|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 824 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o; 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances and respectfully following in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Jay Ambe Developers in ITA No.186/Ahd/2008, taking a consistent view, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by Assessing Officer. 8. As regards to CO of assessee CO No.60/Ahd/2008 arising out of ITA No.185/Ahd/2008, the Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that he has instruction from the assessee not to press the CO and accordingly, the same can be dismissed as withdrawn. Ld. SR-DR has not objected to withdraw. In view of the above facts and circumstances we permit the assessee to withdraw the CO and dismiss the same. The CO is dismissed as withdrawn. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and CO is dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in Open Court on 11/05/2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 823 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . (6) Thus both, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have upon appreciation of the evidence on record found that the revenue has not been able to make out any case for applying the provisions of section 40A(2)(a); and that interest on unsecured borrowings is always higher than the rate of interest paid to the banks or financial institutions from where the loans raised are secured loans, and have accordingly accepted interest paid to Sun Pharmaceuticals at the rate of 24 p.a. to be reasonable. In the light of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal, and considering the fact that the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are based on the evidence on record as well as normal commercial practices, it cannot be stated that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. (7) In absence of any question of law, much less substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 822 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... -03-2004 31-03-2005 and closing stock shown by assessee includes the stock seized. We further find that the valuation shown by assessee in accounts in respect of seized diamonds is ₹ 67,66,360/- which is almost at par with the valuation made by Department at ₹ 67,93,643/-. The opening stock and closing stock for the year 2003-04 was the same as there was no purchase and sale during the year at Mumbai office. There was only purchase and sale at Surat office. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there are ample evidences which prove that the diamond seized are explained and purchased from disclosed sources as these are fully disclosed in the books of accounts. Accordingly, we accept the explanation of the assessee and the orders of the lower authorities on this issue are reversed. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed on merits. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/05/2010
-
2010 (5) TMI 821 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Consequently, the Respondents are directed to grant the Petitioner the benefit DEPB at 23 for the period 1997-1998. It is directed that in this a period of four weeks from today the Respondent shall calculate the DEPB benefit at 23 to all the Petitioners? evidencing the supplies made under 21 shipping bills the supply order dated 19th March 1998 as mentioned in para 6 of the writ petition. After adjusting the DEPB benefit already given to the Petitioner, the Respondent DGFT will compute the differential amount and communicate it to the Petitioner in writing. The payment of the said amount will be made to the Petitioner within a further period of four weeks thereafter together with 6 simple interest per annum thereon from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 17th May 2000 till the date of payment. 18. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms with costs of ₹ 5,000/- which will be paid to the Petitioner by the Respondents within eight weeks.
-
2010 (5) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT
Whether 'Monocrotophos (Technical)' and 'Dichlorvos (Technical)', being manufactured by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "Dealer") are "chemicals" and not "pesticides" within the meaning of Entry 43 of the negative list as contained in Schedule III to the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 (for short "the Rules")?
-
2010 (5) TMI 819 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court of Uttarakhand did not find a case in favour of the respondent-KVSL on the ground which is now sought to be urged in the present appeal?
Whether the plea of promissory estoppel is available to a consumer ?
Whether there is no hesitation in repelling the contention that any promise was made by the U.P. State Power Corporation to the respondent- KVSL which could justify the grant of any mandamus in its favour for making good any such promise?
-
2010 (5) TMI 818 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of expenditure incurred and allowed in the computation of business income between expenditure attributable for earning business income and for earning dividend income is done in an arbitrary manner. Since none of the lower authorities considered the reasonableness of the estimate, which is nothing but part of the actual expenditure incurred and allowed in the computation of total income, we have to necessarily remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to bifurcate the expenditure that are admissible in the computation of business income and expenditure that are admissible in the computation of dividend income and to make fresh assessment. The Assessing Officer shall make fresh assessment computing income from business and income from dividend under separate heads granting eligible deductions under the relevant provisions of the Act and then grant admissible deduction to the assessee under section 80M on the net dividend computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
-
2010 (5) TMI 817 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se for imposition of cost, then the cost ought not to have gone to accused persons but should have been directed to be deposited with Delhi Legal Services Authority or Advocates' Welfare Fund. In the present case, once the trial court has decided to grant permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to examine the competent authority for proving the sanction for prosecution of the respondents, then the cost ought not to have been imposed on the petitioner Department which is prosecuting the respondents for offence under Section 135 (1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. In the facts and circumstances of the case stated above, the impugned order dated 06.05.2010, to the extent cost has been imposed on the petitioner is set aside. However, the petitioner is directed to produce its witness Shri Anand Bordia for proving the sanction for prosecution of the respondents on the next date fixed before the trial court and should not cause any further delay in decision of the case.
-
2010 (5) TMI 816 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... h in no way stand the testimony of scrutiny. For the year under dispute, the assessee had included JCB expenditure under the head ‘vehicle maintenance’ whereas in the immediately previous year, the JCB expenditure was added to clay excavation which was included in raw material and consumables. This fact has not been disputed by the AO. The assessee had claimed JCB expenses (excavation of clay and maintenance) of ₹ 6.88 lakhs which was added to the vehicle maintenance and it, perhaps, contributed the hike in the expenses claimed. This phenomenon has not been properly appreciated by the AO. (13) Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the issue, we are in total agreement with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) who was fully justified in deleting the addition on this count. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals for the assessment years, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 815 - SUPREME COURT
Whether or not in the light of the allegations as projected in the complaint against the appellants, it was a fit case where the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should have quashed the complaint against the appellants?
