that assessee has paid the amount of ₹ 2,32,20,500/- to third parties but such payments have also been made through cheques. The assessee has also furnished back account copies, TDS particulars, PAN of the said parties. Therefore, the entire transactions having been made through proper banking channel is transparent. Only because third parties have withdrawn the amount and paid the same in cash to landlords, assessee cannot be brought within the mischief of section 40A(3) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1604 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng the interest in valuable properties. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact about the important, if not paramount, role being played by stamp papers in our legal system." 10. The above determination of Gujarat High Court has been followed by the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Stamp Vendors Association v. Office of the Accountant General (2006) 200CTR (Ker) 658 decided on 20.06.2005. 11. This Court is clearly of the view that in the present case, the determination of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court gives the correct position of law on the subject and, therefore, it is to be followed by this Court as well. 12. Consequently writ petition succeeds. The communication dated 17.02.2011 is hereby quashed. As far as the refund of the TDS amount is concerned, since the deduction of TDS is wrong, the respective stamp vendors are at liberty to approach Income Tax Department for refund of the said amount as per the procedure established under the Income Tax Act.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1603 - ITAT PUNE
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income declared and assessed in the returns filed u/s 153A(1)(a) of the Act over and above the income declared earlier in the returns filed u/s 139 - Held that:- The only point raised by the assessee is that the ground canvassed before the CIT(A) to the effect that the quantum of concealed income for the purposes of section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be equated to the ‘additional income’, has not been addressed by the CIT(A). This is primarily for the reason that the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee by setting-aside the penalty levied on a point of law canvassed before him, which we have already discussed in earlier paragraphs, wherein the stand of the CIT(A) has been disapproved. Therefore, under these circumstances it would be in fitness of things that the instant plea of the assessee, which was raised before the CIT(A) but not considered by him, be remanded back for consideration and adjudication as per law. The point raised by the learned Departmental Representative against the plea of the assessee on this aspect, in our view, touches upon the merits of the plea, with which we are not presently concerned with. Therefore, we uphold the plea of the assessee for remanding the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to address the grounds raised by the assessee with regard to the quantification of 15 concealed income liable for penalty of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1602 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and bonafide, then penalty will not be imposable as per Explanation 1 to section 271(1) of the Act. 19. In the instant case, there is no finding from the authorities below that it was not a mistake of omission and on the other hand, the mistake of omission was identified by the Assessing Officer and the assessee accepted the same without any dispute. In this situation, we are unable to accept the contention of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) that the assessee made a wrong claim which was detected and disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we hold that the explanation offered by the assessee during penalty proceedings was acceptable which was wrongly rejected by the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and penalty was not imposable on the assessee in this regard and we cancel the penalty orders. Thus, ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the assessee are allowed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1601 - SC ORDER
Adjournment - seeking of time to reply affidavit - Held that: - The time prayed for is granted - List the case on 20.01.2014 - In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 shall be exempted from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 - decided in favor of repondents.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1600 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- Once the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the loan advanced was on account of commercial expediency as well as in the orders of the BIFR, we do not find any ground to disturb the said finding. Rightly, the Revenue had not raised any question of law on this. Even though on the aspect of jurisdiction, the Revenue succeeds, yet, the further question on the merits being a pure question of fact and rightly not raised, we do not find, any useful purpose would be achieved in setting aside the order of the Tribunal and further remanding the matter. In the circumstances, except for holding that the Revenue is justified in its plea in invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, we do not think, the order calls for any interference to remand the matter.
Advancing of funds by the assessee into the sister concern was in terms of the BIFR's order. That being the case, no useful purpose would be served by again directing a remand on the merits of the claim of the assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1599 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) - TDS u/s 194C - Transportation charges - non-submission of Form No. 15J within time-limit - Sub-Contract or not - HELD THAT - Mere non submission of Form No. 15J (having received Form No. 151 from his subcontractor for non deduction of TDS under Rule 29D to the AO within prescribed time limit cannot pave way for disallowance of expenses under section 40(a)(ia).
Payments to lorry owners is not a sub-contract, hence, TDS provisions are not applicable. It was contended by the assessee that assessee himself executed the contract of transportation and the lorry owners have simple placed the vehicle at the disposal of the assessee without involving themselves in carrying out any part of the work undertaken by the assessee.
