|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 697 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 663 - ITAT PUNE
Exemption u/s 10(10C) - A.O under the re-assessment disallowed the claim on the basis that the State Bank of India has clearly mentioned in Exit Scheme that employees will not get exemption u/s. 10(10C) - Held that:- Employees who took the voluntary retirement under the Exit Option Scheme dated 29.4.2005 announced by the State Bank of India are eligible for exemption u/s. 10(10C) of the Act.
-
2011 (11) TMI 662 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Seizure of betel nuts - imported goods - whether smuggled goods or not? - onus of proof of foreign origin - Held that: - so far the point of time at which reasonable belief should exist is concerned, whenever the goods are seized, the officer seizing the goods must at the time of seizure have a reasonable belief that the goods he was seizing were smuggled goods and any subsequent acquisition of knowledge of such belief would be of no avail. So far the allegation that betel nuts in question were of foreign origin is concerned, a Division Bench of this court in case of Commissioner, Custom Department, Government of India, Patnahad specifically held that it was not in dispute that betel nut was non-notified item and, as such, the onus to prove that the same was of foreign origin lay on Custom authority.
In the instant case the Custom authorities did not at all consider the shape and size of the seized betel nuts nor there is any expert trade opinion that the seized betel nuts were in any manner different from the betel nuts available in the country. In the present case neither there is any trade opinion nor any significant decisive difference has been found and hence the seized betel nuts cannot be said with certainty to be of foreign origin - in view of absence of any material to show that the goods were smuggled goods or were of any third country origin, the respondents authorities should not have detained the truck and betel nuts loaded on it nor they should have seized the same which acts are clearly violative of the well settled principles of law.
Petition allowed - the impugned order of detention and seizure of the betel nuts and the truck on which it was loaded are hereby quashed - decided in favor of petitioner-importer.
-
2011 (11) TMI 661 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... admitted fact that the question posed by the revenue stands squarely covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. However, at the insistence of the ld. CIT, DR that the matter requires fresh look in view of further developments in law, we have traced the detailed history and mentioned the cases relied upon by him. We find that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) does not advance the case of the revenue as it has been brought to a naught by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has directed the Transfer Pricing Officer to independently make the valuation without being influenced by the decision of the High Court. Looking to the earlier decisions in this case, which we are bound to follow, it is held that the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly deleted the addition of ₹ 33.82 crore by relying on earlier orders of the Tribunal. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (11) TMI 660 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... easonable and convincing. On behalf of the revenue nothing has been pointed out to persuade the Court to take a different view. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal being based upon findings of fact does not give rise to any question of law. This ground of appeal is also dismissed.” 5. In the instant case, as could be seen from the order of CIT(Appeals) there are convincing and cogent reasons given by CIT(Appeals) for arriving at conclusion while setting aside order of the Assessing Officer and that view has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Further more, it relied on, as mentioned hereinabove, the findings given by the Tribunal on similar issue when raised before it earlier. As question is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court and as there are no other facts which are before this Court for consideration, this issue requires no further consideration. As no question of law appears to be made out by the Revenue, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 659 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... , the assessee appellant is dismissed. Similar findings would hold good in respect of appeal by the assessee appellant vide ITA No. 206/Chd/2009, as similar issues are involved. ITA Nos. 203 & 204/Chd/2009 - Smt.Parveen Goyal 17. A bare perusal of the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee-appellant reveals that such Grounds of Appeal are identical to that of the Grounds of Appeal raised by the assessee Shri Arun Kumar Goyal, husband of the present appellant in ITA Nos. 205 & 206/Chd/2009. The adjudication made by us, in the case of Shri Arun Kumar Goyal herein before is also applicable to these appeals. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assesseeappellant in ITA No. 203& 204/Chd/2009 are dismissed. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee appellant Shri Arun Kumar Goyal bearing ITA Nos. 205 & 206/Chd/2009 A.Y. 2000-01 and 2003-04 and appeals of Smt.Parveen Goyal bearing ITA Nos. 203 & 204/Chd/2009 A.Y. 2000-01 and 2003-04 are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 658 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. V. CIT”, 168 ITR 705(SC), it has been held to the effect that the mere fact that the assessee has agreed to higher income is not a proof of admission of concealment by the assessee. 