|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 1234 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... claim holding that amount paid was only to the discharge of the liability which liability the assessee had taken to pay as part of the agreement entered into. The amount so paid as tax has been held to be the amount payable between the collaborator and the assessee. The Tribunal decided that the amount so paid by the assessee was only in discharge of a liability which it had undertaken in terms of the agreement. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of S.Takenaka Vs CIT 237 1TR 212 (supra). We find that the facts and issues are identical with those of the above cited cases therefore respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Courts cited herein above, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” Respectfully following the orders of the co-ordinate bench, we decide Ground Nos. 1-2 against the AO. Appeal filed by the Assessing Officer stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1064 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Unexplained cash credit under section 68 - Held that:- Tribunal rightly held that the assessee had not discharged his burden. The identity of the creditors itself was in doubt. Their creditworthiness was not established. In view of such facts, in our opinion, no question of law arises.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1063 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nt considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette, but does not include land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated ……………………...... “ It is clear from the above that the urban land will be exempt only if the construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated. As we have already held that in the instant case such is not the position, we have no hesitation in holding that the lower authorities have rightly held that the agricultural land at Ambali, Vejalpur and Makarba were urban lands for the purpose of wealth tax as they were situated within 8 kms limit of municipal area of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 11. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 21.09.2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1062 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... . The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.” Following the aforementioned decision again the observation of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dream Merchant Enterprises (supra) are as under “Counsel for the revenue states that similar question raised by the revenue in the case of CIT vs. Rajesh Khanna (Income Tas Appeal No.3875 of 2010) has been rejected by this Court on 14/9/2011. For the reasons stated therein, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to cost.” 5. In this view of the situation, as Ld. CIT(A) has followed the decisions of Tribunal on the issue which are in favour of the assessee and those decisions having been confirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we see no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). The department appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 7th day of Sept. 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1061 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t Singh,Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. We see no reason to interfere on the facts and circumstances of this case. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1060 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Arbitration proceedings - Held that:- Subject matter of the lis unless determined by the last Court, cannot be said to have attained finality. Grant of stay of operation of the judgment may not be of much relevance once the Supreme Court grants special leave and decides to hear the matter on merits. The aforesaid proposition was invoked to hold that the provision contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act was available to the respondent.
The said principle cannot be invoked by the appellant to require this Court to stay its hands and not to proceed to dispose of the objection petition, or even this appeal, particularly when the issues raised by the appellant have attained finality insofar as this Court is concerned. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforesaid applications as well as the present appeal.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1059 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t department filed appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 28.9.2011 confirmed the order of the Tribunal that sale consideration received by the assessee as well as by co-owners was on account of sale of capital assets. 6. In view of above facts and following the order of the Tribunal which has been confirmed by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Krishan Premnarayan (supra), we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) that the consideration received by the assessee from redevelopment of the property is to be taxed under the head “capital gains” and not “business income”. It is relevant to state that department has not disputed that the facts of the assessee are identical to the facts in respect of co-owner of the same property. Hence, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by rejecting grounds of appeal taken by department. 7. In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1058 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and whether it satisfies the requirement of sec 2(15). In these circumstances we remit the matter to the DIT(E) to reconsider the application of the assessee and decide whether terms and conditions of the trust is of the charitable nature and would fall within the definition of charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and in accordance with sec 12AA. 14. This appeal is filed by the assessee for rejection of their application to grant approval under Section 80G(5)(vi). As approval u/s 80G is consequential to the Trust being granted registration u/s 12AA and In line with our decision in the appeal in ITA No 573/H/12 regarding rejection of registration of the trust under Section 12AA, we remit this issue to the file of DIT(E) for considering the matter afresh on the basis of his decision for granting of registration under Section 12AA to the assessee. 15. In the result, both the appeals ITA No 573/Hyd/12 and 574/H/2012 filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1057 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... or the use of the licence, trade mark and technical information for a particular period. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.” 8. Respectfully following the order of this Tribunal for the earlier assessment years, claim of the assessee has to be allowed for the impugned assessment year as well. Hence, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 stands allowed, whereas, the related ground of the Revenue stands dismissed.” 5. Thus, this Tribunal had followed its own order for earlier assessment years on the same issue. We are, therefore, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was well justified in treating the royalty payments made to M/s Chevron Oronite Company LLC USA as nothing but revenue expenditure, not resulting in any acquisition of intangible assets. 6. Appeals of the Revenue being devoid of any merits, are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 6th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1056 - ITAT MUMBAI
Allowing business expenses - there was no business in existence during the year as the assessee was debarred by SEBI to carry out business activities Tribunal rendered on similar issues in the case of sister concerns of the assessee company. As regards the issue involved in ground No.1 relating to existence of business, he has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s KNP Securities (P) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI) to hold that the business of the assessee company was neither discontinued nor closed down and, therefore, the expenses incurred in relation to the said business were allowable as deduction.
