|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1611 Records
-
2016 (5) TMI 1436 - SC ORDER
enefits of original license by legal heirs of deceased - petitioner (legal heir) stepping into the shoes of deceased - the decision in the case of Navedita Prakash Gawade Versus Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 1148 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - no merit in present petition - SLP dismissed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1435 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment in the name of non existent company - scheme of amalgamation adopted - Held that:- In view of the decision of this Court in Spice Infotainment v. CIT (2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT) no substantial question of law arises as held that the framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person - no procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1434 - DELHI HIGH COURT
TPA - comparable selection revenue urges that some of the comparables were wrongly rejected and some comparables suggested by the Assessee wrongly accepted by the ITAT - Held that:- ITAT has given detailed reasons. The Revenue is unable to demonstrate that the said reasons qua any of the comparables or the conclusion of the ITAT thereon is perverse. The Court does not find the said issue giving rise to any substantial question of law.
Foreign exchange fluctuation loss being considered as part of the operative expenses, the issue stands covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd. (2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ).
Rate of interest for capital adjustment is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee in terms of the decision of this Court in Cotton Natural (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2015 (3) TMI 1031 - DELHI HIGH COURT). No substantial question of law arises
-
2016 (5) TMI 1433 - ITAT HYDERABAD
TPA - comparable selection criteria - Held that:- Assessee is a software solution provider, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
Granting credit in respect of advance tax and tds - grievance of the assessee is that the AO has erred in granting credit in respect of advance tax only to the extent of ₹ 6,14,01,877 as against ₹ 6,58,40,000 claimed in the return of income filed by the assessee and also tax deducted at source (TDS) only to the extent of 22,40,040 as against ₹ 23,58,189 claimed in the return of income - Held that:- As these grounds needs factual verification, we remit the issues to the file of the AO for verification and granting of relief if any, in accordance with the law.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1432 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods with vehicle - Section 47(2) of the KVAT Act - Held that: - In Interfield Laboratories v. State of Kerala [2015 (9) TMI 1538 - KERALA HIGH COURT] this Court held that the officer in charge of the notified area or the empowered officer can invoke the provisions under sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the KVAT Act, if he has reason to suspect that goods under transport are not covered by proper and genuine documents or that any person transporting the goods is attempting to evade payment of tax due under the said Act - the finding in Ext.P4 notice is that the consignment was not accompanied by any documents. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with in intercepting the goods and issuing Ext.P4 notice under Section 47 (2) of the Act.
If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice, it is for him to file an appropriate objection before the 1st respondent, along with supporting materials - Pending adjudication, the goods detained pursuant to Ext.P4 notice shall be released to the petitioner, on the petitioner depositing 50% of the total amount demanded in Ext.P4 and furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent for the balance sum in the form of a simple bond, with sureties.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1431 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Monetary amount involved in the appeal - circular dt.17/12/2015 bearing No. F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC - Held that: - Taking note of the CBEC Circular dt.17/12/2015 & 01/01/2016, the monetary limits which indisputably in these appeals/reference is less than ₹ 15 lacs, much less than what has been prescribed for filing appeal before the High Courts, deserve to be dismissed as not pressed - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1430 - ITAT, PUNE
Penalty proceedings u/s 18(1)(c) - wealth tax assessment - Held that:- There is total non-application of mind by the Wealth Tax Officer while dropping penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(c) and in this regard, the assessment order passed is erroneous and since the amount of penalty leviable has failed to be levied, then the said order is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. AR for the assessee vehemently stressed before us that no penalty is leviable under section 18(1)(c) in the hands of present case, in view of Explanation 5 under the said section. Wealth Tax Officer has failed to address the issue at all. Even the assessee had not pleaded any such thing before Assessing Officer. The reply only asks the Assessing Officer to drop penalty proceedings and Assessing Officer refers to the said reply and drops proceedings, without any reasons, either raised by assessee or referred by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of the same, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard. Since the same needs to be addressed by the Assessing Officer, accordingly, we uphold the order of Commissioner in setting aside the order of Wealth Tax Officer. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed.
