|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1010 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1242 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... case of ITO vs. Patel Automobiles supra , levy of penalty is not justified. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Attar Mohd. Dawood And Bros. supra was concerned with a case where return had been revised and penalty had been levied on additional income. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that since undisclosed income which was disclosed in the revised return was not noticed during search operation, therefore, penalty could not be levied. Similarly, in the case before us, since no enquiry was made regarding the loss returned by the assessee in the original return, it cannot be said that it is not a case of filing of revised return voluntarily. Therefore, in our view, assessee has simply revised the return withdrawing the claim of loss and the same would not attract penalty. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 22/7/2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1241 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the regular course of business, disallowance made on that count was held not sustainable. 8. The issue is essentially factual in nature. On the basis of factual matrix presented to both the adjudicating authorities, they have concurrently held in favour of assessee and rightly observed that no defects were pointed out in the books of accounts regularly maintained during the course of business and as against the huge turnover of assessee when a paltry sum was reflected towards the transit loss/handling loss, addition could be termed as only presumptive in nature. Tribunal being the highest fact finding body which has with cogent reasons decided the issue in question and with no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for this Court to determine, no interference is found justifiable as far as question no.(2) is concerned. Resultantly, same is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and as a cumulative effect, tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1240 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng upon the decision of the same Tribunal in the case of Rasoi Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA 1080/Cal/1998 held that it was capital in nature and thus not liable to tax. Being dissatisfied, the assessee has come up with this appeal after paying triple the amount of court fees as in one appeal, a common order disposing of three appeals has been challenged. After hearing Mr. Saraf, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, we find that the case of Rasoi Ltd. relied upon by the Tribunal below has been affirmed by this very Bench in ITA 258 of 2001 disposed of on 19th May,2011 thereby holding that the subsidy given under the selfsame scheme is capital in nature and not liable to tax. We, thus, find that in view of the fact that the said decision relied upon by the Tribunal has been affirmed on merit by this Bench, no further substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. We, consequently, dismiss this appeal summarily.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1239 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r or unreasonable but he nevertheless submits that some interest expenses must also be allocated to the investments made. We see no substance in this submission of learned Departmental Representative. Once there is categorical finding that interest free funds are not using in making these investments, there cannot be any rationale in making 14A disallowance in respect of interest. The 14A disallowance for administrative expenses on adhoc basis, in terms of direction of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra) is on peculiar facts of this and in view of position taken by the parties, and it does not lay down any principles of general application. The 14A disallowance on the facts of this case must remain restricted to the same. Accordingly, we direct the AO to adopt the disallowance u/s.14A at 5 of the total dividend earnings. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1238 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... o;s claim is, thus, fully merited in principle. o p /o p 6.3 With regard to quantum, however, there appears to be some confusion. While the AO states the value of the impugned shares (as at the year-end) at ₹ 379.46 lakhs, the ld. CIT(A) states the said value as with reference to the extent of provision relatable to the current year out of the total provision disallowed up to A.Y. 2004-05. There is no question of any provision for the current year, as it is only on the same having been found (with reference to the value of shares as at the year end) as made in excess, that the write back of the provision has been made in the accounts. o p /o p 6.4 In view of the foregoing, subject to the verification of quantum, per a speaking order and after allowance of opportunity to the assessee, we allow the assessee’s case, and confirm the impugned order. o p /o p 7. In the result, the assesse’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1237 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... allow the deduction to the assessee u/s 80IB(10). In case the AO finds that the Developer has acted on behalf of the landowner and has got the fixed consideration from the landowner for the development of the housing projects, the assessee should not be allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee.” o p /o p 11.1 In view of the above, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore this issue to his file with the direction that he will consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Faqir Chand Gulati (supra) as well as the decision of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Shakti Corporation (supra) and re-adjudicate the claim of the assessee regarding allowing of claim of deduction under section 80IB(10), after giving opportunity of being heard to both sides. o p /o p 12. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as partly allowed. o p /o p The Order pronounced in the Court on 28.07.2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1236 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... & 234D of the Act being mandatory Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs Anjum M. H. Ghaswala And Others,252 ITR 1(SC), affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers 2003 259 ITR 449(SC) and in the case of CIT v. Sant Ram Mangat Ram Jewellers 2003 264 ITR 564(SC) , this ground is dismissed. However, the AO may allow consequential relief ,if any, while giving effect to this order. o p /o p 11.. Ground no. 3 in these appeals pertain to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since no appeal lies against mere initiation of penalty proceedings nor any submissions having been made before us, this ground is also dismissed o p /o p 12. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no. 4 in these two appeals, accordingly, this grounds is dismissed. o p /o p 13. In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed, but for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the court today on 22-07-2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1235 - ITAT CHENNAI
Revision u/s 263 - MAT - Computation of Book Profit u/s 115JB - CIT held that there are no brought forward business losses/depreciation of earlier years, which could have been adjusted while computing the book profits of the current year - For the loss incurred during the immediate preceding year, the assessee adjusted the figure of accumulated loss with the paid up capital and balance in profit and loss account was not reflecting any loss. - HELD THAT:- As per audited books of accounts, it is observed that the assessee has continuously suffered loss as per its books for the last four years and out of which in the first year the entire loss was on account of depreciation, and in the remaining three years, there was also loss more than depreciation, i.e., cash loss.