The decisions in the case of Mythri Transport Corporation vs ACIT, 124 ITD 40(Vis) [2009 (1) TMI 337 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] and VALIBHAI KHANBHAI MANKAD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD [2011 (4) TMI 887 - ITAT, AHMEDABAD] are followed.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1598 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Short-payment of duty - value of diesel and explosives supplied free by the service recipient M/s. SCCL - Held that: - the Honble High Court of Delhi in Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, [2012 (12) TMI 150 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the value of diesel supplied free of cost by a service recipient to the appellant/service provider for providing the taxable site formation and clearance, excavation and earthmoving and demolition service would not be a component of the gross value charged for the service provided for computation of tax under Section 67 of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1597 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t has argued that there was a reasonable cause as clients of the appellant were not fully making their payment of service tax. However, as per the facts correctly brought forward by the learned AR appellant was collecting gross amounts for providing the services which also included service tax element to be paid. Appellant was a registered service tax assessee and with respect to the amount received from the clients proportionate service tax was required to be paid periodically and prescribed ST-3 returns were required to be filed. Appellant has not made out any case of reasonable cause for not paying the service tax periodically and also as to why the prescribed ST-3 returns were not filed inspite of being registered. Accordingly, it is held that penalties have been correctly imposed upon the appellant by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. 5. Appeal filed by the appellant is rejected. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1596 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ring a order copy to the person to whom it is required to be sent, as regards the actual delivery, in my opinion Section 37C (2) also may have to be considered. According to the provisions of Section 37C (2), the date of deemed delivery shall be the actual delivery by the post. In my opinion this would mean that unless there is a delivery date available, it cannot be said to have been delivered. 6. Since the issue involved is legal and different interpretations are possible and requires better appreciation of facts concerned and also application of law to the facts, I consider that it would be appropriate even the Commissioner (Appeals) reconsider the issue after giving an opportunity to the appellant to present their case. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after giving an opportunity to the appellants to present their case. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1595 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Registration granted u/s 12AA (1) (b) cancelled - Held that:- The observation of the CIT is only a general observation and is not substantiated by any facts. It is pertinent to note that CIT has not pointed out that any part of the income spent other than the objects of the trust. In the absence of any such factual findings recorded by CIT, it cannot be said that the tribunal committed an error in setting aside the order of CIT and directing the CIT to renew the registration under Section 80G and also grant registration under Section 12AA of the I.T Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1594 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Money received attributable to within India activities - P.E. in India - Held that:- One has to read Article 5 of the Agreement in order to understand what a permanent establishment is, in terms whereof "permanent establishment" means a fixed place of business through which business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried on. In the instant case, according to the revenue, the Project Office of the appellant in Mumbai is the "permanent establishment" of the appellant in India through which it carried on business during the relevant assessment year and 25 per cent of the gross receipt is attributable to the said business. Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the Tribunal has made any effort to bring on record any evidence to justify the same.
That being the situation, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal as well as the assessment order in so far as the same relates to imposition of tax liability on the 25 per cent of the gross receipt upon the appellant in the circumstances mentioned above, and observe that the questions of law formulated by us, while admitting the appeal, have not, in fact, arisen on the facts and circumstances of the case, but the real question was, whether the tax liability could be fastened without establishing that the same is attributable to the tax identity or permanent establishment of the enterprise situate in India and the same, we think, is answered in the negative and in favour of the appellant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1593 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e dismiss the appeals subject to result of the modification application stated to have been filed before the Apex Court and likely to reach the Bench by 03.01.2014. 2. Registry to keep note of the above, and whenever Apex Court order comes the matter should be listed in mention. Both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1592 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Excise duty is to be excluded for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s. 80HHC. See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Lakshmi Machine Works [2007 (4) TMI 202 - SUPREME Court]
-
2013 (12) TMI 1591 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance made u/s.43B(b) - unpaid PF/ESI amount which remained unpaid even during the grace period available - Held that:- It was the case with respect to employer's contribution as per section 43B(b) of the Act and it is not in dispute that employer's contribution with respect to PF/ESI amount was as such deposited before the due date of filing of the return under section 139 of the Act. Considering the fact that second proviso to section 43B came to be deleted and as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aloma Extrusions Ltd. [2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT] the deletion of second proviso to section 43B of the Act and amendment in the first proviso to section 43B is held to be retrospective in operation, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality in deleting the disallowance made under section 43B(b) - Decided against the revenue.
Ee-compute the interest under section 234B of the Act after allowing credit of MAT.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1590 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
TPA - determination of ALP - comparable selection - Held that:- Tax payer is not stopped from pointing out a mistake in the assessment though such mistake is the result of evidence adduced by the taxpayer. It has further held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Further the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in injustice being done due to some mistakes on its part. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the peculiarity of the facts of the present case we are of the view that Vakrangee Software should be excluded while working out the OP/TC%. We therefore restore the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration after considering the foregoing and thereafter decide the issue as per law and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Thus this ground of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Expenditure incurred by the assessee as community welfare expenses is allowable.
Computation of deduction u/s 10B - brokerage on sea freight and insurance claim non considered to be part of profit for deduction u/s 10B - Held that:- It is seen that the respected Special Bench of the Tribunal in Maral Overseas Ltd. case [2012 (4) TMI 345 - ITAT INDORE] has held that once an income forms part of the business of the undertaking, the same would be included in the profits of the business of the undertaking and will be eligible for deduction. Respectfully following the aforesaid Special Bench decision, we are of the view that the Assessee is eligible for deduction on the brokerage on sea freight and insurance claim which it has credited to its profit and loss account. Thus this ground of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1589 - ITAT INDORE
Claim for deduction u/s 54F - Held that:- Board vide circular no. 672 after referring Circular No. 471 extended the facility of exemption u/s 54 & 54F in respect of allotment of flat/house. Thus, as per the CBDT Circular also, the assessee acquired the rights/title in the flat by way of allotment letter on 22.1.2005. This allotment letter was duly confirmed by the assessee by making various payment as narrated above. Out of total payment of ₹ 33.15 lakhs, the assessee made payment of ₹ 6.23 lakhs in the month of allotment itself i.e. January, 2005. Subsequent payment was also made as per the terms agreed with the builder. Only after receipt of entire amount, the builder has executed agreement with the assessee on 27.2.2009. The assessee has sold the said flat on 05.03.2009. Since the assessee has acquired all the rights in the flat on 22.01.2005, the period of holding is to be computed with respect to the date of allotment i.e. 22.01.2005. Taking the date of sale as 05.03.2009, the holding period of flat with the assessee was more than 36 months, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee's claim for exemption u/s 54/54F, by treating the capital assets so sold as long term capital assets.
............
|
