|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1234 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1045 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... f the Hon’ble ITAT, in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 2006-07, the assessee is held to be a investor and not a trader in shares.” 8. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case narrated above, we are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned and detailed order by following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.333(Asr)/2010, which requires no interference. Therefore, we uphold the same by dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue. 9. As regards C.Os, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. P.N. Arora, Advocate submitted that he is not pressing the C.Os filed by the assessee and has also endorsed the same on the original grounds of COs at the bar. Accordingly, all the COs filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and C.Os filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th September, 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1044 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y creditors in this regard. In our considered opinion, when the assessee has submitted all the necessary details including the vouchers, address of the parties and PAN particulars, if the Assessing Officer was in doubt in this regard, he should have made separate enquiries in this regard. o p /o p Hence, the addition on account of sundry creditors is not sustainable. o p /o p In this regard we draw support from Apex Court decision in the case of C.I.T. vs. Orissa Corp. P Ltd. 158 ITR 78. In this case, it was held that addition was not sustainable when the revenue apart from issuing notice u/s. 131 to creditors did not pursue the matter further. o p /o p 12. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. o p /o p 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 14/9/2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1043 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... uly examining the assessee’s claim in this regard.” 9. It was submitted by ld A.R. that right from the beginning it has been the contention of assessee that it had not incurred interest expenditure. Therefore, on the basis of findings given in the aforementioned decision by co-ordinate bench, the matter may be restored back to the file of AO with similar directions. 10. On the other hand, ld D.R. relied upon the order of ld CIT(A). 11. We have heard rival contentions. Respectfully following the aforementioned decision of co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s. Auchtel Products (supra), to examine the contention of assessee, we restore this issue to the file of AO with similar directions as has been given in the aforementioned case. We direct accordingly. This appeal is also considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 14th September, 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1042 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... . The claim of the assessee has also not been found to be false. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting both the penalties u/s 271AA and 271G of the Act. Our view is also supported by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SSLTTK Ltd referred to supra. In the circumstances, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.” Having perused the order of Coordinate Bench, it comes out that the issue in hand is no more res integra as the same reason was tendered by the assessee in that case as well. Therefore, we conclude that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty after keeping in mind the circumstances of both cases. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere and revive the penalties on the assessee imposed by the assessment authority. 10. In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday , the 18th of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1041 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r hearing or disposed of nor the application for condonation of delay. 7. The delay in filing the appeal not having yet been condoned, there is really no appeal as yet in the eye of law. However, since the appeal and the stay application are apparently pending for over eight months, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned Tribunal to hear and dispose of the condonation of delay application and the application for stay expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order. 8. The respondents shall refund the duty collected from the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of this order provided, of course, there is no stay of operation of the order of the Appellate Commissioner granted by the learned Tribunal. 9. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1040 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
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 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ance of the facts constituting offences on the basis of police report. Upon a complaint preferred by the Police, the Court can take cognizance. That is the stage when based on the material, it can direct further proceedings. o p /o p 16. In the instant case, when complaint was filed by NCB, it is virtually the chargesheet laid on conclusion of investigation. Assuming the same as complaint also, it is not correct to say that the learned Principal Judge acted mechanically without noticing judicially and directed registration of Sessions case. o p /o p Court directed further proceedings based on material and thus, in any which way, claim of petitioner is not sustainable. It would be unacceptable to admit that further direction of judicial custody of applicant was impermissible in absence of taking of cognizance nor would this justify the request of default bail; as urged for. o p /o p 17. Resultantly, this petition fails. Rule nisi stands discharged. o p /o p No costs. o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1038 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... med for determining income from dealing in shares and securities at ₹ 59,41,482/-. In absence of any averse finding by the Assessing Office, I find that deduction of ₹ 12,37,578/- is allowable. However, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow deduction of this amount while dete4rming income related to STT. The appeal on this ground is allowed.” 14.5 In our view, though there is no inherent or material error in the order of the CIT(A), when he has already held that the deduction of ₹ 12,37,578 is allowable; but only for the matter of removal of doubt, we make it clear that the said amount of ₹ 12,37,578/- is allowable both at the time of computing the STT income for the purpose of rebate u/s 88E as well as while computing the total income. 15 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose where as the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th, day of Sept 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1037 - ITAT DELHI
Eligibility for benefit u/s 11 - unexplained investment in building - In respect of unexplained expenditure in the form of difference in building as per assessee’s books of accounts and as per estimate made by the Valuation Officer, we observe that the difference is very small and it cannot be considered for making addition because 10% of difference is always justified between physical valuation of a building and the amount appearing the books of accounts of the assessee. Therefore, we hold that Ld CIT(A) had rightly deleted the additions and we do not find merits in the appeal of revenue.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1036 - ITAT AGRA