In spite of the above, to say that there was no brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation as per books in the current year is, in our considered opinion, an absurdity. In the instant case, it is observed that the assessee has suffered loss continuously in the last four years. No material has been brought on record that such loss was set off against any profit of the subsequent year in determining the book profit of the assessee company after the year in which such loss was suffered.
Thus, in our considered opinion, such loss was available for set off during the year under consideration for determining the book profit as per provisions of clause (iii) of section 115JB(2). In view of the above, in our considered opinion, there was no error in the order of the assessment as passed by the Assessing Officer. Our above view also finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VERSUS SUMI MOTHERSON INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING LTD. [2010 (10) TMI 33 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
-
2011 (7) TMI 1234 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce. The learned Government Pleader submits that he was given sufficient time to file his objections and therefore there is nothing wrong in rejecting the application for adjournment. Having heard both sides, I am of opinion that the petitioner can be given another opportunity to file his objections and prove his contentions. For this purpose, Ext.P6 is quashed. The petitioner shall file his objections to Ext.P4 notice within two weeks from today. Thereafter the 1st respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass fresh assessment orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... excluded under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. For the purposes of this proceeding, the Court will proceed on the basis that the applicant was pursing a remedy before the Supreme Court bona fide and, therefore, the period taken in pursuing those proceedings is required to be excluded under Section 14(2). However, even after the Supreme Court disposed of the proceedings on 3 December 2009, no steps were immediately taken to lodge this appeal. The appeal was lodged only on 31 May 2011. The delay between the date of the decision of the Supreme Court and the lodgment of the appeal has not been explained at all in the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion. No material has been placed on record by the applicant to justify the condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, the Notice of Motion cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 2 In view of dismissal of the Notice of Motion, the appeal does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the retraction of Shri Mohd. Shaikh Parvez Ali from his statement dated 24/3/2010 has not materially affected his statement dated 24/3/2010, it was imperative that copies of the statements of Shri Mohd. Shaikh Parvez Ali were required to be considered in the order of detention and copies of the same ought to have been provided to the detenu along with the detention order. 13. We are, therefore, satisfied that on all the above grounds of delay as well as failure to provide the copies of the statements recorded of the co-accused and failure to consider the retractions of the detenu have vitiated the detention order. Consequently, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 14. Hence the petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order of detention dated 11th February 2011 is quashed and set aside. The detenu - Shri Mustafa Shabbirbhai Bookwala be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1231 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng that the income earned by the assessee by the portfolio management scheme was liable to be assessed under the head "capital gains" instead of being assessed under the head "profit & gains of business or profession" ? " 2. Mr. Mistri waives service for the respondent.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1230 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o the decision relied upon by the assessee before the CIT(A). Even the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahalaxmi Glass Works has taken the view as was taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavir Alluminium (supra). In view of the above we hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) should be deleted. We accordingly direct that the addition made be deleted. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is allowed.” 11. Since the issue under consideration is identical to that of AY 2005-06, we respectfully follow the decision of Tribunal in AY 2005-06 and in the light of that, we confirm the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO u/s 145 of the Act. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1229 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... d the application. o p /o p 3. Having gone through the order of the Tribunal and the record, we find that the additional Ground raised by the assessee vide application received on 28th October 2009 that the order passed on 28.3.2007 was barred by limitation and, accordingly, the rectification order dated 24.4.2007 is also null and void, has remained to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. We, therefore, find substance in the above submission of the assessee that there is mistake apparent from record in the order dated 30th September 2010 of the Tribunal which needs rectification within the provisions of Sec. 254(2) of the Act. We, accordingly, allow the application with direction to the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on the above stated additional Ground raised by the assessee vide its application received on 28th October 20089. o p /o p 4. The Miscellaneous Application is, accordingly, allowed. o p /o p Order is pronounced in the open Court on 8th July 2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1228 