|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 692 Records
-
2010 (5) TMI 824
Issues involved: The judgment involves the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in two appeals by Revenue and Cross Objection by the assessee.
Issue 1 - Deletion of Penalty by CIT(A): The Assessing Officer levied penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to the assessee's method of accounting, which did not include work-in-progress for computing income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalties, stating that the system of accounting used by the assessee was widely accepted and did not conceal any figures. The CIT(A) found that the assessee provided all necessary particulars for income computation, and the change in accounting method did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Issue 2 - Arguments and Decision: The Revenue argued that the penalty was justified as the assessee did not follow the correct accounting method. However, the assessee contended that the change in accounting method did not result in inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing the decision in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that a mere unsustainable claim in the return does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties in both appeals.
Separate Judgement: The judgment was delivered by Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member of the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad.
-
2010 (5) TMI 823
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the interpretation of Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding the disallowance of excess interest payment made by the appellant company to Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited.
Summary:
(1) Question Raised by Appellant:
The appellant revenue questioned the correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision in confirming the deletion of the disallowance of excess interest payment made to Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act.
(2) Assessment Details:
The Assessment Year in question is 1997-98, with the relevant accounting period ending on 31.03.1997. The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs. 56,63,331/- as excessive interest payment made to Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited at a rate of 24% compared to interest paid at 18% to 20% to other parties, invoking Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act.
(3) Appellant's Submission:
The appellant contended that the deletion of the addition by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal was unjustified as no evidence was presented to substantiate the 24% interest rate.
(4) Commissioner's Decision:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that Section 40A(2) of the Act was not applicable as there was no direct relationship established between the assessee and the payee company. The interest payment was deemed necessary for the business needs of the company to raise unsecured loans.
(5) Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence regarding market rates but considered the 24% interest rate reasonable based on general market trends. It emphasized that the burden of proof for applying Section 40A(2)(a) lies with the revenue, which was not met in this case.
(6) Findings and Conclusion:
Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal found that the revenue failed to justify the application of Section 40A(2)(a) as interest on unsecured borrowings is typically higher. The interest rate of 24% paid to Sun Pharmaceuticals was deemed reasonable based on commercial practices and evidence on record.
(7) Dismissal of Appeal:
As no substantial question of law was identified, the appeal was dismissed based on the concurrent findings of fact by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, which were deemed legally sound and supported by commercial norms.
-
2010 (5) TMI 822
Issues involved:
The only issue in this appeal is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of diamonds found during search of 485.26 carats as undisclosed income of the assessee.
Comprehensive Details:
1. Background:
The appeal arises from the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ahmedabad confirming the addition of diamonds found during a search as undisclosed income of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06.
2. Facts of the Case:
The assessee, engaged in diamond trading, filed a return of income declaring total income. During a search operation, diamonds were found in a packet claimed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the diamond value as undisclosed income, not accepting the assessee's explanation.
3. Assessing Officer's Observations:
The Assessing Officer noted discrepancies in the documentation accompanying the diamonds, lack of clear ownership proof, and inconsistencies in the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the movement of the diamonds from Mumbai to Surat.
4. CIT(A) Decision:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of the diamond value as income from undisclosed sources, based on the lack of proper documentation and failure to link the seized diamonds with the books of accounts.
5. Appellate Tribunal's Findings:
Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found substantial evidence supporting the ownership of the diamonds by the assessee. The Tribunal considered the documentation, statements of involved parties, and the correlation of seized diamonds with the purchases made by the assessee from disclosed sources.
6. Conclusion:
Based on the presented evidence and explanations, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, reversing the lower authorities' decision to add the diamond value as undisclosed income.
Final Verdict:
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, overturning the addition of the diamond value as undisclosed income.
-
2010 (5) TMI 821
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the extension of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefit at the rate of 23% to the Petitioner for exports made during 1997-1998, and the quashing of an order by the Appellate Committee regarding the DEPB appeal.
Extension of DEPB Benefit at 23%:
The Petitioner, a reputed exporting house, negotiated an order for jackets from a company in the USA in March 1998. The negotiations factored in a 23% DEPB credit rate on gents jackets. While the initial DEPB benefit was granted at 23%, subsequent shipments were only given DEPB at 20% with a value cap of Rs. 200 per piece. The Petitioner claimed a loss of around Rs. 19 lakhs due to this discrepancy and invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel to argue that changes in DEPB credit entitlement should only apply to contracts entered into after the policy amendment in April 1998.
Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The Petitioner's argument was supported by legal precedents such as Union of India v. Hindustan Platinum, emphasizing the importance of honoring commitments made prior to policy changes. The Court referred to the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the amended Exim policy should not apply to contracts concluded before the policy change, even if physical exports occurred post-amendment.