Commissioner power of revision under section 25(1) against wealth tax assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 16(3) of the Act - Held that:- where the money is deposited in the PD Account of Commissioner, which in turn, is held on behalf of the assessee has changed the form from being cash in hand available with the assessee, which was seized by the Department and is now available in the form of bank deposit. Once the form of cash has changed into a bank deposit, the same is not includable in the hands of assessee as cash in hand as on valuation date. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, where the amount of cash seized from the assessee is now deposited in PD Account of Commissioner, the same is not includable in the net wealth of assessee as on 31.03.2010. Consequently, the assessment order passed by the Wealth Tax Officer in not including the same in the hands of assessee is not erroneous. In this regard, we find no merit in the exercise of power by the Commissioner for revision of assessment order passed under section 16(3) of the Act.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1429 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Liability of interest - Held that: - in Trimurti Fragrance Private Limited vs. CCE, Delhi -II [2016 (2) TMI 718 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was held that no duty demand or interest could be made on the appellant in similar situations. The Tribunal applied the provisions of the 3rd proviso to Rule 9 and reading it together with the other applicable provisions of the said Rules, came to conclusion that there is no delayed payment warranting levy of interest in such situation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1428 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Addition of sales inflation figure to the assessee’s income - Held that:- We have requested Mr.Khaitan to find out from the assessment order, the relevant information to show that the assessing officer did not dispute the inflation of the sums indicated by the Tribunal in its order. Mr.Khaitan was unable to show any such thing from the assessment order. Tribunal referred to something in the order of the assessing officer which is not there. The Tribunal without any evidence on record and without any admissible evidence having been adduced by the assessee, directed the assessing officer to exclude the amount of ₹ 2.90 Crores approximately and ₹ 5.90 Crores from the total income of the assessee for two block periods. We are, therefore, convinced that there is lot of substance in the submission advanced by Mrs.Gutgutia that this finding is perverse. We, therefore, add the following question of law :
“Whether the order directing the assessing officer to exclude the amount of ₹ 2,90,43,971 and ₹ 5,90,21,000 being the sales and fictitious income from the total income for the two block periods is perverse ?”
Let the appeal be listed on 16th May, 2016 for hearing.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1427 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Valuation - Cement - requirement of RSP to be declared - whether cement sold in 50 Kgs packed condition to Builders, Developers, Ready Mix Concrete Manufacturers /Government etc. would come within the category of Institutional consumers? - Held that: - the issue decided in the case of ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE [2014 (9) TMI 966 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that cement in 50 Kg bags sold to builders/developers qualifies as sales to institutional consumers and benefit of serial number 1C of N/N. 4/2006-C.E., is available to such clearances - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1426 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 68 - unexplained cash credit - burden of proof - Held that:- Provisions of sec. 68 places initial burden of proof upon the assessee. In the instant cases, there is no dispute between the parties that the identity of the loan creditors has been established. Even though the assessing officer has expressed doubt about the credit worthiness of the creditors on the basis of low income reported by them, yet the Ld CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the fact that these companies have used their own capital funds for advancing loan to the assessee company. The quantum of own funds held by these companies has also been discussed by Ld CIT(A). In our view, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in holding that the income declared by these loan companies are not the criteria, but the source for giving the loans to the assessee company is the determinative of the credit worthiness. Thus, the Ld CIT(A) has rightly held that the credit worthiness of the loan creditors has also been established.
The Courts have held that the assessee is required to discharge the initial burden of proof placed on his shoulders. In the instant case, we are of the view that the assessee has discharged the initial onus placed upon it. Hence the burden of proof gets shifted to the assessing officer. Tax authorities have not discharged the burden of proof shifted upon their shoulders by bringing any material on record to disprove the claim of the assessee - Decided against revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 1425 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance u/s. 14A - non-recording of satisfaction - Held that:- We find that the issue on the argument of non-recording of satisfaction deserves to be dismissed as from the perusal of the assessment order it could be seen that the AO had clearly recorded his satisfaction that interest relatable to all investment income from which does not or shall not form part of total income is to be considered and no scrip wise investment as considered by the assessee.
Accordingly, he proceeded to adopt Rule 8D(2) of the Rules but it is well settled that only investment yielding exempt income are to be considered for the purpose of Rule 8D(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to restrict the disallowance u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Rules after considering only investments yielding dividend income. In any case, we direct that the disallowance to be worked out thereon shall not exceed the income which does not form part of the total income. - Decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1424 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowances made on account of non deduction of TDS - Held that:- We find that it is an undisputed fact that penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer for disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non deduction of tax on various payments. This fact is verifiable from the penalty order itself. We further find that the Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of ACIT, Circle3(1), VS. Seaways Shipping Ltd., Secundrabad [2011 (6) TMI 816 - ITAT HYDERABAD] has deleted the similar penalties imposed by the authorities below. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1423 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dispense with the requirement of convening the meetings of their equity shareholders and unsecured creditors and for convening the meetings of the secured creditors of the transferor company no. 1 and the transferee company to consider and approve, with or without modification, the proposed Scheme of Arrangement. Quorum need to be assured. The Chairpersons and Alternate Chairpersons shall ensure that the proxy registers are properly maintained.