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... fter a detailed analysis arrived at a conclusion that entire amount of time-share membership fees received by the assessee upfront at the time of enrolment of a member is not the income chargeable to tax in the initial year, and assessee has rightly spread over it in the future year. The facts in the case before us are identical. The assessee is also accounting the receipt for which service is being provided in the year itself and balance is spread over during the period of membership. Learned First Appellate Authority has appreciated the facts in right perspective and has rightly placed his reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon and Company Limited Vs. CIT 26 ITR 27 as well as of the Special Bench, we do not find any error in the order of learned CIT(A), hence, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p 7. In result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p This order was pronounced in open court on 08.07.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (7) TMI 1227 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... 77; 42.25 lacs. 6.3 The alternate submission is in respect of allowing set off of excess income against returned income for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09. Following our finding in respect of assessment year 2002-03, this alternate contention of the assessee is rejected. 6.4 The next grievance is in respect of inclusion of interest. This issue has been decided while deciding the appeal the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 and accordingly it is held that interest is to be taxed on the real income theory and that is to be considered as accrued as when the debt is realized. 7.1 The last grievance is in respect of disallowance of expenses of ₹ 30,143/-. 7.2 After perusing the orders of the authorities below, we feel that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the disallowance to the extent of 30,143/-. 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 14-07-2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1226 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... the reasonable cause is established, the offence committed by the assessee has to be seen only as a technical or venial breach of law and such technical or venial breach cannot be a reason for levying penalty under section 271D and it is not automatic to levy penalty u/s.271D and the scope of section 273B is for not levying penalty if there are reasonable cause. In our considered opinion the reasons attributed by the assessee for taking these cheques are reasonable and hence in view of section 273B r.w.s.271D no penalty can be levied in this case and the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the levy of penalty. The very same view has taken by the Cochin Bench in the case of Shri U. Salim vs. Jt. Commissioner of Income tax in ITA Nos.296 to 303/Coch/2008 dated 12-06-2008. Hence, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty. Accordingly, we uphold his findings. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scrutiny Assessment - Issuance of notice beyond the period of limitation u/s 143(2) - Validation of notice u/s 292BB - It is the case of the Revenue that the provisions of Section 292BB of the Act are procedural in nature and, therefore, would apply to all pending proceedings - HELD THAT:- Significantly, section 292BB does not save non-issuance of notice before the expiry of limitation period. In our view, Section 292BB can cure only a defect in service, service within time, or improper service of notice. It is not aimed at curing the defect of non-issuance of notice within the statutory period.
We may notice that in the present case, Tribunal had rendered its decision in the year 2006. Section 292BB was introduced with effect from 1.4.2008. We have serious doubt whether such provision can be applied to case on hand. However, without entering into such controversy, we are of the opinion that provisions contained in Section 292BB also would not save the proceedings in the present case.
Decided against the Revenue.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... reated such information as a gospel truth. He could not bring any evidence to substantiate that whatever documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was not in existence or fabricated one. 5. The learned DR at the time of hearing relied upon the order of learned ITAT in the case of Omega Biotech Ltd. She placed on record the copy of the Tribunal’s order. 6. We have duly considered this order and we are of the view that it is an order given in particular sets of facts. It does not lay down any ratio of law. It is an adjudication of list between the parties. The Tribunal has just set aside the issue for reinvestigation to the Assessing Officer, whereas the learned First Appellate Authority has made a reference to a large number of decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Taking into consideration all these facts, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 7. In result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 08.07.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1223 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ctual payment is made before the return is filed, as per the principle laid down in Vinay Cement. “ 5.4 In view of the foregoing and in the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions , we have no hesitation in holding that the employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year under consideration is admissible. Therefore, we have no hesitation in vacating the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and consequently, direct the AO to allow payment made on account of employees’ contribution towards PF & ESI on or before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. With these directions, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are allowed. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 22 /07 /2011
............
|
