|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1247 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1058
Issues involved: Rejection of registration u/s 12AA and refusal of approval u/s 80G.
Rejection of registration u/s 12AA: The appellant, a trust, filed two appeals against the orders of DIT(E), Hyderabad, rejecting their application for registration u/s 12AA and refusal to grant approval u/s 80G. The DIT(E) contended that no valid trust was created, citing reasons such as non-transfer of corpus fund by the settler and the trust being an extension of another institute. The DIT(E) also raised concerns about the purchase of assets and non-production of books of account. The Tribunal emphasized that the primary examination for registration is to ensure charitable objects and absence of profit motive. They disagreed with the DIT(E)'s reasons for rejection, stating that belated payment, association with another institute, and invoice issues were not sufficient grounds. The matter was remitted back to the DIT(E) for reconsideration based on charitable nature and compliance with sec 2(15).
Refusal of approval u/s 80G: The appeal against the rejection of approval u/s 80G was remitted to the DIT(E) for fresh consideration following the decision on registration u/s 12AA. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for a thorough examination of charitable nature and compliance with relevant sections for trust registration and approval.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1057
Issues involved:
The issue in this case revolves around the treatment of royalty payments made by the assessee to a company as revenue expenditure, disregarding the requirement of considering it as an acquisition of an intangible asset under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
1. Background and Sole Grievance of Revenue:
The Revenue filed appeals against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding royalty payments made by the assessee. The Revenue's main contention was that the CIT(Appeals) treated the royalty payments as revenue expenditure, contrary to the provisions of Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act.
2. Tribunal's Previous Decision:
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in an earlier order. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision where it held that royalty payments were not capital expenditure but rather revenue expenditure, based on the specific circumstances of the case.
3. Consistency in Tribunal's Decisions:
The Tribunal reiterated its stance from previous assessments, where it had ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the treatment of royalty payments as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal found no justification for considering the payments as capital expenditure, affirming the CIT(Appeals)'s decision.
4. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeals:
Based on the consistent approach taken in previous decisions, the Tribunal upheld the treatment of royalty payments as revenue expenditure and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The order was pronounced in Chennai on September 6, 2012.
This summary highlights the key points of the judgment, emphasizing the Tribunal's consistent interpretation of royalty payments as revenue expenditure in line with previous decisions.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1056
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
Issues involved: Revenue's claim of failure to consider Ground No.2 raised u/s 10A deduction on profit due to foreign exchange claim.
Consideration of Ground No.2: The revenue raised two grounds for consideration by the Tribunal regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 10A on profit related to foreign exchange claim and the eligibility of the assessee for the deduction u/s 10A. The Tribunal observed the grievance of the revenue and disposed of the issue in favor of the assessee based on a Special Bench decision which clarified that foreign exchange gain related to export is part of turnover and eligible for deduction under section 80 HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Eligibility for Deduction u/s 10A: The AO allowed the assessee a deduction u/s 10A after excluding the foreign exchange amount. The AO's observation stated that the foreign exchange gain was considered as income derived from business activity, but the AO did not exclude this amount from the eligible deduction under section 10A based on the remand report's facts. The Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 10A and dismissed the revenue's claim that the foreign exchange gain should not be part of the eligible income for deduction.
Decision and Dismissal: The Tribunal found no mistake in its order as alleged by the revenue in the miscellaneous application. The Tribunal noted that the revenue sought to improve the AO's case, which was not the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the issue was well-considered, the Special Bench decision was followed, and the revenue's application lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1054
Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of sales
2. Disallowance of motorcar expenses
3. Disallowance of telephone expenses
Summary:
1. Suppression of Sales:
The assessee challenged the decision of the CIT(A) confirming the additions related to the suppression of sales. The department conducted search and seizure operations, during which documents related to the assessee were seized, leading to assessment proceedings u/s 153C. Statements from Shri A.Jabir and Shri V.Ahamed indicated that sales invoices were raised at half the selling rate, suggesting suppression of sales. The AO estimated suppressed sales and added them to the total income, which the CIT(A) confirmed. The assessee argued that reliance on these statements was misplaced as Shri A.Jabir was not directly involved with the firm, and no material evidence of suppression was found. However, the CIT(A) and AO corroborated the suppression with other evidence, including price tags and erratic Gross Profit rates, leading to the conclusion that suppression was systematic. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld the additions.
2. Disallowance of Motorcar Expenses:
The AO made proportionate disallowance of motorcar expenses towards personal use by the partners. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, and the Tribunal upheld the decision, citing the absence of evidence to show that the expenses were not used for personal purposes.