27. Further, in the following cases, it has been held that where the assessee, for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amount for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of assessee’s surrender is not called for - 1. “CIT v. M. George & Bros.”, 160 ITR 511(Ker); 2. “CIT v. Narang & Co.”, 98 ITR 426(Del); 3. “Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai v. CIT”, 88 ITR 293(P&H). 28. In view of the above, the grievance raised by the assessee is found to be justified and is accepted as such. The order under appeal is, therefore, cancelled and the penalty imposed is deleted. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 657 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... income and expenditure. The Assessing Officer had estimated the agricultural expenses and made an addition of ₹ 1,96,420/-, which was reduced to ₹ 1 lac by the CIT(A). We find no merit in the aforesaid addition as no evidence has been brought on record by the authorities below to prove the assessee had incurred the aforesaid expenditure over and above the income shown by the assessee. The total agricultural income for the year after expenses has been declared at ₹ 2 lacs and the assessee claimed to have not maintained any accounts in respect thereof. There is no requirement of law to maintain the income and expenditure account in respect of agricultural income. Accordingly, we find no merit in the aforesaid addition of ₹ 1 lac and the same is directed to be deleted. The ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 17th day of Nov., 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of sales tax on the supply of goods by an unincorporated association or body of individuals to its members to be deemed sales as illegal, void and ultra vires the Constitution of India.
-
2011 (11) TMI 655 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - case of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner has been attached vide communication dated 12.08.2010 and that he is not possessed of any means to make cash deposit - Held that: - we dismiss the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the Tribunal pointing out such fact on or before 29.12.2011. If the petitioner files such application, the same be decided in accordance with law - appeal not dismissed for failure to make pre-deposit.
-
2011 (11) TMI 654 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Unexplained under Section 68 - Held that:- We feel that the submission is absolutely untenable as the assessee cannot be asked to show credit worthiness of his creditors and the Assessing Officer of that creditor can add the said amount to the income of that creditor if he is not satisfied by the explanation given and it is not possible for the assessee to prove the sources of the creditors. It has also been recorded as a matter of fact that the amounts have been received by way of banking channel and, therefore, it was for the Assessing Officers of the said creditors to question the said creditors, who were income tax assesses and in the absence of any evidence, the Assessing Officer could not have treated the said amount as belonging to the assessee from his undisclosed sources. No question of law
-
2011 (11) TMI 653 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... r has not recorded satisfaction that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment. Therefore, the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wel Inter Trade P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. Vs. CIT (supra). We, therefore, hold that reopening of assessment in the absence of reasons recorded that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. We order accordingly. 10.2 Since we have annulled the assessment, the ground of appeal raised in Revenue’s appeal becomes infructuous and is dismissed, as such. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as infructuous. The order pronounced in the open court on 18th November, 2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the facts of the case, I find that the credit taken is inadmissible and there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the appellant is that the rate of sales tax was 8 and even Service Tax was 8 , arising a confusion in the minds of accounting personnel and hence was the mistake. This contention is not acceptable as any prudent tax payer will distinguish which tax he is liable to pay and paid. Therefore, considering the circumstances and facts of the case, I uphold the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Stay petition also gets disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in Court on 21-11-2011)
-
2011 (11) TMI 651 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... be filed before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on 4-2-2011. In these circumstances, he submits that the period during which the matter was lying in the wrong forum should be excluded and the appeal should be held as having been filed well within the time. 2. No objection by the learned DR. 3. As admittedly the impugned order was challenged before the wrong forum and matter kept pending there till it was rejected as non-maintainable, we hold that there was a genuine cause for late presenting the appeal before the Tribunal. We accordingly condone the delay and allow the COD application.
