|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1126 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Grant of benefit under Section 10-B - Held that:- It appears that the assessee had claimed the benefit of Section 10-B on the basis of the provisions which pertains to Section 10-A. AO must in fairness consider the documents on the basis of the claim and ascertain whether they are proper and after verifying them, pass appropriate order as to whether the benefit of Section 10-A can be granted.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1125 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... see. We further find that the assessee’s case is also squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the ITAT in the following cases 1) ITO Vs. Shri Javerilal Dalichand Chhajed, ITA No. 326/PN/2010 dated 8/11/2011 2) Shri Venugopal Vs. Katti, ITA No. 4090/Bangalore/2001 dated 15.2.2012 3) ITO Vs. Rohit Kumar, ITA No. 969/Ahd/2010 dt.5/5/2011, ITAT, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad, We find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 4. Moreover, as rightly submitted by the Ld Counsel, the Board has accepted the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan (Supra) and has issued the Circular to that effect. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the assessee and direct the A.O to allow exemption as provided u/s. 10(10C) of the Act. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21st November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1124 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... see. We further find that the assessee’s case is also squarely covered by the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of the ITAT in the following cases 1) ITO Vs. Shri Javerilal Dalichand Chhajed, ITA No. 326/PN/2010 dated 8/11/2011 2) Shri Venugopal Vs. Katti, ITA No. 4090/Bangalore/2001 dated 15.2.2012 3) ITO Vs. Rohit Kumar, ITA No. 969/Ahd/2010 dt.5/5/2011, ITAT, “A” Bench, Ahmedabad, We find no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 4. Moreover, as rightly submitted by the Ld Counsel, the Board has accepted the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Koodathil Kallyatan Ambujakshan (Supra) and had issued the Circular to that effect. We, therefore, allow the appeal filed by the assessee and direct the A.O to allow exemption as provided u/s. 10(10C) of the Act. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21st November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1123 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Application for stay - Cenvat credit - Input services - Rule 2(1) of CCR, 2004 - Held that; - in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. - [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that any service which has nexus with the business activity of the appellant, whether it is manufacturing or rendering service, has to be treated as "input service" coming within the purview of Rule 2(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - Appeal allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1122 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ied with by the assessee. The another objection of the Assessing Officer that the assessee is not engaged in the manufacture or production of article or thing, therefore, it does not qualify for deduction u/s 10B is also not proper because the amendment in section 10B w.e.f. 1.4.2001 is very clear and after such amendment, the export of computer software / programme is also eligible for deduction under the section, subject to the conditions laid down therein. Even otherwise, there is uncontroverted finding in the impugned order that such conditions have also been complied with by the assessee, consequently, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) and more specifically, while on identical facts in earlier years, such deduction is allowed by the department, therefore, we find no merit in the appeal of the Revenue. The stand of the ld. CIT (A) is affirmed. 4. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1121 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Claim deduction u/s.80IB(10) - Held that:- The open terrace area cannot form part of the built up area, in the result, the assessee would be entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB(10) of the Act.
As far as the Revenue's contention that for the purpose of Section 80-IB(10) deduction, the assessee should have owned the property is concerned is liable to be rejected.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1120 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... thala Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT has not concluded in whose hands transactions are to be taxed and which transactions are to be taxed. Similar is the position about sundry creditors, depositors, advances against plots. Since Ld. CIT has not pointed out what errors have been committed. Information asked for during assessment proceedings has been provided and examined by the AO. No decision about the erroneous nature of the order has been taken by Ld. CIT and therefore, the order passed in all the years in the case of all the assessees mentioned hereinabove are bad in law. Accordingly, all the grounds in all the appeals in the case of all the assessee are allowed. 11. In the result, the appeals in the case of Sh. Parminder Singh in ITA Nos.210 to 214(Asr)/2012, in the case of M/s. Kapurthala Estates Pvt. Ltd; in ITA Nos.205 to 209(Asr)/2012 and in the case of M/s. Kapurthala Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd in ITA Nos. 202 to 204(Asr)/2012 are allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... R In our order dated 30/10/2012 in Paragraph 3 inadvertently Article-8 is typed instead of Article-7. The error is corrected accordingly.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1118 - ITAT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... the apportionment. While making that determination, the Assessing Officer should provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of producing its accounts and relevant or germane material having a bearing on the facts and circumstances of the case. This very issue was considered by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in ITA No.972/Bang/2011 in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08. We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Syndicate Bank (supra) and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra), restore this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue afresh by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 35. In the result, the revenue's appeal in ITA No.621/Bang/2011 is partly allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1117 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Can proportionate deduction under Section 80IB(1)(c) be allowed for flats in consolidated residential units with area more and less than 1500 sq.ft. - held that:- the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression "housing project" as referred u/s 80IB(10) - the mere fact that one of the blocks have units exceeding built-up area of 1500 sq.ft would not result in nullifying the claim of the assessee for the entire projects - Decision of Bombay High Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Pune Versus M/s. Brahma Associates, [2011 (2) TMI 373 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in the favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1116 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... before us the assessee could not supply the copy of the bank statements from which the amount has been transmitted to India. But the fact is that payment Of ₹ 1644426.00 has been made to the School therefore it is on the assessee to explain the sources from which the payments have been made. Considering the facts in totality, in our humble opinion, the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) therefore addition of ₹ 16,44,426/- is confirmed. This ground of the assessee is dismissed. As the person is the same from whom the school fees have been claimed to have been paid and the source and the genuineness of the transaction has not been accepted by us in the earlier year, following our own findings, ground No.8 is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1115 - ITAT DELHI