3. Disallowance of Telephone Expenses:
Similarly, the AO disallowed a portion of telephone expenses for personal use by the partners. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision, maintaining the disallowance due to lack of evidence proving exclusive business use.
Conclusion:
All the appeals of the assessee were dismissed, and the Tribunal pronounced the judgment accordingly on 07-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1053
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Interpretation of the term "developer" versus "works contractor."
3. Retrospective effect of Explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80-IA.
Summary:
1. Eligibility for deduction u/s 80-IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee company, engaged in infrastructure construction, claimed a deduction u/s 80-IA(4) for developing a water treatment plant. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, arguing that the assessee was merely executing a works contract for the Chennai Metro Water Supply & Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) and not developing the infrastructure facility.
2. Interpretation of the term "developer" versus "works contractor":
The CIT(Appeals) reversed the Assessing Officer's decision, stating that the assessee fulfilled all conditions u/s 80-IA(4) and was eligible for the deduction. The CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's decision in Patel Engineering Ltd., which held that a contractor could also be considered a developer if they developed infrastructure facilities as per an agreement with a government body.
3. Retrospective effect of Explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80-IA:
The Tribunal noted that the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 added an Explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80-IA with retrospective effect from 1-04-2000, clarifying that works contractors are not eligible for the deduction u/s 80-IA(4). The Tribunal referenced the case of The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., which upheld this Explanation, thereby denying the deduction to works contractors.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee, being a works contractor, was not eligible for the deduction u/s 80-IA(4) as per the retrospective Explanation to sub-section (13) of Section 80-IA. The CIT(A)'s reliance on Patel Engineering Ltd. was deemed incorrect due to the subsequent legislative amendment. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed, restoring the Assessing Officer's order.
Order:
The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 28th of September, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1052
Issues involved: Determination of whether profit earned from transactions of shares and mutual funds should be considered as capital gain or business income.
Summary:
The High Court considered the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue regarding the classification of profit earned from transactions of shares and mutual funds. The appellant argued that the substantial investments made over several years should be treated as income from business rather than capital gain, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. After thorough consideration of the arguments and reviewing the orders passed by various authorities, including the Assessing officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the ITAT, the High Court concluded that the intention of the assessee was always to hold the shares as investments. The CIT(A) provided detailed reasoning supporting this conclusion, highlighting the history of the assessee's share transactions and the acceptance of shares as investments in previous years by the Department.
The High Court affirmed the reasons given by the CIT(A) and found them to be appropriate. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case, the High Court emphasized that the dominant intention behind purchasing shares should determine whether the profit is taxable. In this case, it was evident that the assessee's intention was not to carry on business but to make investments. The findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT were deemed to be correct and in line with the Supreme Court's decision, indicating that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the classification of profit earned from transactions of shares and mutual funds as capital gains based on the assessee's intention and the factual findings presented by the authorities.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1051
Issues Involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Ludhiana u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09. Grounds of appeal include disallowances of interest expenditure and addition u/s 14A.
Disallowance of Interest Expenditure:
The assessee, a partnership firm, claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 7,56,445. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,58,007 based on days balances were advanced to partners and sister concern. The CIT (Appeals) upheld this. The assessee argued no interest was paid on partner balances and no new loans were raised. The ITAT found no merit in charging interest on negative partner balances, directing deletion of the addition.
Addition u/s 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 29,128 under section 14A for exempt dividend income and long term capital gains. The ITAT directed re-computation considering only dividend income of Rs. 61,125 as exempt. Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules was applied. The ITAT partly allowed this ground.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, directing deletion of interest disallowance on partner balances and re-computation of section 14A disallowance based on actual exempt income. The order was pronounced on September 14, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1050
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the continued suspension of the respondent.
2. Compliance with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Special Review Committee for continued suspension.
Summary:
1. Legality of the continued suspension of the respondent:
The respondent, a 1985 batch officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was initially suspended on December 28, 1999. This suspension was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on January 17, 2003, with liberty to the appellants to pass a fresh order. The respondent was again suspended on April 25, 2003. The law requires reassessment of continued suspension every six months. By 2010, the respondent had been suspended for 10 years and filed OA No.2842/2010 before the CAT, which was decided on December 16, 2011. The CAT noted that 12 years had lapsed and important aspects were ignored in the decision to continue the suspension. The CAT issued exhaustive directions to the Special Review Committee to reconsider the matter, allowing the Committee to obtain the view of CBI.