Judgment and Direction:
The Court directed the Respondents to grant the Petitioner the DEPB benefit at 23% for the period 1997-1998. The Respondent was instructed to calculate the differential amount owed to the Petitioner within four weeks, along with 6% simple interest per annum from the date of filing the writ petition. The judgment was in favor of the Petitioner, and the writ petition was disposed of with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the Respondents within eight weeks.
-
2010 (5) TMI 820
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
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
Issues involved: Appeal by revenue challenging Tribunal's order allowing deduction u/s 80M on gross dividend income; Interpretation of section 80M and 80AA of the Income-tax Act; Whether actual expenditure for earning dividend income can be deducted for section 80M relief.
Interpretation of section 80M and 80AA:
The Tribunal allowed deduction u/s 80M on gross dividend income, contrary to Gujarat High Court's view that deduction is only on net dividend after reducing admissible deductions. The Supreme Court later held that deduction under section 80M is admissible only on dividend income computed as per Income-tax Act provisions, not on gross dividend. Section 80AA clarifies that deduction under section 80M is based on net dividend income. The Assessing Officer estimated expenditure for earning dividend income and reduced it from gross dividend for section 80M relief.
Actual expenditure deduction under section 80M:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision emphasized against deduction of notional expenditure, not actual expenditure. The High Court concluded that actual expenditure for earning dividend income should be determined for section 80M deduction, not notional expenditure. The Assessing Officer's estimation of expenditure for earning dividend income was deemed justifiable, and deduction under section 80M should be granted only on net dividend income as per section 80AA. However, the High Court found the bifurcation of expenditure between business income and dividend income to be arbitrary and remanded the matter for the Assessing Officer to reassess and determine eligible deductions under the Act.
This judgment clarifies the interpretation of section 80M and 80AA regarding the deduction on dividend income and highlights the importance of considering actual expenditure for earning dividend income in granting relief under section 80M.
-
2010 (5) TMI 817
Issues involved: Petition under Section 482 seeking setting aside of cost imposed on petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for delay in trial.
Judgment Details:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the order imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner as a condition for allowing its application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine the competent authority who had granted sanction for prosecution of the accused persons. The State was impleaded as a party respondent upon oral request, and notice of the petition was accepted by the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
The impugned order imposed the cost on the petitioner for a delay of 19 years in the trial, but it was observed that the delay was not solely attributable to the petitioner, with both parties being responsible. The Court noted that even the Presiding Officer's absence on some dates contributed to the trial delay. It was opined that allowing the cost to stand would be granting a premium to the accused persons for their crime, which they are not entitled to, especially when the delay was not solely the petitioner's fault. The Court suggested that any cost, if warranted, should have been directed to be deposited with the Delhi Legal Services Authority or Advocates' Welfare Fund.
The trial court's decision to grant permission under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner to examine the competent authority for proving the sanction for prosecution should not have resulted in the cost being imposed on the petitioner Department prosecuting the respondents under the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the impugned order imposing cost on the petitioner was set aside, and the petitioner was directed to produce its witness for proving the sanction without causing further delay in the case's decision.
-
2010 (5) TMI 816
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition made as undisclosed income.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 62,29,977/- as unexplained investments.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,34,266/- towards vehicle maintenance.
Detailed Analysis:
I. ITA Nos: 797, 807 & 808/09 - AYs. 03-04, 04-05 & 06-07:
(1) Background:
The assessee was engaged in the brick business. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2005-06, the AO noted potential income escape for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07 and issued notices u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee requested the AO to treat the previously filed returns as compliance.
(2) AO's Observations:
The AO observed discrepancies in the cash flow statements and treated agricultural incomes as "Other sources" due to lack of HUF income details.
(3) CIT(A)'s Findings:
The CIT(A) ruled the assessments invalid due to non-compliance with natural justice principles, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts. The CIT(A) also found that the agricultural income was legitimately earned by the HUF and not an afterthought.
(4) Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions, arguing the HUF theory was an afterthought.
(5) Assessee's Defense:
The assessee argued that the AO failed to provide reasons for reopening assessments and that the agricultural income was legitimate, supported by case laws GKN Driveshafts and Allana Cold Storage Ltd.
(6) Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal noted the AO's failure to provide reasons for reopening assessments, violating the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Driveshafts. The Tribunal also confirmed the legitimacy of the HUF's agricultural income based on substantial evidence.
(7) Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, deleting the additions for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, and 2006-07, confirming the agricultural income as legitimate HUF income.
II. ITA No: 798 - AY. 05-06:
(1) Issue of Unexplained Investments:
The AO treated Rs. 62,29,977/- as unexplained investments, citing lack of HUF returns and clarity on HUF's existence.
(2) Assessee's Argument:
The assessee provided details of land holdings and agricultural income, arguing the HUF's legitimacy and the AO's oversight of these facts.