Additions u/s 68 - introduction of unaccounted money in the books of accounts - Held that:- The assessee had accepted share application money through banking channel and had filed details regarding the companies. - AO without going into the documents and without conducting any enquiry rejected the details and made the addition - CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions - Decision in the case of Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd. [2013 (4) TMI 571 - DELHI HIGH COURT] followed - Decided against the revenue.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1114 - ITAT PUNE
Reopening of assessment - Held that:- Proper course of action available before the AO was notice u/s.153C and not 148 - We accordingly quash the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s.147/148 by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The legal ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1113 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower authority and also the instructions contained in the C.B.E. & C. circular. He further submits that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court has been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court but there is no stay obtained against the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court. 5. Considered the submissions made by both the sides and also perused the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Sai Samhita Storages Pvt. Ltd. and Navaratna S.G. Highway Prop. Ltd. (cited supra) and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sai Samhita Storages Pvt. Ltd. (cited supra). We are of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against them. Accordingly, we grant unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1112 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Adoption of correct Market value of the property for computation of capital gain - application of section 50C where the property was sold before 1.4.2003 but the sales deed was executed on 25.11.2005 - submission of additional evidence not filed by the assessee before the AO - Held that:- u/s 2(47)(v) a notional or artificial transfer takes place on the day when possession is transferred in terms of sec 53A of the Transfer of Property Act - when the vendor gives the possession of property to purchaser, it is to be considered that the transfer is complete on the date of agreement of sale - As per the sale deed the possession of the property has been given to the purchaser on the date of sale deed, hence there cannot be handing over of the same property at two times - The AO is directed to consider all the documents produced by the assessee before the CIT(A) while deciding the issue - Matter remanded back.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1111 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Corporation is a company registered under the Companies Act and is primarily liable to pay tax under the Act. 11. The appellant, as well as the Corporation entered into an agreement. It provides that the general terms and conditions will be applicable. 12. Clause 8.11 (see below) of general terms and conditions provides that the transporter will be liable to pay any tax/obligation/surcharge imposed by the State Government or by the Central Government. Thus, under the contract, the Appellant is liable to pay the Service Tax. 13. In view of the above, in case the Corporation has issued notices to the Appellant to pay the Service Tax in consonance with the contract, the notices cannot be faulted. There is no illegality. It is also permissible as held by the Supreme Court in Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 306 2012 (26) S.T.R. 289 (S.C.). 14. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1110 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on such a short date, namely on 3-12-2012, the authority could have taken up the appeal itself on 3-12-2012 instead of ordering pre-deposit. Therefore, in this case, such a direction to pre-deposit 50 of the Cenvat credit for the purpose of hearing the appeal is totally un-called for. 8. Mr. Vikram Ramakrishan, learned counsel for the respondent states that if the Court is inclined to set aside the order as above, the petitioner may be directed to appear on the next hearing date without fail and the authority will hear and pass order on the stay petition thereafter. The said statement is recorded. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent to decide the stay petition of take up the appeal without pre-deposit, as the case may be, on an appropriate date to be fixed by the authority at its convenience. 10. The writ petition is allowed by way of remand. No costs consequently, M.P. No. 1 of 2012 is closed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1109 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as per law”. 9. Since the subsequent order passed by AO was cancelled, the order dated 10.02.2010 originally after withdrawal of objections is the valid order and the appeal preferred before the CIT (A) was correctly made within the time as prescribed under the provisions of the Act. As DRP did not give any direction and allowed the objections to be withdrawn, it can not be stated that assessee exercised option to prefer objections before DRP. We are of the opinion that the CIT (A) committed an error in not admitting the appeal. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) with a direction to admit the appeal and adjudicate the matter on merits. With these directions, the grounds to that extent are considered allowed. Since the matter is restored to the file of the CIT (A) to consider the appeal on merits, the grounds raised on merits of the addition made by AO are not adjudicated. 10. In the result the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1108 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Disallowance of provision for Leave encashment u/s 43B(f) - provisional liability or not - Held that:- An employer is entitled for deduction for the expenditure he incurs for running his business in the form of perquisites as it is trading liability - the provisions made on account of leave encashment should be allowed although the liability may have to be quantified and discharged at a future date - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1107 - ITAT MUMBAI
TP - Determination of arms length price - disallowance of Royalty amount - whether contract manufacturer or an independent manufacturer - safe harbor limit of +/- 5% - Held that:- Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. EKL Appliances [in ITA No.1068/70/2011] - assessee is having proper license to manufacture products and hence cannot be considered as contract manufacturing - royalty has to be made for technology transfer which was approved by the RBI at 5% on value addition made by assessee in the manufacturing process - The rule does not authorize the TPO to disallow any expenditure on the ground that it was not necessary or prudent for assessee to have incurred the same - As royalty is paid for allowing assessee in utilizing the technical knowhow and the license for manufacturing activity - the payment of royalty is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business - Hence Royalty is allowed as claimed - decided in favor of assessee
TP adjustment shall be within the safe harbor limit of +/- 5% - The TPO determined ALP at NIL which is at 100% variation - 5% royalty rate is at arm length price - assessee's payment of royalty cannot be disallowed invoking the TP provisions - Decided in the favor of assessee
............
|
