|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1699 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... & L Account. Without going into the merits of the issue we are of the opinion that this issue can be re-examined by the A.O. since the issue of quantification of loss is restored to the file of the A.O. vide ground No. 1. Assessee is free to make submission including filing of confirmations in order to sort out the contentions. The A.O. should examine the issue both on facts as well as applicable law before making any disallowance/addition under this head. With direction the issue in ground No. 2 is restored to the file of the A.O. 9. A.O. should give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to make its submissions. After examining the transactions and also verifying whether the loss incurred is also covered by the provisions of section 73 being speculative in nature. These aspects should be examined thoroughly after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th March 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent of service tax, by the petitioner. 3. In such circumstances, on the petitioner depositing the entire amount demanded as service tax, before the first respondent, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the first respondent is directed to take on file the appeals, dated 15.1.2011, preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 30.3.2010, demanding the payment of service tax, by the petitioner, and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioner company. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1697 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... provided the interest of the revenue is protected. 11. In view of the above legal position and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of all these revisions with the direction to the first appellate authority to positively decide the appeals of the revisionist on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the authority concerned, which the learned counsel for the revisionist undertakes to produce within 10 days from today. 12. Till the disposal of the appeal or for a period of six weeks from today, whichever is earlier, the realization of the balance tax demanded will also remain stayed subject to revisionist furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee in respect of the whole of the disputed amount to the satisfaction of the authority concerned within a period of two weeks from today. 13. Revisions stand disposed of.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1696 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the above submission, we dismiss this ground as not pressed in view of the smallness of the amount. 22. Ground No. 5&6 are on the levy of interest u/s. 234B & 234D. As levy of interest is mandatory and consequential, we dismiss these grounds. 23. Ground No. 7&8 are also dismissed as they are general in nature. 24. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 25. ITA. No. 110/Mum/2010 In this appeal the sole ground of the revenue is whether learned CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made on account of notional interest on interest free security deposit, while computing annual value of the residential property u/s. 23. Consistent with the view taken by us for earlier assessment years, we apply decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of J.K. Investors (supra) and uphold the order of learned CIT(A). 26. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 27. All these six appeals are dismissed. Order has been pronounced on 30th Day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1695 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ile return in time and only on the basis of direction issued by this Court refund was considered and granted to the assessee. We feel, there is no need for us to decide the issue because since the assessing officer has rejected the claim, appellant has a remedy by way of revision before the Commissioner. Having regard to the nature of the contentions raised, we feel Commissioner will closely examine the appellant's entitlement with reference to the circumstances that led to the delay in filing the claim for refund and based on the provisions of the statute. Appeal is closed leaving freedom to the appellant to file revision before the Commissioner.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1694 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e respondents to release the goods in question, on the petitioner fulfilling the following conditions The petitioner shall pay 50 of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond. On compliance of both the conditions, the respondents shall release the goods in question, forthwith. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the respondents to pass final orders, on completion of the adjudication process, in respect of the payment of customs duty, liable to be paid by the petitioner, if any, and to initiate other appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, if he is found to have evaded payment of the customs duty, as alleged by the respondents, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in the proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents, for the assessment of customs duty. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1693 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... er passed is illegal. No further enquiry requires to be done in this aspect. 9. In that view of the matter, even if such objection is not taken on the earlier occasion, the assessee has a right to challenge the order on that ground before the Tribunal which he has done. We do not find any substance in this contention, accordingly we do not see any merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arisen for consideration”. 9. As the facts and circumstances of this case are similar to the case cited supra, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, we hold that the assessments in individual hands are not proper and we set aside the assessments. As we have decided the legal issue in favour of the assessee, we do not see any reason to go into the other issues raised by the assessee on merits. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. The order pronounced on Tuesday, the 29th day of March, 2011 at Bangalore.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1692 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... their hand as perquisite. Thus, the expenditure in so far as assessee is concerned, has been incurred for the purpose of business. Relying on this judgment, the disallowance made by the learned CIT(A) is deleted and ground No.3 in the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Ground No.3 in the appeal of the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 96,283/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of expenses incurred on telephone and business promotion. The situation is more or less the same as in respect of disallowance from vehicle running and maintenance expenses. In so far as the company is concerned, the expenditure has been incurred for the purpose of business. Relying on our arguments in respect of that ground, it is held that the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance. 8. In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in open court on 11-03-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1691 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... opy of the order of the Tribunal which is available on record. Further, the assessee has also furnished the order giving effect to the direction of Tribunal u/s 143(3) / 254 of the Act relating to assessment year 2002-03 and the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.11.2009 had adjudicated upon the issue in reference to the supports produced by the assessee. In line with the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier years, we remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same as directed in assessment year 2001-02 and 2002-03. The assessee is directed to produce the relevant details along with supporting proofs before the Assessing Officer. A reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. The Assessing Officer shall compute the relief in accordance. 45. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 594/Chd/2009 is dismissed and in 595/Chd/2009 is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1690 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to 31.12.2002 dated 6.7.2007 and we accordingly allow the grounds taken by the assessee on the issue of time limit for passing the assessment order. 24. Now, we take-up the appeals filed by the revenue being IT(SS) 52/Mum/2008 and IT(SS) 53/Mum/2008 in the case of both these assessee’s challenging the respective impugned orders of the Ld. CIT (A) Central III, Mumbai. Both the appeals become infructuous as we have cancel the assessment orders in the case of both the assessees on the ground of passing the assessment orders beyond the time limit prescribed u/s.158BE of the Act, even after considering the Explanation-1 below said section. We, therefore, dismiss both the appeals of the revenue. 25. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee being IT(SS) A. No.31/Mum/2008 and IT(SS) A 32/M/2008 are allowed and both the appeals of the revenue being IT(SS) 52/Mum/2008 and IT(SS) 53/Mum/2008 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 31st March 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1689 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... in possession of the appellant. In view of the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the addition of 50,00,000/- in the hands of the appellant on protective basis is bad in law and is hereby deleted.” 5. Against this order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that it is an admitted fact that M/s SAS Servizio Ltd. has accepted the fact that the cash belong to the company. Hence, once when the amount has been assessed in the hands of M/s SAS Servizio Ltd., we do not find any infirmity in the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s finding that addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis is not required. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and hence, we uphold the same. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/03/2011 upon conclusion of hearing.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1688 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this case the amount involved is in excess of the limit laid down in the circular, prevalent at the relevant point of time. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be admitted. 2. This appeal is ADMITTED for considering the following question of law “ Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in dismissing the tax appeal of the revenue on the ground of low tax effect, though the notional tax effect exceeded the monetary limit prescribed by the board?” 3. To be heard with TAX APPEAL NO.977 OF 2009 and connected appeals.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1687 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... in ITA NO. 499/Chd/2009 relating to assessment year 2005-06 (order dated 30.11.2009) allowed the claim of the assessee. The Revenue is in appeal against the said order of the Tribunal. 5. We find that the issue stands covered by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2006-06 wherein vide order dated 30.11.2009 in ITA No. 499/Chd/2009, the claim of the assessee regarding deduction u/s 80 IC had been allowed by the Tribunal. Further, similar claim in assessment year 2006-07 has also been allowed 3 by the Tribunal vide order in ITA No. 1158/Chd/2009 order dated 29.1.2010. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the earlier years and following our earlier order, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in allowing deduction u/s 80 IC of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 3rd day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1686 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... can be relatable to these tax free income, following the decision of ITAT in the case of assessee’s husband (supra), the uncalled for disallowance u/s 14A may be deleted. Learned counsel further contends that 4. The learned DR is heard. She contends that there has to be always element of indirect expenses. 5. We have heard rival contentions and have gone through the entire material available on record. In our view, as the investments have been met out of assessee’s own funds, the income is recurring in nature, therefore, on an assumption it cannot be held that an element of indirect expenses persisted in this case for earning the tax free income. Investment being from own funds, income being recurring in nature, respectfully following the decision of ITAT in assessee’s husband case (supra), we see no justification for the disallowance of expenditure, which is deleted. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 31-3-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1685 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e on the other hand submitted that the issue involved in this appeal is also covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation (2002) 256 ITR 596 (Guj) therefore the order of Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be upheld. 5. Since the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has held that the assessee is entitled to interest u/s.244A on self-assessment tax payment by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 438 (Mad) and other decision of Hon’ble Tribunal Mumbai Bench and also in view of the fact that the issue is also covered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation (supra), we find no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this day of 10th March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1684 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... s bench of the tribunal in its order in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Skyline Buiders (in ITA Nos. 989 & 990/Coch/2008 dated 14/12/2010). The said decision is, however, not applicable in the present case; there has been, firstly, no claim for deduction u/s. 80HHC by the assessee either per its return or revised return of income. Further, as pointed out by the ld. CIT(A), there has been no disclaimer of the export benefit u/s. 80HHC by the assessee’s buyer in its favour as a supporting manufacturer, for it to be even entitled to the said deduction, i.e., notwithstanding its non-claim aforesaid. So however, as we have remitted the matter back ot the file of the first appellate authority with regard to the principal issue, we consider it just and proper to do like-wise for this ground as well, so as to enable the assesssee to present its case in the matter before him. We decide accordingly. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1683 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Vegetable Products 88 ITR 192 for the proposition that when two views are possible, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be adopted. 27. Respectfully, following the aforesaid Hon’ble Apex Court decision, in our considered opinion, on the strength of Hon’ble Madras High Court decision stated above, the assessee is liable to get relief from the levy of penalty in this regard. Hence, respectfully following the Hon’ble Madras High Court decision cited above, we hold that the penalty on cash receipts of share application money is liable to be deleted. Hence, we set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and delete the levy of penalty in this case. Hence, assessee’s appeal is allowed. 28. In the result, the Revenue’s Appeals being ITA No 3569 and 281 stand dismissed and Assessee’s appeal being ITA No. 4577 stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/03/2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1681 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ontained in Rule 8D is applicable to the proceedings of assessment year 2008-09 and onward. It is also held that prior to this year, the Assessing Officer can make inquiry regarding the expenditure incurred for earning the income which is not to be included in the total income of the assessee. On the basis of such inquiry, he may make disallowance of a reasonable amount, depending the facts of the case. The exercise as per the ratio of this case has not been carried out by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter of the disallowance or otherwise as per aforesaid decision. In case the decision of any other High Court including the territorial High Court is received till finalization of the assessment pursuant to this order, the same shall also be considered by the Assessing Officer. 3. In result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in open court on 31.03.2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1680 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t was inconsistent with the facts on record. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding of fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has recorded statements of the partner and another worker, both of whom confirmed that the number of persons actually working at the unit were more than 10. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the payment vouchers and books of accounts showing payments to these workers were produced before the Assessing Officer and payments to many of them were made through cheques. 3 In these circumstances, the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted. In the result, we see no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The Tribunal has held that the assessee has proved that the security vans have been used for transportation of cash, valuables belonging to the third parties as that is the business of the assessee. This fact is not disputed. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal is based on finding of fact and no substantial question of law arise in these appeals. All the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
............
|