Rejection of books of accounts - profit estimation - Held that:- Similar books of account were rejected. In the grounds of appeal, there is no challenge to the rejection of books of account. There is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case as compared to the earlier year. The Tribunal in the earlier year confirmed the application of profit rate of 8%, but deleted the separate addition on account of interest income. Following the order of the Tribunal in earlier assessment year, we confirm the orders of the authorities below in applying the profit rate of 8%. However, the interest income of ₹ 78,200/- should not be added separately. The orders of the authorities below to that extent are set aside and modified and we direct that no separate addition on account of interest income be made in the case of assessee. Thus, the assessee will get relief of ₹ 78,200/- and rest of the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1035 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- The shareholders have unanimously approved the Scheme and the aspect that it has been stated in the affidavit filed by Milestone Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner Transferee Company, that it shall make all necessary disclosures in its Financial Statements as enumerated under Section 211(3B) of the Act, after the Scheme is sanctioned by this Court, there does not appear to be any legally justifiable reason for withholding sanction to the Scheme.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the Scheme is in the interest of the Shareholders and Creditors of the respective Petitioner Companies.
Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed and the Scheme is sanctioned.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1034 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Deduction u/s. 80IA(4) - Held that:- Before us the assessee filed certain copies of tenders suggesting nature of activity carried on by the assessee and argued that the issue is already decided by this Tribunal in favour of the assessee by various decisions cited supra. However, at this stage we are not in a position to express any opinion on the nature of activities carried on by the assessee. The lower authorities had no occasion to examine the nature of activities carried on by the assessee.
It is appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has to see whether the assessee carried on contract for sale or contract for work and the applicability of Explanation below section 80IA(13) of the Act.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1033 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... da, we do not propose to deal with the High Court judgements, relied upon by the learned Solicitor General.” This Court has no option but to hold that the Customs authorities have no power, authority and/or jurisdiction to retain the passport of the petitioner. The passport of the petitioner shall be returned within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. It will, however, be open to the Customs authorities to approach the passport authorities for necessary action under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967, in accordance with law, if it so deems fit and proper. There can be no doubt that the petitioner will have to comply with the conditions in which bail has been granted including the condition, if any, not to leave the local area or not to leave the country without leave of the Court. The writ application is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1032 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e windmill, because in the absence of these components and electric items it was not possible for the windmill to produce electricity. Therefore, it was also and integral part of the windmill. In the instant case, the assessee paid a sum of ₹ 31,25,000/- to M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd through whom the windmill was installed. The said payment was non-refundable. The said expenditure was made for the installation of the windmill and if there was no such windmill installation, the assessee could not have incurred such expenses, therefore, expenditure incurred on common power evacuation was directly related to the windmill and the assessee was entitled for higher depreciation. We, therefore, considering the totality of facts do not see any infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) on this issue. 25. In the result, the appeal of the Department in ITA No. 315/JU/2009 is allowed while appeal in ITA No. 438/JU/2010 is partly allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 20.09.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1031 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n (supra) supports the case of the assessee, wherein it is held that the assessee had explained that just to get a larger amount from the bank, it had shown higher figures of stocks for hypothecation to the bank. Hon’ble Court further held that it is common for assessees to show exorbitant figures of stocks to banks to get more amounts of loan and therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be imposed on the sole basis of figures given to the bank for taking more loan from the bank. In this view of the matter, following the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court, we hold that it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which is accordingly deleted and the orders of the lower authorities on this issue is set aside, and the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1030 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... v. And Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, Adv.-on-Record ORDER Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1029 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... p 11. Since the facts of the case under consideration and the facts of the case decided by I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. Lala Ram Finance & Investment are identical, we follow the above order of I.T.A.T. and in the light of that we delete both the additions made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of interest ₹ 15,37,500/- under section 36(1)(iii) and addition of ₹ 24,69,235/- invoking section 14A of the Act. o p /o p 12. Since the facts of the case for A.Y. 2006-07 are similar to A.Y. 2007-08, therefore, in the light of the above discussions in A.Y. 2007-08, grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 are decided accordingly. We delete both the additions made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) ₹ 20,50,000/- and addition of ₹ 20,418/- invoking section 14A of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07. o p /o p 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. o p /o p (Order pronounced in the open Court) o p /o p
-
2012 (9) TMI 1028 - ITAT PUNE
Activity of transacting in shares/mutual funds by engaging a Portfolio Management Service - capital gains OR business income - Held that:- The Investment Objective of the assessee mandated to the PMS provider was to achieve growth prospects and the actuality of transactions carried out by the PMS provider in order to achieve the stated Investment objective of the assessee cannot be made a basis to charge the assessee of having a different objective. Considering the aforesaid matters, we, therefore, are of the view that the objections made out by the Assessing Officer have been adequately addressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in coming to his findings that the investments carried out by the assessee through the PMS provider do not result in a gain assessable as business income.
