|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 848 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 932 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as further been claimed that assessee had paid the entire amount including the interest to the Delhi Government. We find considerable cogency in the assessee’s plea that when the interest itself is not chargeable to tax, the consequential refund was also not chargeable to tax. We find cogency in the contention of the assessee that when Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has decided to the effect that there is no tax liability in respect of interest relating to relocation of industries and CETP, consequential refund and interest on the same, cannot be chargeable to tax. In this regard, however we note that necessary evidence as to whether the entire amount has been paid to the Delhi Government or not is not available. Hence, we direct the Assessing Officer to certify the same and allow the assessee’s claim accordingly. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (5) TMI 931 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... r embroidery; Kg. 8 5810 91 00 Of cotton Kg. 8 5810 92 Of man-made Fibres; 5810 92 10 Embroidered Badges, motifs and The like Kg. 8 5810 92 90 Other Kg. 8 5810 99 00 Of other textile materials Kg. 8 As the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, we allow the claim of the assessee. The issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” 4. On hearing the submissions of both the sides and on careful perusal of the order of the Respected Co-ordinate Bench, it is evident that the issue of additional depreciation on embroidery machine is squarely cove red, hence, judicial propriety requires one Bench of the Tribunal to follow the other Bench specially when the issue involved is identical on same facts. We hold accordingly, therefore, reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to allow the claim. Grounds raised in this regard are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 27/ 5 /2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 930 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ove the averments made in para 1 onwards. Ms Sejal Mandavia accepts and waives notice on behalf of the respondents. The parties are directed to state as to why the Court will not accept this type of application if both parties were satisfied with the order and did not choose to challenge the order in question before any appellate Court. Post the matter alongwith Special Civil Application Nos. 13797 and 13798 of 2010 on 24th June, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 929 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there are sufficient provisions for pre and post decisional hearing thereby ensuring Rules of Natural Justice?
Whether the appellants being not involved in offences in transactions in securities could have been proceeded against in terms of the provisions of the Act?
Whether Canfina is a Financial Institution and whether the complaint filed by Canfina is invalid?
-
2011 (5) TMI 928 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ifts to the assessee was consisted his wife, two sons and one daughter, the other HUF, namely, Shiv Narain Aggarwal comprises of father, mother and two brothers. They are all relatives. The assessee had made a declaration of ₹ 1.75 crores, we have restored this addition. We direct the Assessing Officer to grant a telescoping benefit of ₹ 2,50,000 also against the declaration. No separate addition deserves to be made. Similarly, in the case of assessee, no separate addition has to be made on account of shortage of jewellery because the declaration of ₹ 1.75 crores can take care of non-availability of the jewellery which is otherwise disclosed in the books of account. 17. In the result, the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) is set aside and that of the Assessing Officer is restored subject to certain changes mentioned above. The appeal of the revenue is allowed whereas the appeal of the assessee is rejected. Decision pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 927 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Chand Garg 31 SOT 97 . 9. We heard both the parties. In the present case the disclosure by the assessee has come only after discovery of particulars of income during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee filed revised return only after the assessee had admitted of the bogus gifts in the disclosure u/s. 132(4). Hence the fact is that the addition is based on independent detection of bogus gifts during the search and seizure operation and only subsequently the revised return of income was filed by the assessee. The case of Biland Ram Hargan Dass Vs CIT 171 ITR 390, the Allahabhad High Court has held that any admission or disclosure coming after the detection of concealment cannot be treated as voluntary and as such, is liable to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Hence we confirm the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 4th day of May, 2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 926 - SC ORDER
Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Shortage of goods found - Penalty u/s 11AC - Order in original was passed b Settlement Commission - High Court held petition not maintainable before it.
-
2011 (5) TMI 925 - SC ORDER
Spent solvent – Excisabillity - It has been clearly brought out that the spent solvents had already been utilized in the factory and latter it had undergone further purification for reuse.
-
2011 (5) TMI 924 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... in the impugned judgment and order. The Civil Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 923 - SUPREME COURT
Challenge to setting aside of conviction of Respondent - mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been complied.
