|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 841 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ollowed the same. The issue being covered in assessee’s own case by the order of the Tribunal (supra) the judicial proprietary demands that the said order in assessee’s own case on identical facts is to be applied while adjudicating the issue in the hands of the assessee in the succeeding years. Further there is no merit in the plea of the Revenue for referring the issue to the Special Bench where a reference is made in case there is a difference in the opinion of different Benches on same issue in different cases. However, in the facts of the present case the issue has been decided by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal itself in assessee’s own case and the same has a binding force irrespective of the fact that contrary view has been taken by another Bench of the Tribunal. Thus ground Nos.2 to 4 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of April, 2012.
-
2013 (4) TMI 840 - SUPREME COURT
Misappropriation/embezzlement by Headmaster of the school- Held that:- In the instant case, there is no allegation of misappropriation/embezzlement or any charge which may cast a doubt upon the integrity of the appellant, or further, anything which may indicate even the slightest moral turpitude on the part of the appellant. The charges relate to accounts and to the discharge of his functions as the Headmaster of the school. The appellant has provided satisfactory explanation for each of the allegations levelled against him. Moreover, he has retired in the year 2002. The question of holding any fresh enquiry on such vague charges is therefore, unwarranted and uncalled for.
The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Solapur, had filed an affidavit before the High Court, wherein it was stated that a dispute had arisen between the trustees, and in view thereof, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The respondents terminated the services of the appellant and many other employees, as a large number of cases had been filed against the Management Committee without impleading the State of Maharashtra, though the same was a necessary party, as the school was a government-aided school. Rules 36 and 37 of the Rules 1981, which prescribe the procedure of holding an enquiry have been violated. The charges levelled against the appellant were entirely vague, irrelevant and unspecific. As per statutory rules, the appellant was not allowed to be represented by another employee. Thus, the procedure prescribed under Rule 57(1) of the Rules 1981 stood violated. No chargesheet containing the statement of allegations was ever served.
As the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have examined all the charges on merit and also found that the enquiry has not been conducted as per the Rules 1981, it was not the cause of the Management Committee which had been prejudiced, rather it had been the other way around. In such a fact-situation, it was not necessary for the Division Bench to permit the respondents to hold a fresh enquiry on the said charges and that too, after more than a decade of the retirement of the appellant. Appeal succeeds and is allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 839 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Application for early hearing - restoration of licence - statutory remedy as provided under Regulation 14 (2) - Held that: - this Court finds it fit and proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy as above. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a proper representation under Regulation 14(2) before the 2nd respondent within two weeks, upon which the same shall be considered and a decision shall be rendered after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of the representation - petition allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 838 - ITAT INDORE
Entitled to set off the loss on account of forfeiture of license fee (business loss) against income assessed u/s 69 (income from undisclosed sources) - Held that:- Set off is allowable as business loss. See Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Chensing Ventures [2007 (4) TMI 204 - MADRAS High Court ]. No merit in the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2013 (4) TMI 837 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the appellant and denial of opportunity to the appellant was not in dispute. In case of Wardha Coal Transport Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that the CESTAT has to be consistent and cannot take different views on same facts. We do not find paras relied upon by the appellant in Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Ram Kirpal (supra). Said judgment is on wide power with the CESTAT to do complete justice. It holds that review does not confer power upon it to rehear matter on merits. As here, at this stage, there is a finding that the appellant is not a loss making unit, no case of undue hardship for grant of waiver u/s. 35F is made out. Hence, the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Benara Valves Ltd. and Others (supra) is not attracted now. 14. In the light of the discussion undertaken above, it is also clear that no substantial question of law, therefore, arises. Consequently, the instant central excise appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 836 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udicating Authority for serving show cause notice and thereafter complying with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent/assessee. 6. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that on remand, the Adjudicating Authority is seized of the matter and an opportunity of personal hearing was also granted. That being the position, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order dated 17-4-2012 inasmuch as the matter shall be considered on merits by the Adjudicating Authority as per the directions of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that actually the show cause notice had been served on the respondent/assessee and that this fact could not be pointed out before the Tribunal. However, we feel that this aspect of the matter has also gone into by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. At present, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 835 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also the prima facie consideration made by the Tribunal in Exhibit P4, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. However, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner is granted a further period of one month from today to make the pre-deposit as directed in Exhibit P4 order. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2013 (4) TMI 834 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t off was allowed out of interest. Since it was a negative figure of interest, therefore, it was considered not to be added to the income of the assessee. On considering of the above facts, particularly when no opportunity has been given by the Assessing Officer before making this addition, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of interest. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the speaking order on both the grounds. Therefore, there is no violation of law. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue has no merit and is dismissed. 6. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.” The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Swastik construction (supra). Therefore, following the decision in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Swastik construction (supra), the departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (4) TMI 833 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
Application of 8% net profit on the gross receipt - CIT(A) holding the net profit at the rate of 8% be applied on the receipt after the deduction of trade tax and royalty etc. - Held that:- On interest on FDRs, the ld. CIT(A) specifically noted, the addition is made by the Assessing Officer on this head without giving any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, on this reason itself, the order of the Assessing Officer is liable to be set aside. Further, the ld. CIT(A) found that FDRS are purchased for security purpose for obtaining the contracts which is connected with the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, set off was allowed out of interest. Since it was a negative figure of interest, therefore, it was considered not to be added to the income of the assessee. On considering of the above facts, particularly when no opportunity has been given by the Assessing Officer before making this addition, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of interest. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the speaking order on both the grounds. Therefore, there is no violation of law. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue has no merit and is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 832 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Chargeability to wealth tax - Held that:- Insofar as the valuation of land measuring 22.1 acres adjoining to the factory of M/s Industrial Cable (India) Ltd. wherein eucalyptus trees have been grown and were found to be utilized for industrial packing purposes is concerned, the CWT(A) decided the matter in favour of the assessee and the stand taken by the assessee has been accepted after the cases were set aside by the Tribunal pertaining to the assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99 vide orders dated 24.12.2007.