-
2011 (11) TMI 650 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s who purchased the said property which includes Smt. Suraj Devi, Shri Sushil Kumar Aggarwal, late Shri Shiv Narain Aggarwal etc. The Department had filed appeal in the case of Smt. Suraj Devi under section 260-A of the Act to this Court which was registered as ITA 811/2010 and has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court vide orders dated 13th August, 2010. Following that order, appeals of other coowners/ assessees i.e., ITA 1551/2010, ITA 1370/2010 and ITA 1660/2010 were also dismissed.” Similar is the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Puneet Sabharwal, dated 03.12.2010, 2011-TIOL-348-HC-DEL-IT. It has been held that in absence of any evidence coming into possession regarding payment of extra purchase consideration, the Tribunal was right in holding that no addition can be made notwithstanding the report of the DVO. 4.1 Relying on these judgments, it is held that the ld. CIT(Appeals) was right in deleting the addition. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 649 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch as it is only a Statutory Authority which can make such a reference under Sec. 21 of The Competition Act. He further submits that ?Statutory Authority? is defined in Sec. 2(w) of the said Act which would not include the High Court. It is also submitted that if the respondent no.2 so wanted or wants, it could always approach the Competition Commission by filing appropriate application under Sec. 19 of the Act. 2. After going through the order, we find that it is not a reference under Section 21 of the Act which is made by the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, Ms. Rekha Palli, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that her client would make a formal application under Sec. 19 of The Competition Act, 2002 as well. 3. In view thereof, no further orders are required to be passed, more so when learned Single Judge has taken only a prima facie view and it would be open to the appellant to contest such application on all available terms. The appeal is disposed of.
-
2011 (11) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direct the Competition Commission to enquire into the alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 by respondent no.2 by its aforesaid constitutional provisions and conduct under Section 26 of the Competition Commission Act, 2002. The petitioner may appear before the Commission on 28.11.2011. The petitioner shall present before the Commission a memorandum containing its grievances in this respect on the said date.
It is made clear that observations made by me in relation to the case of respondent no.2 are only prima facie, and shall not prejudice their case and the Commission shall enquire into the same independently.
-
2011 (11) TMI 647 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Commissioner of Custom in the meantime to take appropriate departmental action against those person or persons involved in this matter and pendency of this matter will not debar in proceeding afresh. However, the result of the enquiry should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. In case of failure to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time as above the interim order staying operation of the impugned judgment and order will stand vacated. The application for interim relief stands disposed of. Liberty to mention. Allegations contained in the petition are not admitted by the respondent since we have not called for any affidavit. The Registrar, Original Side is directed to communicate this order to the aforesaid Director, Eastern Region, Central Bureau of Investigation (SEB). The Commissioner of Custom, the Director, CBI, Eastern Region (SEB), the Registrar, Original Side and all parties shall act on a xerox signed copy of this order on usual undertakings.
-
2011 (11) TMI 646 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... le. ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Hitesh Satish Chandra Joshi has held that loss from derivative transactions was business loss during assessment year 2006-07. o p /o p 14. In the case before us the assessee was not engaged in the business of share trading as such. The assessee had suffered loss in trading of derivatives carried through recognized Stock Exchange (NSE). In view of above discussion, it is held that derivative transactions being separate from trading in shares, the provisions of Explanation to section 73 will not be applicable to such transactions and hence, the loss incurred by the assessee in derivative transactions through recognized Stock Exchange has to be set off against other business income as per provisions of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and decide the appeal in favour of the assessee. o p /o p 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p
-
2011 (11) TMI 645 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he deductees earlier also in the absence of any evidence having been brought on record by the assessee to show that these PAN of the deductees were obtained in the year 2010. Hence, the delay in filing the quarterly returns cannot be accepted as bona fide and, therefore, this Tribunal decision is also of no help to the assessee in the present case because the facts are different because in the present case, even when the default was brought to the notice of the assessee, assessee neither filed the quarterly returns nor appeared before the A.O. in penalty proceedings and even no submission was made before him. In view of above discussion, we find that the penalty was deleted by Ld. CIT(A) without any valid basis or valid reasoning and hence, we are inclined to reverse the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restore the penalty order. We order accordingly 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (11) TMI 644 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ise, Bangalore. 3. In view of the stay order granted, though the said compounding has already been effected and the matter is to be reported to the Trial Court, it is submitted that the stay order of this Court has prevented the Trial Court from disposing of the case. 4. Hence, the learned magistrate is hereby directed to accept the compromise memo and dispose of the case in CC. No. 560/1990, in accordance with law. 5. Hence, this petition is disposed of.
............
|