The Chairpersons and Alternate Chairpersons shall ensure that notices for convening the aforesaid meetings of the secured creditors of the transferor company no.1 and the transferee company, along with copies of the Scheme of Arrangement and the statement under Section 393 of the Companies Act, 1956, shall be sent to the secured creditors of the transferor company no.1 and the transferee company by registered post, courier as well by hand at their registered or last known addresses at least 21 days before the date appointed for the meetings, in their presence or in the presence of their authorized representatives.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1422 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Addition u/s 68 - unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company - Held that:- AO has made the addition on suspicion which is based on the statements of third party Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta, admittedly, recorded in the back of the assessee. It has come on record that the share application money of ₹ 50,00,000/- was received from Moderate Credit Corporation Ltd., a listed company. It is not disputed before this court that the investment made was received by account payee cheque and the same was refunded by an account payee cheque when the company dropped its project. In the considered opinion of this court, in absence of any cogent evidence on record establishing that the money shown to have received as share application money, was as a matter of fact, unaccounted money belonging to the assessee company, the finding arrived at by the AO, which is based on suspicion, has rightly been held not sustainable in the eyes of law. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2016 (5) TMI 1421 - ITAT COCHIN
Addition of interest income which was not offered to tax - TDS u/s 194A - Held that:- There is no change in the method of accounting which is mercantile system of accounting as is evident from the audit report in Form 3CA and 3CD. The assessee in fact does not have any right to receive such hypothetical income which has been shown as interest accrued but not due. As a matter of fact, the liability becomes due only when it is accompanied by the corresponding liability of the other party to pay the amount and therefore, in view of our findings hereinabove, and facts of the present case, interest which has been shown as interest accrued but not due, being hypothetical income, cannot be made a subject of levy of tax.
It is settled issue that income accrues only when the right to receive is acquired and the right can be said to have been acquired when an enforceable debt is created in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the income which has not been received and not acknowledged or which has not been acknowledged as payable to the assessee, cannot be taxed. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1420 - ITAT DELHI
Addition on account of suppressed receipts - Additions on the basis of 26AS statement - Held that:- The issue is no more res integra in view of the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of ITO vs. Shri Basant Kumar [2015 (11) TMI 1127 - ITAT DELHI] were on identical facts held that there is no material to come to the conclusion that assessee ever received any such coupons or payments nor the same are reflected in his books of accounts or bank statements. The fact that these payments are made by coupons and vouchers etc. can also not be put against the assessee since the assessee never received the same and there is no evidence to the contrary. Apparently, entire confusion has started from the fact that, perhaps as a measure of abundant caution, Vodafone deducted tax at source in respect of the vouchers etc and, for whatever reasons, stated, the name of distributor as collective recipient of entire sum. On these facts, in our considered view, learned CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the impugned addition. We approve his conclusions, and decline to interfere in the matter. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1419 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of examination - commission of various offences pursuant to a large scale conspiracy in the context of the examination - FIR came to be registered against several persons including students and some employees of the State of Madhya Pradesh who were working in the administration of the BOARD - Held that:- In view of the divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments pronounced by us in these appeals today, the Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate further orders.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1418 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violations of import conditions - case of Revenue is that the respondent failed to demonstrate that the cars were in fact used for transporting the foreign guests of the hotel - Whether the respondent violated the conditions attached to the import of cars for use in the hotel business? - Held that: - the Department was unable to show any stipulation in any notification issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs or any other notification specifically requiring the imported cars to be used only for transporting foreign guests of the hotel - as long as foreign exchange is earned by the hotel and the imported cars are being used, there cannot said to be a violation of any statutory requirement - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (5) TMI 1417 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s. 14A - sufficiency of own funds - Held that:- The assessee has demonstrated that own funds available with it is more than the investment made hence there is no requirement of making any disallowance out of interest expenditure. The view taken by the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon'ble High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014 (8) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ). Further the assessee has made fresh investment in two mutual funds and most of the shares have been brought forward from the earlier year. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the disallowance u/s. 14A may be restricted to 2% of the dividend income earned by the assessee
Addition made to the value of closing stock by invoking provisions of section 145A - Held that:- Assessee invited our attention to the paper book, wherein the assessee has prepared the profit and loss account both under exclusive method and inclusive method. Through this statement, the assessee has demonstrated that Net profit disclosed by the assessee remains the same under both methods. This statement shows that there would be no effect on the profit even if exclusive method is followed. We noticed that the Assessing Officer has not examined this statement put forth by the assessee.Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer
Disallowance of corporate membership fees - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Samtel Colour Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) and also by the decision of P&H High Court in the case of M/s. Groz Beckert Asia Ltd. (2013 (2) TMI 375 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT).
Setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation - Held that:- We direct the Assessing Officer to examine the contentions of the assessee and allow relief in accordance with law.
............
|