Regarding land measuring 44 acres pertaining to the assessment years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, which is agricultural land and according to the Wealth Tax Officer is chargeable to the wealth tax, the finding of the Wealth Tax Officer was reversed by the CWT(A), whereas the Tribunal has again upheld the order of the Wealth Tax Officer holding that it is chargeable to the wealth tax. It is stated that the said issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagraj Singh Mann v. Commnr. of Wealth Tax, Patiala and another [2011 (12) TMI 535 - SUPREME COURT ], Civil Appeal as decided whereby the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed and the order of the Wealth Tax Officer was maintained.
No substantial question of law is involved in the appeals wherein the issue with regard to the land measuring 3.60 acres and 22.1 acres is involved and as such, these appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the revenue in respect of the cases of M/s Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. with regard to 3.60 acres and 22.1 acres of land are hereby dismissed.
The rest of the appeals filed by the assessee M/s Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. pertaining to 44 acres of land are covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagraj Singh Mann's case (supra) and are, thus, dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 831 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by him that it would only be appropriate under the circumstances that the instant assessment be also similarly set aside, to enable both the assessee as well as the Revenue to bring the relevant facts on record, and decide the matter in consistence with the view being now adopted by it in the matter. The ld. AR did not object to this proposition, which otherwise recommends itself to acceptance. o p /o p 4. Under the circumstances, we only consider it fit and proper, as well as for the uniformity of procedure and consistency, that the impugned assessment is set aside on this issue to the file of the A.O. for a de novo adjudication, deciding the same on merits in accordance with the law, by issuing definite findings of fact, and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We decide accordingly. o p /o p 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 05th day of March, 2013 o p /o p
-
2013 (4) TMI 830 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... cord as agriculture will not be sufficient evidence to hold that the land was agricultural in nature, when actual agricultural use was not proved. Adjacent land, by admission of assessees, had been divided into plots for sale and access road has also been provided by the assessee to the said plots. This, in other words, would mean that the land was situated in a developed area. No agriculturists would have purchased the land sold by the assessee for pursuing any agricultural activity. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that the land could not be classified as agricultural. In our opinion, CIT(Appeals) fell in error when he missed all these relevant aspects. We, therefore, have no hesitation to set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and reinstate the addition for long term capital gains made by the Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue stand allowed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 829 - ITAT JODHPUR
Computation of LTCG - Adoption of correct FMV - deduction claimed against Capital Gains - Held that:- Assessee has declared the FMV on the basis of the report of the Registered Valuer - The report of the RV is supported by the backward indexation computed on the basis of cost inflation index [CBDT’s circular No. 636 dated 31.08.1992]- decided in favor of assessee
Deduction for cost addition by way of payment made to Bank for protecting right in the property - Held that:- This amount cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, to be a part of ‘cost of acquisition’ as the assessee had already acquired this property free from any sort of encumbrances - It cannot be treated as ‘cost of improvement’ as it was not incurred towards improvement - Decided against assessee
-
2013 (4) TMI 828 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A - nexus between the borrowed funds on which the interest was paid and the mutual funds purchased by the appellant - Held that:- As per the facts brought on record, if there is availability of interest free funds to make investment in mutual fund and there is no question of disallowance of interest. On the other hand, if the assessee used the interest bearing funds to make investment in mutual funds then proportionate interest has to be disallowed. The assessee is duty bound to establish the nexus between availability of interest free funds to make investment in mutual funds at the time of making such investment. In other words at the point of time of making investment there should be sufficient interest free funds available with the assessee. Being so, we remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for such consideration in the light of above observations.