Head of income - under which head interest and miscellaneous income is assessable to tax in the hands of the assessee? - Held that:- As the business had not closed and the claim of expenditure had to be allowed. Respectfully following the said decision of the tribunal we hold that the business of the assessee had not been closed in the relevant year and therefore FDRs had to be treated as pledged in connection with the business which was in existence and therefore the interest income had to be treated as incidental business income.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1055 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... this amount was that the said gain does not form part of eligible income as the same is assessable as income from other sources. This issue was set at rest by the decision of the Special Bench referred to in the order passed by the Tribunal. It cannot also be said that Tribunal did not take into consideration the grievance of the revenue as mentioned in para numbered as (b) as we have reproduced para 2 of the order of the Tribunal in which this grievance is also mentioned. The revenue by way of miscellaneous application is now seeking to improve the case of AO which was not the case of AO at the time of framing the assessment. As the issue has been well considered and while deciding the same the decision of Special Bench has followed, we find no mistake in the order of the Tribunal as has been alleged by the revenue. The application filed by the revenue being devoid of the matter is dismissed. 7. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1054 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... r to the assessee firm, yet we are unable to accept the said contention for three reasons viz., (a) Shri A.Jabir is the son of the managing partner of the assessee firm, (b) the sales man of the assessee firm has confirmed that Shri A.Jabir only fixes the selling rate and (c) management of business affairs by the family members who are not legal owners is not uncommon in the trade circles. Hence, on a conspectus of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 10. The other two additions relate to the proportionate disallowance of telephone and car expenses towards personal use of the partners. In the absence of any evidence to show that they were not used for personal purposes, we do not find any infirmity in making estimated disallowance of a portion of the telephone and car expenses. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 11. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 07-09-2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1053 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Port in order to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA. Therefore, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court never discussed anything with regard to the works contractor or such contractor is eligible for the deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the Act. The case before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court was that of an assessee who was a developer and the only dispute was whether the assessee was to develop the entire Port or not. In those circumstances the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that it is not necessary for an assessee to develop the entire port in order to qualify for deduction under section 80-IA. Therefore this decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions, the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be allowed and we do so. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1052 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee when it purchased the shares? If the dominant intention was to carry on an adventure in the nature of business, the profit can be taxed; otherwise not. In other words, the question is whether the assessee purchased the share in a commercial spirit with a view to make profit by trading in them. The Tribunal found, after taking into account all the relevant circumstances that the dominant intention of the assessee was to make profit by resale of the shares and not to make an investment." 6. Consideringthe aforesaid dictum vis-a-vis the findings given, it is clear that the intention of assessee was not to carry on business; it was clearly a case of investments, which were made. Findings of CIT(A) and ITAT are based on facts which cannot be said to be perverse, rather appear to be correct and in accordance with the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court. Thus, we find that no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1051 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... Officer has also considered the long term capital gains of ₹ 6,74,532/- as exempt income in the hands of the assessee. However, the said long term capital gain was subjected to STT tax paid on the sale consideration of the said shares sold by the assessee. So what is to be taken into account in relation to the exempt income in the hands of the assessee is only dividend income of ₹ 61,125/- which according to the assessee is out of investment made in the earlier year, which were sold during the year under consideration and the long term capital gain on the said sale was declared. We accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the deduction under section 14A of the Act