(3) CIT(A)'s Decision:
The CIT(A) found the AO's assessment flawed, noting the existence of HUF and agricultural operations. The CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 62,29,977/-.
(4) Revenue's Contention:
The Revenue argued the HUF theory was an afterthought and justified the AO's action.
(5) Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal found the AO's actions arbitrary, noting the existence of HUF and agricultural operations were well-documented. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of Rs. 62,29,977/-.
(6) Issue of Vehicle Maintenance:
The AO disallowed 50% of vehicle maintenance expenses, deeming them excessive compared to previous years.
(7) Assessee's Defense:
The assessee argued the expenses were justified due to old vehicles, increased fuel prices, and inclusion of JCB expenses.
(8) CIT(A)'s Findings:
The CIT(A) found the AO's comparison flawed and the expenses reasonable, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,34,266/-.
(9) Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), finding the AO's disallowance arbitrary and unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of Rs. 14,34,266/-.
Final Judgment:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals for AYs 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the disputed additions.
-
2010 (5) TMI 815
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
Issues involved: Appeal against orders dated 8.4.2008 passed by the ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 regarding deduction u/s.35D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
The appellant, engaged in television production, initially declared a total income of Rs. 9,75,307. The Assessing Officer allowed a deduction of Rs. 79,79,314 u/s.35D, but later rectified the order u/s.154, withdrawing the deduction due to a perceived mistake. The ld. CIT(A) held that the rectification was not valid as it was a case of change of opinion, not a mistake apparent from the record. The revenue appealed, arguing that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in the rectification order u/s.154.
The ld. CIT(A) observed that a rectifiable mistake u/s.154 should not entail more than one opinion and must be patent on the face of the record. Since there were multiple views on record, the rectification u/s.154 was deemed inappropriate, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
During the hearing, the revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, while the assessee's counsel argued that the matter had already been considered in previous proceedings u/s.263 and u/s.147, making rectification u/s.154 invalid. The Tribunal noted the sequence of events, including the initial deduction allowed, subsequent proceedings u/s.263 and u/s.147, and the ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the validity of the proceedings u/s.147, indicating a change of opinion rather than a mistake apparent from the record.
Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the matter was a mere change of opinion, not a mistake apparent from the record, and upheld the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue's appeals for the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 were dismissed.
-
2010 (5) TMI 813
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging the validity of a search warrant issued by the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and the subsequent assessment.
Judgment Summary:
The High Court heard two appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue questioning the legality of an order dated 3rd July, 2009. The Revenue appealed as the authorities below deemed the warrant of authorization issued by the Joint Director of Income Tax (Investigation) as lacking authority. The tribunal referenced a previous decision and did not accept the Revenue's stance. The Assessee had filed a cross objection which was allowed after the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. A similar issue regarding the authority to conduct search and seizure by the Additional Director (Investigation) was raised before the Tribunal, which was covered by a previous decision. An amendment to the Act with retrospective effect was noted, and a Division Bench of the Court had previously addressed a similar issue in other cases.
The Tribunal, following previous decisions, accepted the plea that the Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) was not authorized to issue the search warrant, rendering the subsequent assessment invalid. As a result, the entire proceedings were deemed invalid, and other grounds raised by both parties were not examined. The Revenue's appeal was not considered due to the invalidity of the assessment. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.
Regarding the Cross Objection, the Assessee raised multiple issues apart from the jurisdiction of the Additional Director. The Court stated that all issues raised in the Cross Objection, except for jurisdiction, could be argued by the Assessee and would be considered by the Tribunal. In the final decision, ITA No.511/2010 was allowed, and ITA No.522/2010 was disposed of with specific directions, with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (5) TMI 812
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include seeking stay of proceedings u/s 143(3)/263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the order passed by the Commissioner u/s 263, and requesting the Assessing Officer (A.O.) to keep fresh assessment proceedings in abeyance pending appeal hearings before the tribunal.
Stay of Proceedings u/s 143(3)/263:
The assessee sought a stay of proceedings u/s 143(3)/263, as the assessments framed by the A.O. were held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest by the Commissioner u/s 263. The assessee requested the A.O. to halt the fresh assessment proceedings until the appeals against the Commissioner's order were heard by the tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledged the inherent powers to grant such stay, citing relevant case laws.
Challenging Commissioner's Order u/s 263:
The assessee contested the validity of the Commissioner's order u/s 263, alleging it was based on superior authorities' directives and against established legal principles. The assessee argued that the order was passed under the monitoring of higher authorities, making it impermissible for revision by a successor authority. The assessee claimed that setting aside issues from the earlier assessment was a mere change of opinion, not warranting the exercise of powers u/s 263.
Direction to Assessing Officer:
After considering the contentions of both parties, the Tribunal found that the assessee had made a prima facie case and granted a stay on the assessment proceedings until 30th September 2010 or the disposal of the pending appeals, whichever was earlier. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Commissioner's powers u/s 263 were wrongly exercised, the consequential order would be invalid. The decision was pronounced in open court, and the stay applications filed by the assessee were allowed accordingly.
