|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1224 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1045 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... eduction as revenue expenditure in the computation of income of the assessee. We find that in the instant case, the assessee has claimed deduction of the entire amount of lease rental of ₹ 12,42,820/- while computing the income for income tax purposes but has debited in the books of account only ₹ 3,98,733/- towards lease rent. Both the parties before us have not filed the copy of the lease agreement and therefore, we are not in a position to adjudicate the issue completely. We, therefore, are of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to readjudicate the issue afresh in the light of the discussion herein above after examining the lease agreement of the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 02nd of July, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1044 - SUPREME COURT
Amendment introduced to Sections 2, 4, 9 and 17, as well as insertion of Sections 31-A, 31-B, 31-C, 37-A, 37-B to the Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1995 (Act No.37 of 1995) - The amendment was by way of Amendment Act No.5 of 2000, hereinafter called the “Amendment Act” - Held that:- Amended Section 4(1) under Act 5 of 2000 inclusive of the introduction of proviso to the said Section is ultra-vires of the Constitution and the same is liable to be set aside.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. The AO disallowed the above amount invoking section 40(a)(ia) on the ground that the assessee failed to comply with the applicable TDS provisions. The ld. CIT(A) following the decision of co-ordinate Benches in the case of Kotak Mahindra Securities (25 SOT 44) and Angel Broking (35 SOT 457) allowed the claim of the assessee . This issue is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2006-07 wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the orders of ITAT following its own decision in the case of CIT vs. Angel Capital and Debit Market Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal(L) No.475 of 2011 dated 28th July,2011. Since CIT’s order is in line with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in this matter, the same is upheld. The Revenue ground is dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1042 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... opinion, no interference is required in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that there was a TDS in this case on the payments made to the assessee. We, therefore, dismiss all the grounds taken by the revenue. 9. Now we take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee. The Learned Counsel fairly submitted that though certain grievances are raised against the observation but effectively nothing has been decided against the assessee by Ld. CIT(A). We find that the cross objection fled by the assessee is only on the academic grounds and cross objection is not contemplated for doing the academic exercise. In our opinion, the cross objection is infructuous and not maintainable. Accordingly, all grounds taken by the assessee in the cross objection are dismissed. 10. In the result, the revenue’s appeal as well as the assessee’s Cross Objection are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 15-07-2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1041 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Why at Kim? There is no reasonable explanation. Driver of the vehicles which belong to them were not made available for investigation. Under the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant No. 10 and hold that penalty is imposable under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However keeping in view of the fact that supplies were stopped after supplying about 8 Mt. of PFY/PTY, (though due to non-receipt of sale proceeds) as also absence of any evidence that appellant was to be benefited in any manner over and above the normal consideration, we are inclined to reduce the penalty to Rupees Fifty Thousand only (Rs. 50,000/-). 16. In view of the above, we dismiss all the appeals filed by appellant Nos. 1 to 9. In respect of appellant No. 10, penalty is reduced to Rupees Fifty Thousand only from Rupees Two lakhs. 17. Miscellaneous applications and cross-objections are also disposed of in above terms. (Pronounced in Court on 5-7-2013)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1040 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vasive and it could have entertained the matter, but it did not intervene. Therefore, this exclusion cannot be applied in this case. The decision of the Supreme Court in Indo National Ltd. v. C.C.T. - AIR 1994 SC 40 cited before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, has not laid down any ratio whether the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, will be applied in case of Central Excise matters. It appears it was merely an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and such an order comes within the purview of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and not a decision rendered within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to follow what is decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when an order has been passed. In this matter, no decision has been rendered on any point of law. The said decision cited is therefore not applicable to the present case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1039 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... at the appellant was only served the copy of show cause notice and none of the documents relied upon, by the lower authority was given. In order to meet the ends of justice, Revenue authorities are directed to serve upon the appellant all the relied upon documents in respect of the show cause notice No. DRI/SRU/INV-1/2011/1376-1377 dated 10.10.2011, within four weeks from today. On receipt of such relied upon documents, the appellant is also directed to file reply within four weeks from that day or, on or before 16.09.2013. On receipt of such a reply, the adjudicating authority will take up the matter for conclusion after following the principles of natural justice. 7. We make it clear that we have not recorded any opinion on the merits of the case and kept all the issues open for the adjudicating authority to come to a conclusion in this remand proceeding. Stay petition and appeal disposed of by way of remand as indicated herein above. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1038 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case it is observed that the reassessment was initiated by recording reasons, which have been reproduced above talking of escapement of income earned by the assessee from Reliance Petrochemicals Limited. No addition on that score came to be made by the Assessing Officer. In that view of the matter and respectfully following the afore-noted two precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to deal with any other issue and making further additions accordingly. The assessment order is, therefore, set aside. o p /o p 9. In view of our decision on the above legal issue, there is no need to deal with the merits of additions which have been assailed by the assessee and the Revenue in their respective appeals. o p /o p 10. In the result, the assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed on the above legal issue and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced on this 10th day of July, 2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (7) TMI 1037 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... . The balance amount of about ₹ 82 lakhs (approx.) demand was raised on Cargo Handling Service. But the applicant took the stand that it is a GTA Service and tax was paid by the consignee. It is undisputed that the applicant could not place any evidence in support of their contention. Similarly, the demand of tax of ₹ 9,83,980/- it is seen from the adjudication order, the applicant failed to produce any documents for verification. 3. After considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of tax, penalty and interest. Accordingly, we direct the applicant to deposit ₹ 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) within eight weeks from day. Upon deposit of the same, the balance adjudged dues shall remain waived and recovery thereof stayed till the pendency of the appeal. To report compliance on 20th September, 2013. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1036 - ITAT MUMBAI
Adoption of annual letting value (ALV) of assessee property - Held that:- The assessee is entitled to value property at NIL during the year u/s. 23(1)(c). Therefore, Assessing Officer is directed to accept the ALV at NIL and work out the loss under the head “House Property” accordingly.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1035 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 3 (SC) and the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Indo Overseas Films vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2002 (139) ELT 729 upheld by the hon’ble High Court of Madras 2007 (210) ELT 348 (Mad) and Universal Music India P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai - 2009 (235) ELT 829. OR Such royalties/licence fees are not includable in the assessable value of the beta/digibeta tapes as held by the learned Member (Judicial) as such charges are paid for reproduction of the goods in India after importation. (ii) The extended period of time for confirmation of customs duty is invokable inasmuch as the appellant had mis-declared the value of the goods under importation by suppressing the facts and agreements relating to the importation as held by the learned Member (Technical) OR The extended period of time is not invokable as there was no suppression of facts on the part of the importer as held by the Member (Judicial). (Pronounced in Court on 12/07/2013)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1034 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - allocation of R&D expenses - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the ground on which reopening is sought, is essentially in respect of allocation of R&D expenses and the details furnished in the reasons recorded essentially are concerning allocating between SPI and SPS [Sikkim] and it is apparent from the record that SPS was not even in existence during the year under question.
When on R&D expenses of the Company issue has been scrutinized extensively during the year under question, we are unhesitatingly of the opinion that this ground is nothing but an attempt to review its own decision and therefore, the same must fail on the jurisdictional ground alone. Not only the Assessing Officer has under scrutiny assessment dealt with the same in the previous years as well as in the year under question extensively, but, the same was also carried to CIT [A] which had finalized the said issue of allocation of R&D expenses by re-allocating 12.5% of all R&D expenditure as relating to formulations during the year under question, as detailed hereinabove while dealing with the same. And therefore, without going into the larger issue of as to whether a particular angle, if is missed out in a question determined on scrutiny in a regular assessment, whether reopening on such left out angle is permissible or not, as far as this ground is concerned, in wake of the reasonings given in the records of reasoning; particularly emphasizing on SPS which never existed and when all other angles otherwise are examined sufficiently and elaborately, this appears to be an attempt pure and simple to review its own order alongwith other materials found in relation to the first issue. Therefore, the notice for re-opening on this count shall need to fail.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1033 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... sue to the AO, was not objected to by the DR. 19. In these circumstances, in the interests of justice, we restore the issue to the file of the AO, who shall re-examine the applicability of section 41(1) with respect to the parties named in the assessment order. 20. Ground no. 7 is consequential. 21. Ground no. 8 is not pressed, hence dismissed. 22. Appeal is, therefore, partly allowed Assessment year 2008-09 23. Grounds no. 1 to 5 of this appeal are identical as in assessment year 2007-08 and as dealt with by us in this order. Following the logical conclusion drawn and decision taken for assessment year 2007-08, we direct the AO to delete the addition. 24. As a result, grounds no. 1 to 5 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed. 26. Appeal, is therefore allowed. In the result Appeal filed by the assessee in assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed and Appeal filed by the assessee in assessment year 2008-09 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1032 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... monstrate without doubt the nature of services rendered by these three companies. Keeping in mind these facts, we feel that the assessee has miserably failed to demonstrate the services rendered and has thus failed to discharge the onus. 53. As the assessee has failed to discharge the onus, he is not entitled to the claim of commission paid." 23. Facts in the present case being materially the same and the assessee having not brought any other evidence or material for enabling us to take a different view deviating from the aforesaid view of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we are inclined to follow the same and hold that the disallowance of commission payment made to the agents is perfectly in order and thereby does not require any interference from us. Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) is upheld. The grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 24. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1031 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... n the Wealth Tax return the addition under Income Tax Act cannot be deleted unless the source of the jewellery is explained by the assessee. We noticed that the finding of the CIT(A) is without appreciating the case made by the A.O. and without recording the relevant facts and finding on the reconciliation filed by the assessee. The benefit of CBDT Circular in the names of different members is also subject to verification. We find that the finding of the CIT(A) is without considering all the relevant facts and reconciliation filed by the assessee. In the light of these facts, we think it proper to send back this issue to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to re-decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after considering the reconciliation filed by the assessee and case made out by the A.O. by recording the complete facts and finding in the order. 14. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court.)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1030 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... me order which has confirmed the demand, interest and various penalties, the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/383, 384/2007, on merit. It is his submission that this Bench vide Final Order No. A/1039 & 1040/WZB/AHD/2008, dt.13.05.08, has set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. He produces a copy of the same. 3. After going through the final order, dt.13.05.2008 of the Bench, Ld. Departmental Representative submits that this final order dt.13.05.2008 is in respect of very same impugned Order-in-Appeal. 4. We have gone through the impugned order before us and also the final order dt.13.05.2008 passed by the Bench on an appeal filed by the respondent-assessee and one of the employees. 5. On merit, we have held in favour of the assessee and set aside the impugned order dt.15.02.2007. Since on merit, we have held in favour of the assessee, nothing survives in this appeal and hence the Departments appeal is rejected.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1029 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ue to M/s.Pranav Investment towards installment of ₹ 13.76 lakh for purchase of TDR. Such cheque dated 22.11.2004 was cleared on 07.12.2004 i.e. after the receipt of the above said loans in cash and depositing the same into the assessee’s bank account. In our considered opinion the said loans of ₹ 2.50 lakh were received for meeting business exigency and there was a reasonable cause in accepting the said loans in cash. But for such loans of ₹ 2.50 lakh in cash, the cheque issued to M/s.Pranav Investment for purchase of TDRs would not have been encashed. We, therefore, find that there was a reasonable cause in accepting these loans in cash, thereby bringing the case within the purview of section 273B calling for deletion of penalty, which would have been otherwise imposable u/s 271D. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and order for the deletion of penalty. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1028 - ITAT AGRA
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - Held that:- As in the case of CIT vs. Parle Plastics Limited (2010 (9) TMI 726 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) wherein it has been held that only that amount of loans and advances, which is actually received by assessee share holder from company during relevant assessment year, would fall within inclusive sub-clause(e) of definition of ‘dividend’ appearing in section 2(22)(e); opening words ‘any payment’ occurring in sub-clause (e) of section 2(22) contemplates actual payment made by company to assessee for being reacted as a dividend in computing income of assessee. The opening balance or loan taken in earlier year is not loan received by the assessee during the relevant previous year and could, therefore, be not treated as amount of loan or advance received by the assessee during the relevant previous year. Such amount, therefore, could not be included as deemed dividend under clause (e) of section 2(22) of the Act. In the case under consideration, since the loan amount is not issued during the year, therefore, we find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition.
Addition on account of house hold expenses - Held that:- AO purely made estimated addition without bringing any material against the assessee for estimating household expenses. The contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that in other cases similar additions have been deleted, has not been rebutted through any material on record. In the absence of any material on record in favour of the revenue, we do not find any justification in making addition.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1027 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... eat items and for food products. iii) No instance has been brought on record indicating any violation of the Rules. 9. After hearing the rival submissions, we are of the view that the facts of the decision in the case of Cedilla Healthcare (Supra) are similar to the issue in the assessee’s case wherein it was held that the TDS is not applicable on food coupons/meal vouchers. The relevant findings of the Tribunal in the case of Cedilla Healthcare has already reproduced at Para 5.6 of the CIT (A)’s order. Hence the same is not reiterated here. In view of the order of the Tribunal in the case cited (supra), we are of the view that the CIT (A) is justified in holding that the expenditure incurred on disbursement of meal coupons by the employer to the employees did not attract the provisions of section 192 of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced at the end of the hearing on 10th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1026 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tata Elxsi ITA No.82 of 2003 dated 23.1.2008. We have not examined the above argument for the reason that the assertion of the assessee in this regard has not been examined either by the AO or CIT(A). 32. For the reasons given above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, these appeals by the Revenue are dismissed. 33. In the result, the appeals are dismissed”. 7. Since the facts of this case is identical to the facts considered by the Tribunal in the case cited above (Supra), we follow the Coordinate Bench order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1391/Bang/2012 (Supra) and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly we hold that the CIT (A) order does not require any interference and we uphold the same as correct and in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced at the end of the hearing on 4th July, 2013.
............
|