keeping in mind that the total dividend income received by the assessee is only ₹ 61,125/-. The ground No.1b) raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14t h day of September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1050 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pleting departmental proceedings is by itself is no grounds to quash a suspension order, but at the same time, the issue of delay has to be factored along with such other contentions which the suspended civil servant projects with reference to the facts. It then becomes the duty of the decision making authority to take an informed decision, which would mean to take note of the admittedly relevant facts and circumstances, which in this case are the six facts and circumstances, highlighted by the Tribunal in its order dated December 16, 2011, all of which do not find a mention in the decision which has been quashed by the Tribunal, and for which we would only state even CBI has failed to comment upon; resulting in an uncanny feeling generated in a judicial mind that neither CBI nor the department has an answer to the same. 19. We accordingly dismiss the writ petition in limine and while so doing we allay the fears in the mind of the petitioners to pay back-wages. 20. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1049 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Exemption u/s.11 - directing acceptance of audit report from the assessee - Held that:- The question whether it is permissible to the assessee to produce the audit report at the appellate stage, has already been answered by this court in CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries Ltd. [1992 (9) TMI 67 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein it is held that the provision regarding furnishing of audit report along with the return has to be treated as a procedural provision. It is directory in nature and its substantial compliance would suffice. In that case, the assessee had not produced the audit report along with the return of income, but produced before completion of the assessment.
Benefit of exemption should not be denied merely on account of delay in furnishing the same, and it is permissible for the assessee to produce the audit report at a later stage either before the Income Tax Officer or before the appellate authority by showing a sufficient cause - decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 1048 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... squo;. Hence, the receipts on letting of it is to be taxed under the head ‘income from other sources’ on the basis of the decisions of the Tribunal in the earlier year and also on the basis of he principal of consistency. Once the rental income on letting out is taxed under the head ‘income from other sources depreciation.” o p /o p iii) As the issue before us is similar which has been decided by the Hon’ble Tribunal referred supra in the assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment year, we have no hesitation in directing the AO to treat the hire charges in respect of fitouts let-out to the tenants as income from ‘other sources’. It is ordered accordingly.” o p /o p 15. Respectfully following the same, this ground of appeal is also rejected. o p /o p 16. In the result, the cross appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 14th Sept, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1047 - ITAT-MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0B on the profits of the current year without setting off the unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses as claimed by the assessee. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed whereas the solitary ground raised in the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. As regards the remaining ground No.2 raised in the appeal of the assessee relating to assessee’s claim for credit of TDS of ₹ 19,603/-, the learned counsel for the assessee has sought a limited relief by way of direction to the AO to allow such credit after verifying the relevant record. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee for credit of TDS of ₹ 19,603/- in accordance with law after verifying the relevant record. Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1046 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... appears to be erroneous. It is also observed from the appellate order that the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion in Pages 4 and 5 of the appellate order that the retraction had no value in the eyes of law. Entire investigation shows that Revenue was prejudiced. Still ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the appellant waiving penalty on flimsy ground. 2. Notice is hereby issued to the appellant to show cause why the penalty imposed by Adjudication Order shall not be sustained. Reply of the appellant should be filed before Tribunal by 30th October, 2012 for consideration. 3. Ld. Counsel submits that when Revenue is not in appeal for which show cause notice need not be issued. Appellant’s contention shall be considered only upon receipt of reply to show cause notice issued today. The reasoning given by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) not being in accordance with law, this show cause notice has been issued. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
............
|