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that expenditure on PMS has not been claimed by the assessee and there does not remain any other expenditure other than this expenditure, therefore, no disallowance u/s.14A r.w. Rule8D can be made. The above factual finding given by the learned CIT(A) could not be controverted by the learned DR. Under these circumstances, we hold that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the AO.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1027 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s 80JJAA - workmen as employed for more than 300 days - loss on damage - shipment of computers - revenue or business loss - TP Adjustment - capital loss u/s 45(1) - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, the assessee had placed order for supply of machinery. When the equipment was in transit, according to the assessee, it got damaged and returned to the supplier. The Insurance Company had compensated the assessee a part of the cost of the asset so damaged. As rightly pointed out by the AO, the difference between the cost of the equipment and the amount so reimbursed by the Insurance Company was a capital loss having been incurred in relation to acquisition of a capital asset. The nature of expenditure has to be decided by the objective with which it is incurred and not by the nomenclature or the accounting treatment given to the expenditure.
The main objective of the assessee was to acquire the machinery and naturally the entire expenditure for its acquisition will have to be capitalized. In the instant case, the equipment got damaged while in transit, the Insurance Company after duly assessing the damage compensated a portion of the cost of the equipment. Moreover, the assessee had treated the receipt of the insurance claim as a capital receipt in its accounts. Thus, the remaining portion of the cost of the equipment, as rightly observed by the AO and subsequently sustained by the CIT (A), cannot be allowed as a revenue loss.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO was fully justified in rejecting the assessee’s claim of deduction being the loss on account of damage to an asset.
We find that there has been no finding recorded by the first appellate authority. With regard to the assessee’s other alternative claim of loss on account of damage of computer equipments constitutes short term capital loss u/s 45(1A) of the Act, we would like to point out that the assessee had not raised this contention before the lower authorities. However, since the claim is purely a legal issue, in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by the CIT(A).
Thus, both the alternative claims are restored back to the file of the CIT (A)-LTU with a specific direction to address to the grievance of the assessee after obtaining the required clarifications from the assessee, if need be, and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Act. It is ordered accordingly.
TP Adjustment : We are of the view that since the CIT(A) has not considered the issue, the matter needs to be restored to the CIT(A) for denovo consideration. It is in doubt, after having accepted the MAP resolution passed by the competent authority, whether the ALP arrived at can be altered. However, since the issue was not disposed off by the CIT(A), addressing the assessee’s contention, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter to the CIT(A).
Accordingly, ground no.9 raised by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Deduction u/s 80JJAA - Employees worked for less than 300 days in the previous year - We have perused the findings of the Hon’ble earlier Bench for the AYs 2001-02 and 2002-03 in the assessee’s own case wherein the Hon’ble Bench had allowed the claim of deduction.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue requires re-examination. The CIT(A) had set aside the assessment giving specific direction to Assessing Officer to disallow the 80JJAA claim in respect of permanent employees salary who have worked for less than 300 days in the concerned previous year. The CIT(A) has not considered the assessee’s elaborate submission in respect of the issue. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, the matter is remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1026 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... t the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are required to be furnished to the assessee and the reasons recorded cannot be improved upon or amended by any correspondence, letters, etc. Though the reasons recorded were called for by the CIT(A) at the time of hearing before him and the same were extracted in the order of the CIT(A) the fact remains that before the completion of the assessment, the reasons recorded were not actually furnished to the assessee despite his letter dated 28/04/2010, therefore, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Drive Shafts Ltd.(supra), we are of the opinion that the reassessment order passed without supply of reasons as recorded for reopening of the assessment is invalid and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the assessment under consideration as being invalid. o p /o p 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Pronounced in the open court on 14/09/2012. o p /o p
............
|