-
2010 (5) TMI 814 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rent on the record”. We, therefore, conclude that the rectification sought to be done in this case by addition of certain liabilities could not be said to be a mistake apparent on the record.” 13. Applying the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the present case we are of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the case it is a case of mere change of opinion and the decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record, therefore, the Assessing Officer has erred in invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the matter could not have been rectified u/s.154 and in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The common grounds taken by the revenue for the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 are therefore, rejected. 14. In the result revenue’s appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.5.2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 813 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unal. Similarly, the Revenue’s appeal was also not examined because the assessment itself had been quashed on the first ground taken by the assessee before the Tribunal.? In view of the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal, the appeal of the Revenue has to be allowed and the matter has to be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. As far as the Cross Objection is concerned, learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that apart from the jurisdiction of the Additional Director he has raised many a issue in the Cross Objection. In view of the aforesaid, we only say that barring the issue with regard to the inherent jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction all other issues that have been taken in the Cross Objection at the preliminary stage can be argued by the Assessee and the same shall be adverted to by the Tribunal. In the result, ITA No.511/2010 is allowed and ITA No.522/2010 stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 812 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... no legs to stand. Therefore, we consider it just and proper to issue a direction to Ld. A.O. not to continue with the assessment proceedings in pursuance to the order u/s 263 up to 30th September 2010. Even after 30th September 2010 ample time will be available to the A.O. to frame the assessment in case the validity of 263 is upheld. Considering the entirety of facts we issue such direction to the A.O. not to proceed with the assessment proceedings up to 30th September 2010 or till the disposal of the present appeals whichever is earlier. The situation thereafter can be reviewed according to the facts prevalent at that time. These directions were pronounced in the open court on the date of hearing i.e. 21.05.2010. Both the parties had taken note of these directions. 14. In the result, the stay applications Nos. 24, 25,26,27,28,29 & 30/Del/2010 filed by the assessee are allowed in the manner aforesaid. 15. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the termination of the services of the applicant/workman Shri S.C. Sharma s/o Late Shri Om Prakash, conductor by the employer from 29.1.1989 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, which benefit/compensation the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?
-
2010 (5) TMI 810 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that on merits the assessee has a good case and there was a justifiable case for the delay in filing the appeal which could not be brought on record at the time of filing the appeal. 4. In our considered opinion, the Bench having already taken a conscious decision of the reasons for the delay, by stating that despite a defect memo the assessee-Society did not come forward to explain the reasons for the delay, reconsidering the same issue in a misc. application would amount to review of the matter which is not permissible u/s.254(2) of the Act. Since we are satisfied that the assessee has not given satisfactory explanation for non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing and also because of the fact that the appeal was dismissed as unadmitted on account of the defects pointed out in the impugned order, we do not find any merit in the misc. application filed by the assessee-Society. Accordingly, the misc. application is rejected. Order pronounced on the 14th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 809 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ding the appeal, the learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act and ensuring that the conditions of section 80HHC are satisfied in the instant case while computing the deduction allowable to the assessee .With these directions, ground no. 3 in ITA no.1089/Ahd/2008, ground no.2 in ITA nos. 1242&3557/Ahd./2007 are disposed of. 35 Ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No.546/Ahd/2007, ground nos. 4 & 5 in ITA no. 546/Ahd./2007 and ground nos. 3 & 4 in ITA no.3242/Ahd./2007, being general in nature, do not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no. 4 in ITA no.1089/Ahd/2008, ground no.3 in ITA no. 1242& 3557/Ahd./2007 in these appeals, all these grounds are ,therefore, dismissed. 36. In the result, these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed while those of the assessee are partly allowed, but for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (5) TMI 808 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee to the seller. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597(SC) as also on the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi 316 ITR 46. In the latter decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that there must be a finding of the Revenue that the assessee had received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed. This is the primary burden which has been cast upon the Revenue and it is only when such burden is discharged that it would be permissible to the valuation as given by the DVO. In the absence of the burden having gone into being discharged, it was not permissible in law to make any inferences against the assessee. The Tribunal has merely followed the law which has been settled by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court. There is no question of law involved in the present case what to speak of a substantial question of law. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether after submission of the annual return, the proceedings could have taken place in pursuance to the provision contained in Section 25 (1 ) (ii) of UPVAT Act, 2008?
Held that: - submission of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to relegate the matter to statutory forum does not seem to be correct. Since the authorities lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, it is a fit case where the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be exercised keeping in view the settled propositions of law - instead of proceeding under Section 25 (1)(ii) of the Act, the department has to proceed with regard to assessment in pursuance to Section 26 of the Act. The filing of annual return under Section 24 of the Act, is one more reason for setting aside the impugned order.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (5) TMI 806 - SC ORDER
Whether the Appellants, who are manufacturers of non-alcoholic beverage bases (concentrates) are eligible to avail credit of the service-tax paid on advertising services, sales promotion, market research and the like availed by them and utilize such credit towards payment of excise duty on the concentrate - the decision in the case of M/s. Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III [2009 (8) TMI 50 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - respondent seeks time to file reply affidavit. Let the needful be done within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if necessary, may be filed within four weeks thereafter.
-
2010 (5) TMI 805 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Forest Range Officers who secured Honours in their batches in the Rangers' Training Course shall be eligible for appointment as Assistant Conservators and after deputation to join the two years course of State Forest Service Colleges run by the Government of India, will be treated as direct recruits to the post of Assistant Conservators?
Whether no scope for taking a view that the proviso to Rule 2 as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 51 is not a rule relating to appointment of Forest Rangers as Assistant Conservators?
............
|