2. Compliance with the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT):
The Special Review Committee reconsidered the matter and passed an order on January 12, 2012, recommending continued suspension without obtaining comments from the CBI. After receiving comments from the CBI, the Committee passed another order on February 03, 2012, reiterating the decision to continue the suspension. The respondent then filed OA No.495/2012 before the CAT, which quashed the decision of the Special Review Committee. The CAT found that the Committee had failed to comply with its directions and had ignored relevant facts and contentions put forward by the respondent.
3. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Special Review Committee for continued suspension:
The CAT found that the order dated February 03, 2012, lacked reasons and merely copied historical facts and CBI's views without addressing the specific directions issued by the CAT. The Tribunal noted that the Competent Authority did not provide a reasoned and speaking order as required. The High Court agreed with the CAT's decision, highlighting the absence of discussions and reasons in the impugned orders. The Court emphasized that the process of accountability should not become a test of the civil servant's patience and that relevant facts and circumstances must be considered in decision-making.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, agreeing with the CAT's decision to quash the continued suspension of the respondent. The Court clarified that the petitioners are not required to pay back-wages and emphasized the need for a reasoned decision-making process that considers all relevant facts and circumstances. No costs were awarded.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1049
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
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of compounding fees.
2. Deletion of addition made on a protective basis as income from other sources.
3. Classification of rental income from Forum Mall and Eva Mall.
4. Classification of hire charges in respect of fit-outs.
Summary:
1. Disallowance of Compounding Fees:
The assessee was aggrieved by the CIT(A)'s order confirming the disallowance of compounding fees of Rs. 5,02,570/- paid to B.M.P, holding it to be prohibited by law and thus not allowable. The Tribunal noted that this issue was covered against the assessee by its own decision for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2003-04, which was also confirmed by the learned DR. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in Mamta Enterprises, which held that compounding fees paid for violations of sanctioned plans are not allowable as they are considered penalties for infractions of law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal on this ground.
2. Deletion of Addition Made on Protective Basis as Income from Other Sources:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition made on a protective basis as income from other sources. The Tribunal referred to its decision for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that the addition of Rs. 7.33 crores made on a protective basis was not justified as the issue had reached finality with the Tribunal's direction to accept the project completion method of accounting for the year under reference. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition, and the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
3. Classification of Rental Income from Forum Mall and Eva Mall:
The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to assess the rental receipt from Forum Mall and Eva Mall as income from Profits and Gains from Business/Professions instead of income from House Property. The Tribunal referred to its decision for the assessment year 2005-06, where it was held that the income from the Mall should be assessed under the head 'income from business' based on the nature of the agreements and the services provided. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
4. Classification of Hire Charges in Respect of Fit-Outs:
The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to assess the hire charges in respect of fit-outs let out to tenants as income from other sources. The Tribunal referred to its decision for the assessment year 2004-05, where it was held that such hire charges should be treated as income from other sources based on the principle of consistency and the nature of the transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all the issues involved. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14th Sept, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1047
Issues involved: Cross appeals u/s 10B deduction computation.
Issue 1 - Computation of deduction u/s 10B:
The assessee, a chemical manufacturing company, filed its return claiming exemption u/s 10B. The AO noted that the assessee did not set off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation before claiming the deduction u/s 10B. The AO set off the losses and depreciation against the business income, restricting the deduction u/s 10B. The CIT(A) held that unabsorbed depreciation should be set off against current year's profit, but directed the AO to compute the deduction u/s 10B without setting off brought forward business losses. Both the assessee and Revenue appealed. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in favor of the assessee for a similar issue and a Bombay High Court decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. Following the High Court decision, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10B without setting off the losses and depreciation, as claimed by the assessee. The assessee's appeal on this issue was allowed, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Issue 2 - Credit of TDS:
The assessee also raised a ground regarding the claim for credit of TDS. The counsel for the assessee requested the AO to allow the credit after verifying the relevant records. The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and allow the claim for credit of TDS. The assessee's appeal on this ground was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
In conclusion, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed regarding the computation of deduction u/s 10B and the claim for credit of TDS.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1046
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the grant of relief to the appellant without proper examination of the law on clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty, and the value of retraction in the eyes of the law.
Grant of Relief without Proper Examination of Law on Clandestine Removal:
The appellate authority granted relief to the appellant without examining the law relating to clandestine removal. The judgment mentions that fiscal proceedings are governed by the principles of preponderance of probability, and once the shortage was established, it should hold against the appellant to confirm the duty levied. The conclusion of the appellate authority to waive the penalty on flimsy grounds was considered erroneous. The judgment cites cases where relief to an evader is considered a bonus, indicating that the relief granted was not in accordance with the law.