Addition being the expenses for issue of shares to Qualified Institutional Buyers claimed in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 35D - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee's claim u/s. 35D was in the A.Y. 2006-07 held that it would not be proper to debit the entire amount in one year as it would violate the matching principle. On the other hand, it is clear that the benefits of the expense will accrue to the appellant over many financial years. But. it cannot be quantified accurately as to how much would be the benefit in a particular financial year. unlike in bonds, where quantifications are simple and accurate, in this case, it is ultimately the judgement of the business head based on realities of the industry and economy which will determine the amount by which or the percentage of benefit available in a particular year. In the present case, the management has decided that the benefits of the expense will accrue to the company over a period of 12 years. The Assessing Officer does not have any contrary information to indicate a shorter or longer period. Thus the expense in question is to be treated as deferred revenue expenditure and allowed as claimed by the appellant. This issue is decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 827 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... of Shri Harish Jain. The assessee during the assessment proceedings has furnished the detailed transaction regarding the property at Taleigao. The assessee has submitted all these details before ADIT (Inv.) and before CIT. The Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiry and no evidence was brought on record by the Assessing Officer to establish the genuineness of the transaction seized in the search. The Assessing Officer has not examined M/s. Shitij Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. We find that the Assessing Officer has not brought any independent inquiry, independent material to prove that on-money has been paid to company. Therefore, we are of the view that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition and our interference is not required. o p /o p 9. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. o p /o p 10. During the course of hearing, the Learned AR has not pressed this cross objection. Therefore, C.O is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 12.04.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (4) TMI 826 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nology park, as income from business. This by itself will show that earlier decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd.(supra) was on a factually different scenario. We are therefore, of the opinion that this case will not advance the cause of the Revenue. In the result, we hold that the reopening was not validly initiated. Such reopening and pursuant reassessment are quashed. 29. In the result, Cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed. Since cross objection is allowed, appeal of the Revenue has become infructuous. 30.To summarise the result, appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2003-04 is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Year 2003-04 is dismissed as infructuous. Cross objection of assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 is allowed and appeal of Revenue for Assessment Year 2005-06 is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 11th April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 825 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... copy of record it is noticed that Shri Ajay Kumar Kejriwal is the Director of the company getting remuneration of ₹ 25,000/- per month. There was an opening balance of ₹ 4,13,279/- which clearly shows that the assessee has discharged its burden in respect of establishing credit worthiness of the depositor. The assessee has also proved identity and genuineness of the transaction. Thus, the assessee has discharged the burden in respect of creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. In the light of fact, we are of the view that such addition is not warranted merely on the basis of presumption. Once the assessee has discharged its burden under section 68 of the Act, the addition under section 68 cannot be made. In the light of above discussion, we hold that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 13,00,000/- though on different grounds as disused above. 13. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 824 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ous or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. In our opinion there is no material on record according to which it can be said that assessee has either acted deliberately in defiance of law or is guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or has acted in conscious disregard of her obligation. On each and every date an adjournment application has been filed on behalf of the assessee which in itself cannot be said that this was a deliberate act of the assessee in defiance of law. Levy of penalty is quasi criminal in nature and there should be a material on record to prove that the assessee’s act in defiance of law was deliberate, contumacious or dishonest. There is complete absence of such material. Therefore, we hold that levy of penalty in the present case is not justified. The levy of penalty in respect of all the years is deleted. 8. In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/04/2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 823 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s were presented. Nothing was brought on record to indicate that the payments were not made to the recipient, who signed the vouchers. This issue requires no further consideration as it raises no substantial question of law. Question (D) pertains to disallowance out of Diesel and Oil expenses of ₹ 2,21,301/. This question has also not been entertained by the Tribunal, where payments made by cheques verifiable and no contrary evidence was produced by revenue. Hence, we see no reason as to why this question should be considered as it is purely based on facts. We are also pointed out that as far as question Nos.(A) and (B) are concerned, identical questions have been raised by the revenue in other tax appeal and this Court has issued notice of final hearing in those appeals. Notice for final disposal is therefore, required to be issued in this tax appeal for considering those two questions (A) and (B) to be made returnable on 17th April, 2013. Direct service is permitted.
-
2013 (4) TMI 822 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rs or not, the assesses has to undergo the rigor of the assessment proceedings for all the six years as well as the year under search." 5. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Act. Since Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No.2938-2942/Ahd/2008 dated 16.01.2009 in assessee's own case has already held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A were not sustainable in law and the same were quashed, the order passed by the Assessing Officer for the year under appeal is also hereby quashed.” 3. Undisputedly, the impugned Assessment Order itself now stood quashed by the respected Coordinate Bench from where the penalty in question has germinated, therefore, in consequence thereof, this penalty u/s.271(1)(c) do not survive any more, hence hereby direct to revoke the same. In principle grounds are allowed. 4. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
............
|
