|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 821 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... . He, however, could not point out any such infirmity. The appeal was, therefore, adjourned for further hearing on 19.03.2013 with a view to enable the Department to point out the deficiency and infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). On 19.03.2013, the ld. Departmental Representative again could not point out any infirmity or deficiency in the order of the CIT (A). In this view of the matter, the order passed by the CIT (A) is confirmed. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. Before parting with the matter, it is clarified that this order will not operate as precedent for the simple reason that it is because of the failure on the part of the Department to point out any error or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) that we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. In appropriate proceedings, it will be open to the Revenue to argue its case on merits in which case the submissions made by the Department would be considered. Order pronounced on 12.04.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 820 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of penalty u/s 271AAA - search u/s 132 - Held that:- CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has given a finding that the assessee had admitted the income at the time of search and disclosed the same in the return of income filed u/s 153 of the Act and paid tax and also disclosed the manner in which the income was earned. Nothing has been brought on record by the Revenue to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) and thus, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 819 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... see has to be applied and adopted for the purpose. As is clear from the above extracted chart that even after allowing depreciation, the NP rate declared by the assessee is better than the past assessment year. In our opinion, the G.P. rate of 8 directed to be applied by the ld. CIT(Appeals) is on higher side. We, therefore, by keeping in view the past history of the assessee's case, modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), and direct the AO to apply the G.P. rate of 6 subject to salary and interest to the partners and depreciation claimed by the assessee. The depreciation amount of ₹ 25,24,388/-, is allowable in the light of the jurisdictional High Court’s decision rendered in the case of CIT V Chopra Brothers, reported in 252 ITR 412 and Bhullar Construction, reported in 286 ITR 686. 9. As a result, we partly allow Ground Nos. 2 to 4 of this appeal. 10. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th April,2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 818 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f dissolution clause in the deed, the denial of approval u/s. 80G is not justified. The ld. Sr. D.R. vehemently relied upon the order of DIT(Exemptions) and argued that in case of dissolution of the public Trust, it is not clear where would assets of the Trust go and what would be the fate in case of dissolution. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Impugned Trust has been granted approval u/s.80G(5) in the past and genuineness has been verified by the concerned authority from time-to-time but on the basis of dissolution clause denial of the approval u/s.80G is not justified. On the appellant, the Bombay Charitable Trust Act is applicable and as per this Act, the dissolution can be made by the Trust after approval of the Court. Thus, we set aside this matter for de novo. Accordingly, the matter is set aside. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in open Court on 19.04.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 817 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... traders, came to the conclusion and allowed benefit up to April 4, 1994 and, therefore, the order of the Tax Board is proper. After considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the Tax Board has correctly applied the judgment rendered in the case of Gopal Oil Mills 1999 115 STC 25 (SC); 1999 4 SCC 368 and Mahaveer Oil Industries 1999 115 STC 29 (SC); 1999 4 SCC 357. This court also, in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle, Alwar v. R. C. Oil Industries S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 118 of 2003 2014 67 VST 184 (Raj) and Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Circle Nagaur (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 105 of 2007) 2014 67 VST 184 (Raj) has held that the benefit is only allowable up to April 4, 1994 and not beyond that. Consequently, in the light of the judgment of this court also, the order of the Tax Board is upheld and the instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed as having no force.
-
2013 (4) TMI 816 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he learned counsel is borne out from the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009. A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court shows that none of the submissions made by the appellants before the High Court have been considered. Furthermore, the judgment does not indicate the reasons for the conclusions recorded in the judgment. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties. No costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 815 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of suit - Offering of highest bid - absence of a concluded contract - seeking relief u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act - property on lease for a period of 90 years - The first defendant on published in the local newspapers for auction of nine shops and a plot earmarked for Cinema Hall specifying the date of auction and furnishing necessary information. According to the plaintiff, the reserved price of the Cinema plot was fixed at ₹ 1,80,200/- and the auction of the property was conducted on 11.3.1977 under the supervision of one Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Bisen, the then Assistant Housing Commissioner(AHC) of the first defendant Board. In the auction, the plaintiff (respondent) offered the highest bid of ₹ 1,31,500/- and as per the terms and conditions of the auction, he had deposited ₹ 26,300/- i.e. 20% of the bid amount, plus ₹ 500/- as earnest money. the plaintiff then asked to first defendant for issuance of the allotment letter in his favour, the dispute arised, when AHC informed the plaintiff that the third defendant Housing Commissioner of the Board had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded by way of DD. The Plaintiff aggrieved filled suit in trial court, later on aggrieved defendant filed a review application challenging the findings and reasons recorded in the HC judgment contending that there was an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore prayed for review of the said judgment and order, which was dismissed by the HC after hearing the parties. Therefore, the defendants have filed these appeals.