Imposition of Penalty and Value of Retraction:
A notice was issued to the appellant to show cause why the penalty imposed by the Adjudication Order should not be sustained. The appellant's reply was required to be filed before the Tribunal for consideration. The appellant's contention was to be considered only upon receipt of the reply to the show cause notice. The judgment highlights that the reasoning given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not in accordance with the law, leading to the issuance of the show cause notice.
Conclusion:
The judgment addresses the improper grant of relief without proper examination of the law on clandestine removal, the imposition of penalty, and the value of retraction in the eyes of the law. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal principles and procedures in fiscal proceedings, penalty imposition, and consideration of appellant's contentions.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1045
Issues involved: The Revenue filed four appeals against the CIT(A)'s order for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2008-09 & 2009-2010, with common grounds.
Issue 1: Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the A.O. to treat the assessee as investor instead of trader based on the nature of the assessee's business as "General Trading" as per the Auditor's report on form No.3CD.
The assessee had been declaring shares as investment since 2001-02, valuing them at cost in the balance sheet. The shares were held for appreciation, not commercial motive, with no borrowings used for purchases. The frequency of purchase and sale did not change the nature of the transactions. The assessee's status as an investor was upheld based on various factors, including the nature of transactions and valuation methods.
Issue 2: Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the A.O. to treat the assessee as investor instead of trader considering the expenses claimed in the P&L account indicating trading activity.
The consistent treatment of shares as investments, declaration of capital gains, and dividend income, along with valuation at cost, supported the assessee's status as an investor. The absence of loans for purchases and delivery-based transactions further reinforced this classification.
Issue 3: Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the A.O. to treat the assessee as investor instead of trader based on the acceptance of the assessee's claim in earlier years and the subsequent rejection in a later assessment.
The department's inability to show any material change justifying a different view, coupled with the assessee's consistent treatment of shares as investments, led to the affirmation of the investor status. The decision in the assessee's favor was supported by the facts and legal precedents cited.
Issue 4: Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the A.O. to treat the assessee as investor instead of trader considering the books of account and stock summary indicating trading motives.
The valuation of shares at cost, absence of borrowed funds for purchases, and holding period exceeding 30 days demonstrated the investment nature of the transactions. The lack of material changes in treatment over the years supported the assessee's classification as an investor.
Issue 5: Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the A.O. to treat the assessee as investor instead of trader based on the frequency of share transactions suggesting stock-in-trade rather than investments.
The holding period, valuation method, absence of borrowed funds, and delivery-based transactions all pointed towards the assessee's status as an investor. The consistent treatment of shares as investments and the nature of transactions supported the decision in favor of the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross objections. The decision was based on the consistent treatment of shares as investments, valuation at cost, and other factors supporting the assessee's status as an investor.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1044
Issues involved: Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of excess stock surrendered during survey u/s. 133A and addition of Rs. 40,44,492 on account of bogus sundry creditors.
Addition of Rs. 10,00,000 on account of excess stock surrendered during survey u/s. 133A:
The Assessing Officer made the addition as the assessee surrendered Rs. 10,00,000 on account of excess stock during a survey u/s. 133A, which was not disclosed in the income tax return. The assessee contended that the statement during the survey was taken under pressure and had no evidentiary value. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the addition was unjustified as no discrepancies were found in the trading account and the books of accounts were duly audited. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, citing that the statement during the survey had no evidentiary value, as per the decision of the Madras High Court in C.I.T. vs. S. Khader Khan Son.
Addition of Rs. 40,44,492 on account of bogus sundry creditors:
The Assessing Officer added the amount of Rs. 40,44,492 as bogus sundry creditors, stating that the assessee failed to provide confirmations from the creditors and the transactions lacked genuineness. However, the assessee submitted that confirmations were not received due to insufficient time provided by the Assessing Officer, and all necessary details were submitted during the appellate proceedings. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found the additions unjustified, noting that all transactions were supported by vouchers and no discrepancies were found. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee had provided all relevant details during the appellate proceedings, and the addition of unexplained sundry creditors was not sustainable.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the decisions of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in both issues.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1043
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are related to the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Assessment Year 2007-08:
The appellant contested the disallowance of expenses under section 14A by the Assessing Officer, invoking Rule 8D. The appellant argued that Rule 8D was not applicable for the assessment year 2007-08 based on a decision of the Bombay High Court. The appellant also contended that there was no nexus between interest paid on borrowed funds and exempt income. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's submissions and a previous order, set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter in line with the High Court decision. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Assessment Year 2008-09:
Similar to the previous year, the appellant challenged the disallowance of expenses under section 14A by the Assessing Officer using Rule 8D. The appellant argued that no expenditure, including interest, was incurred for earning exempt income. The Tribunal referred to a co-ordinate bench decision and emphasized that the Assessing Officer must verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee before applying Rule 8D. The Tribunal directed the matter to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer in accordance with the observations made in the co-ordinate bench decision. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Conclusion:
In both assessment years, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the disallowance of expenses under section 14A in light of the High Court decision and the requirement to verify the correctness of the assessee's claim before applying Rule 8D.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1042
Issues involved: Appeals against deletion of penalties u/s 271G and 271AA of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06.
Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271G
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing/sale of dry cells, faced penalty proceedings under section 271G for failure to furnish information and documents within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,77,200, citing contravention of the Act's provisions. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, considering the company's explanations and circumstances beyond its control, such as the sudden departure of the Company Secretary affecting document submission timelines. The Commissioner found that the details furnished were sufficient, no revenue loss occurred, and the company had reasonable cause for the delay. The Coordinate Bench order supported the deletion of the penalty, emphasizing the reasonable cause for the delay due to the employee turnover.
Issue 2: Penalty u/s 271AA
Similarly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271AA against the assessee for failure to maintain information and documents as required under section 92D of the Act. The Assessing Officer imposed the same penalty as under section 271G. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also deleted this penalty, noting that the company had furnished details in time, maintained records as per the Act, and no revenue loss was incurred. The Commissioner held that the company had reasonable cause for the delay and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 35,77,200 levied u/s 271AA.
In both cases, the Revenue challenged the deletion of penalties by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 271G and 271AA. The arguments raised by both parties were duly considered, and it was observed that there were no adjustments in the international transactions of the assessee. The circumstances leading to the delay in document submission were deemed beyond the company's control, specifically due to the sudden departure of the Company Secretary. The Coordinate Bench order supported the deletion of penalties, emphasizing the reasonable cause for the delay. Consequently, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, affirming the deletion of penalties by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
-
2012 (9) TMI 1041
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the valuation of goods for customs duty, determination of quantity basis for duty calculation, refund entitlement, delay in appeal filing, and direction for expeditious disposal of stay application.
Valuation of goods for customs duty:
The petitioner entered into an agreement for export of Iron Ore Fines with a foreign buyer. The Assessing Officer enhanced the valuation of goods without providing any reason, leading to excess duty payment by the petitioner. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal, accepting the valuation declared by the petitioner and determining that the quantity was to be assessed on Dry Metric Ton basis, not Wet Metric Ton basis.
Refund entitlement:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of &8377; 22,18,734/- as per the Appellate Order. Despite applying for a refund, the respondents filed an appeal along with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay. The Court noted that no stay had been granted yet and directed the respondents to refund the duty collected from the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the order.
Delay in appeal filing and direction for expeditious disposal:
The delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned, rendering the appeal non-existent in the eye of the law. However, since the appeal and stay application were pending for over eight months, the Court directed the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the condonation of delay application and the stay application expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order. The writ application was disposed of accordingly, with an urgent certified copy of the order to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1040
Supreme court in the case of Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax reported [2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held in para-10 that the provision for warranty could be made is permissible if the requirements stated in para-10 are fulfilled.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1039
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention due to lack of extension of remand.
2. Entitlement to bail u/s 167(2) CrPC due to non-filing of chargesheet within the stipulated period.
3. Interpretation of "taking cognizance" by the court.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Legality of Detention:
The petitioner argued that his detention was illegal as there was no order of extension of remand after being remanded to judicial custody on 16/12/2011. He was not produced before the Special Court for extension of remand.
2. Entitlement to Bail u/s 167(2) CrPC:
The petitioner contended that he should be granted bail u/s 167(2) CrPC as no cognizance was taken within 180 days of his custody. The chargesheet was filed on 31st May 2012, before the expiry of the 180-day period on 14th June 2012. The court held that the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. The court referred to the case of Pragya Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and other precedents, emphasizing that the right to default bail is not absolute and is lost once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated period.
3. Interpretation of "Taking Cognizance":
The petitioner argued that the court did not take cognizance of the case within the stipulated period, which should entitle him to bail. The court clarified that "taking cognizance" means becoming aware of the offence and not necessarily the offender. The court held that the Principal Judge's act of directing the registration of the Sessions Case was a sufficient compliance under the law, and thus, no right to default bail accrued to the petitioner. The court cited the case of State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, which states that cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.
Conclusion:
The petition for bail was dismissed as the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated period, and the court's actions were in compliance with the legal requirements. The petitioner's detention was deemed legal, and no right to default bail was established. The petition failed, and Rule nisi was discharged with no costs.
............
|
9911796707