Separate Judgement by Judges:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2010 (5) TMI 811
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
Issues involved: Delay in filing appeal, recall of order, non-appearance of assessee, dismissal of appeal as unadmitted, technical error in filing Power of Attorney.
Delay in filing appeal: The assessee-Society sought recall of the order due to a delay of 45 days in filing the appeal. Despite opportunities given, no reasons for the delay were provided, leading to the appeal being dismissed as unadmitted.
Recall of order: The applicant argued that there was a technical error in not filing the Power of Attorney of their appointed attorneys, resulting in the delay in filing the appeal. They claimed to have a strong case on merits, but failed to present a justifiable reason for the delay during the initial filing.
Non-appearance of assessee: The Tribunal noted that despite a defect memo, the assessee-Society did not offer any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. The Bench considered this lack of response as a key factor in dismissing the appeal as unadmitted.
Dismissal of appeal as unadmitted: The Tribunal rejected the misc. application for recall of the order, stating that reconsidering the issue of delay would amount to a review, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal found no merit in the application as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their non-appearance during the hearing.
Technical error in filing Power of Attorney: The applicant mentioned a technical error in not filing the Power of Attorney of their appointed attorneys, despite having the Power of Attorney of another individual on record. This error was cited as one of the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
Order pronounced on the 14th day of May, 2010.
-
2010 (5) TMI 809
Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of depreciation.
2. Computation of deduction under section 80HHC.
3. Addition to book profit under section 115JB.
4. Disallowance of ESI payments.
5. Determination and carry forward of long-term capital loss.
6. Computation of interest under sections 234B and 234C.
7. Exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from total turnover.
8. Confirmation of disallowance of deduction under section 80HHC on DEPB credit.
9. Reduction of deduction under section 80HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowance of Depreciation:
The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee by changing the method of calculating depreciation from SLM to WDV. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow depreciation based on earlier appellate orders. The ITAT upheld this decision, citing previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's favor.
2. Computation of Deduction Under Section 80HHC:
The AO included excise duty and sales tax in the total turnover while computing the deduction under section 80HHC. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the deduction as per the prevailing law. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, noting that the relevant provisions of section 80HHC were amended after the assessment order was passed.
3. Addition to Book Profit Under Section 115JB:
The AO added an amount of Rs. 1,11,75,348 on account of the write-back of excess provision of income tax of an earlier year while determining book profits under section 115JB. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the provision had already been considered in the previous assessment year.
4. Disallowance of ESI Payments:
The AO disallowed belated ESI payments. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the payments were made before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1).
5. Determination and Carry Forward of Long-Term Capital Loss:
The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim and determine the long-term capital loss for carry forward and set-off in succeeding years. The ITAT upheld this direction, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
6. Computation of Interest Under Sections 234B and 234C:
The AO levied interest under sections 234B and 234C. The CIT(A) upheld the levy but directed the AO to allow credit under section 115JAA. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, citing decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
7. Exclusion of Sales Tax and Excise Duty from Total Turnover:
The AO included sales tax and excise duty in the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC. The CIT(A) directed the AO to exclude these amounts. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s direction, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakshmi Machine Works.
8. Confirmation of Disallowance of Deduction Under Section 80HHC on DEPB Credit:
The AO disallowed the deduction under section 80HHC on DEPB credit, stating that the assessee did not fulfill the conditions stipulated in the third proviso to section 80HHC(3). The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of the Special Bench decision in the case of M/s Topman Exports.
9. Reduction of Deduction Under Section 80HHC While Computing Book Profit Under Section 115JB:
The AO rejected the assessee's claim for reduction of deduction under section 80HHC while computing book profit under section 115JB. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of various judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd.
Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and partly allowed the appeals of the assessee for statistical purposes. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on specific issues, particularly those related to the deduction under section 80HHC and the computation of book profit under section 115JB.
-
2010 (5) TMI 808
Issues involved: Addition of unaccounted investment based on DVO report without evidence of additional payment by the assessee.
The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer had made an addition in respect of unaccounted investment based solely on the DVO's report regarding a share in property purchased by the assessee. Both the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Tribunal ruled against the Revenue, stating that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of the DVO report without evidence of additional payment by the assessee to the seller. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO and this Court's decision in CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi, emphasizing that the Revenue must establish that the assessee received amounts over and above the consideration stated in the sale deed before relying on the DVO's valuation. The Tribunal's decision was in line with established legal principles, and there was no substantial question of law involved in the case.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of the Revenue discharging the burden of proving additional payments by the assessee before making inferences against them based on the DVO's valuation.
-
2010 (5) TMI 807
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
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
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?
............
|
9911796707