HELD THAT:- The important factual and legal aspects have not been examined in proper and constructive manner either by the trial court or by the second appellate court. Therefore, the impugned judgment, order and decree are liable to be set aside. The substantial questions framed by the court in the second appeal did not arise for its consideration. The High Court ought to have noticed that the legal right claimed by the plaintiff seeking relief u/s 34 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of the pleadings is wholly untenable in law. In view of the fact that no legal right accrued in his favour in the absence of a concluded contract which was said to have existed by mere offering of highest bid in relation to the property in question to obtain the property on lease for a period of 90 years amounting to disposal of the property of the first defendant being an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, no right was accrued upon the bidder in relation to the property in question. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and the suit filed on the basis of the alleged cause of action did not arise. Hence, the trial court could not have granted any relief by not framing the relevant and proper issue and answering the same. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the trial court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is set aside by the first appellate court by recording reasons. It also did not address and examine the points that arose for consideration as framed by this Court in this judgment. However, the conclusion arrived at by the first appellate court in setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the suit is perfectly legal and valid. The said judgment has been erroneously interfered with by the High Court by framing substantial questions of law. Hence, the appeals must succeed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 814 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... o. 1267/2010 3 CIT vs. Orient Ceramics and Inds Ltd. HC Delhi ITA No. 65 and 66 of 2011 4 ITO vs. Omni Globe Information Technologies India (P) Ltd ITAT Delhi 131 ITD 280 The Learned DR on the other hand relied on the order of the authorities below. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have noted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd., ITA No. 1267/2010 and also in the case of CIT vs. Orient Ceramics and Ind. Ltd. in ITA No. 65 and 66 of 2011 confirmed the order of the Tribunal allowing depreciation 60 under para 4 and 13 of the respective orders. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge. Respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal as well as that of the Hon’ble High Court, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation for UPS 60 . 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.04.2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 813 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for the petitioner. Rule returnable on 17th April, 201 3. Ms. Rujuta R. Oza, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- Union of India.
-
2013 (4) TMI 812 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ecorded wherein he produced the authorization from the firm to work on behalf of and sign all the documents for the firm. He has filed settlement application and prayed for provisional release in that capacity. In view of these facts, the Revenue objection is not proper. Revenue to comply with the Bench direction for provisional release of the goods without any further delay.” 3. In view of the fact that the objection i.e. sought to be raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the Settlement Commission, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the said Commission, which is seized with the settlement application. The Settlement Commission is empowered under Section 127F with all the powers of an Officer of Customs under the said Act. The said provisional release order has been made in exercise of that power. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (4) TMI 811 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... llant is that they have aided and abetted wrong claiming of drawback. The department has taken more than four years to investigate the matter and, thereafter, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant in November, 2012 for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting wrong claim for drawback. Thus, considerable time has lapsed between the filing of shipping bills and the issue of suspension order. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of National Shipping Agency, cited supra, we are of the view that there is no emergency which requires the licence to be suspended. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and revoke the suspension order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Customs authorities are at liberty to expedite the enquiry initiated against the appellant-CHA and take appropriate action in accordance with law. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 810 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made during the period from 17-3-2012 to 28-2-2013. 14. In all the matters where the goods were detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the further enquiry is yet to be held and if it is ultimately found that the coal imported is Bituminous coal, the petitioners are liable to pay the Customs duty at 11 . Therefore, it is not in public interest to grant any interim order permitting the petitioners to lift the imported consignment merely on the ground that the consignment was provisionally assessed. 15. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to lift the stock in question on payment of differential duty. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the detained consignment and permit the petitioners to lift the same subject to the condition of payment of differential duty in respect of the stock so detained. 16. All these WPMPs are accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 809 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... opinion that addition made on account of bonus and leave with wages is unjustified, hence deleted. “ 19. We are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition because workers have clearly stated that they were being paid bonus 20 and leave with wages for 15 days. Workers some time may not remember the exact date or year form which they started working. It is very difficult to expect the workers to remember the exact amount of bonus or leave wages. The Assessing Officer has not given any strong basis disallowing these payments. We are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted this addition. 20. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed. C.O. No. 24/Chd/2012 21. During the course of hearing, the Cross Objections were withdrawn by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and therefore, the same are dismissed as ‘withdrawn’. 22.In the result, Cross Objections are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 808 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssioner is not a speaking order. 6.1 As per the principle of classification of taxable service shall be determined according to the terms in sub-clauses of clause 105 of section 65. In case, the taxable service is classifiable under two or more under two or more sub-clauses then it shall be specified as per following rules (i) specific description to be preferred over a general description; (ii) classification should be as per the essential character in case of composite service; (iii) service earlier in has to be classified on the above basis. 7. In these circumstances, we remand the matter to the Commissioner for deciding, first, the issue of classification as per the principles of classification as enumerated above, thereafter decide the aspect of valuation. It is made clear that all the issues are kept open. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing may be given to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Order portion pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 807 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), is made now within four weeks from today, the CESTAT will treat the delay in compliance as condoned and proceed with the hearing of the appeal on merits. In case, no compliance is made, the appeal before CESTAT shall stand dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 806 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... rakash Kapoor above. Therefore, following decisions in the case of Sarv Prakash Kapoor (Supra) the penalty is not justified in the matter. 18. Apart from above, in this case, there is no finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal with regard genuineness of the gift in the matter because the matter was decided only on question of law with regard to applicability the provision of Section 68 of the Act in the matter when assessee did not maintain books account, therefore, facts of this case are in better footing as has been considered in the case of Sarv Prakash Kapoor for canceling the penalty. 19. Considering the above discussion and following the reason for decision in the case of Sarv Prakash Kapoor (Supra), we set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 20. In the result, ITA No. 195 of 2011 is also allowed. 21. No other point is argued or press. 22. In the result, both the appeals of different assessees are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 805 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... , we proceed ex-parte against the assessee. 5. We have heard the Revenue and perused the case file. The question raised by the Revenue is that on the ground of non deduction of TDS, the Assessing Officer had disallowed /added an amount of ₹ 19,07,798/- (supra) qua commission payments made by the assessee. The CIT (A) has deleted the addition by following the Special Bench decision above said. Per Revenue, in view of the hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision, the question deserves to be decided against the assessee. After giving our thoughtful consideration, we find the argument of the Revenue is acceptable as hon’ble High Court has overruled the verdict of the Special Bench. Since there is no other issue involved, we allow the instant appeal and restore the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 6. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed 7. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 18th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 804 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Corporation is directed to produce the entire record including the bank deposit slips by which the Corporation has deposited the cheques in the Banks which bears the dates and also the dates on which the cheques were presented in the Bank and when it was received back by the Corporation and when the petitioner paid the amount - stay granted - petition allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 803 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... deciding the issue. Needless to say that the assessee should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The grounds and issues as such are restored. 5. Before parting we consider it appropriate and deem it necessary to observe on account of the peculiar facts and circumstances with which we are seized and were also apprised of namely the appellate order in 2 of the appeals before us is passed by the CIT(A), Ghaziabad and for the other 2 years is passed by CIT(A), Muzzafarnagar. In these peculiar facts when the issues are being restored to the CIT(A), we consider it appropriate to request the Competent Authority of the CBDT to issue appropriate orders/instructions for consolidating the appeals before any one CIT(A) either Muzzafarnagar or Ghaziabad so as to have a cohesive and proper adjudication on the issues involved. 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 5th of April 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 802 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 and a recent decision in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-I and another, (2012) 348 ITR 306, the order of the Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, it is beyond doubt that if an item has wrongly been claimed by the assessee as a business loss it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of income. It may be stated here that in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.(supra), the assessee was a leading firm of Chartered Accountants having great expertise with it in the taxation law. The Apex Court has said that even if such assesee has committed silly mistake it cannot be a case for levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Respectfully following the aforesaid two decisions, we answer the above question in negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
............
|