-
2011 (5) TMI 922 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lude cost attributable to the trading of goods out of India, including the purchase price of such goods as per explanation below section 80HHC(3). Since characteristics of both the sums i.e. ₹ 1.89 crores and ₹ 32.87 lacs is the same they had to be given the same treatment for working out export turnover and not to be reduced from the direct cost. The AO seems to be confused as to whether ₹ 32.87 lacs is the cost upto customs clearance point or beyond it, which has been clarified by ld. CIT(A) who has given the correct decision by directing to work out necessary relief by holding that this sum is also incurred beyond customs clearance point. The ld. DR has not pointed out as to how the decision of ld. CIT(A) is incorrect. We accordingly dismiss this ground of Revenue. 14.Ground Nos.5 & 6 are general and they require no specific adjudication. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (5) TMI 921 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Extension of stay - Held that: - the extension of stay already granted is allowed - period of stay extended by six months or until the disposal of the appeals whichever is earlier - application allowed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 920 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with Section 36(2) of the Act. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the conditions of Section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled in a case where the advance/debt itself was not shown as income in the profit and loss account. Final arguments heard. Judgment reserved. Learned counsel for both the parties shall file their written submissions within one week.
-
2011 (5) TMI 919 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... plinary enquiry against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (Annex A-1) is quashed and set aside . The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while allowing OA of Shri S.N. Ojha. 6. From above, it is clear that the present case is fully covered because here also the incident related to December, 1998. Show cause notice was given to the applicant on 23.12.1999. The Commissioner exonerated the applicant under Customs Act in August, 2003 by observing departmental enquiry should be initiated against him yet no action was taken. The only ground taken by the respondents is that departmental enquiry has been initiated on the advice of CVC but when was the advice given has also not been explained. We, therefore, hold respondents have not been able to explain the delay in initiating departmental enquiry against the applicant. 7. We, therefore, quash the charge sheet dated 18.11.2010 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. The OA is allowed. No costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 918 - SC ORDER
Confiscation - Notification 44/2002 dated 19-4-2002- Capital Goods imported under EPCG Scheme at concessional rate and later on sale it or not used for said function - Concessional rate of duty at 5% on capital goods imported under valid license issued under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme - customs department later found that the respondent notified cars for sale in complete violation of the conditions on which respondent was allowed to import cars at concessional rate of 5% as against 160% payable.
-
2011 (5) TMI 917 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... without giving reasons for decision. The order of the learned CIT(A) is thus contrary to the facts and material on record as well as contrary to his own findings on both the grounds of appeal. We accordingly, set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on both the grounds No.3 and 4 and restore these issues to his file with direction to adjudicate both the grounds afresh. The learned CIT(A) shall give specific reasons for decision for grant of depreciation as well as for grant of deduction u/s 24 of the IT Act. The learned CIT(A) shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and shall pass the order in accordance with law. In the result, grounds No.3 and 4 of the appeal of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 18. No other grounds argued or pressed. 19. In the result, the departmental appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13-05-2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... el was required to obtain instructions. Shri S.P. Kesarwani, learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received by him through communication dated 29th April 2011, informed the Court that the said Government Order shall apply prospectively and shall not apply to the applications filed before the commencement of the Government Order. In view of aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the cause of action giving rise to this petition does not survive. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the said Government Order as and when occasion arises.
-
2011 (5) TMI 915 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ice of the petitioner, as that will clearly amount to unjust usurpation. 13. For the foregoing conclusion, the respondents are directed to take a decision on the pending withdrawal application(s) of the petitioners. If decision on any of the application is already taken by the Jurisdictional Commissioner, the same must immediately be communicated to the applicant. If further clarification is necessary for any of the applications, the same be sought and a decision may then be taken, depending upon the response or lack of it, of the applicant. However as is already indicated, the outer time limit specified in Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause (C) of the exemption notification, for making the permissible investment will commence in respect of the concerned application, from the date of communication of the decision on the said application and not from the date of deposit in the ESCROW account. 14. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above without any order of cost.
-
2011 (5) TMI 914 - SUPREME COURT
Whether any of the findings recorded by the High Court on the issue of entitlement for land in lieu of land acquired suffers from perversity and thus, warrants interference by this Court?
Whether the NWDT Award provided for any entitlement of major sons to allotment of agricultural land, and if not, whether the judgment in Narmada Bachao Andolan –I could have been considered as a precedent in Narmada Bachao Andolan –II?
Whether the High Court has rightly interpreted the terms and conditions of the R & R Policy, as the High Court has proceeded with the assumption that the R & R Policy provides that major sons of oustees i.e. the “large land owning families” and those who had been “part of the bigger family” would be entitled for allotment of agricultural land?
-
2011 (5) TMI 913 - SUPREME COURT
Whether in the criminal revisions filed by the CBI and the State of M.P. the legal position is correctly stated?
Whether this Court committed a serious error in ignoring material facts and quashing the charge under Section 304 (Part II) IPC?
............
|
