|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1327 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1094
TPA - ALP determination - comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee is engaged in the business of providing contract pharmaceuticals Research & Development services, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
As already seen in the earlier part of this order, if the six companies (including IDC India Ltd. and Mindtree Ltd.) is taken as comparables, the operating margins on cost (unadjusted) is 10.22%. The assessee's operating margin on cost is 13.17% which is much above the arithmetic mean of the comparables. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that the price at which the assessee rendered services to its AE has to be considered as at arms' length and no adjustment on account of arms' length price (ALP) ought to have been made. We accordingly hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way adjustment to ALP deserves to be deleted.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1093
The Department appealed against a decision where no penalty was imposed on the respondent under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the demand of duty with interest against the respondent was already allowed and there was no question of imposing a penalty.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1092
Reassessment u/s 147 - Expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery - revenue expenditure or capital expenditure - Held that - The concept of block of assets has been brought in by the Parliament from the assessment year 1988-89, whether the mill is an integrated whole or not, whether the replacement of machines resulted in increased capacity or not, will have no bearing and when any item belonging to the block is removed, its value is reduced and if any new item comes in its place, its value is added to the block. - To be treated as capital expenditure - decided in favor of revenue.
Levy of interest u/s 234B and/or 220(2) - The case of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has levied interest u/s 220(2) without considering the circular dated 3-4-1982 - Held that:- in the assessment order itself at page No.10 the Assessing Officer has charged the interest under section 234B - As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anujm M.H. Ghaswala And Others [2001 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME Court], charging of interest under section 234B of the Act is mandatory. - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1091
Whether the Government shall treat the report submitted by the Sessions Judge as a preliminary inquiry and take a considered decision whether or not any further inquiry, investigation or proceedings against those allegedly responsible for using excessive force while restoring discipline in the Central Jail at Bombay on 26th June, 2008 needs to be conducted?
Whether if the Government decides to hold any further inquiry or investigation into the matter on the basis of the preliminary findings in the report submitted by the Sessions Judge or institute any departmental proceedings against any one of those found guilty in any such further inquiry or investigation, the observations made by the High Court in regard to the use of force or the extent thereof shall not prejudice the parties concerned or the outcome of any such inquiry nor shall any such observation be treated to be a final expression of opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the concerned?
-
2012 (11) TMI 1090
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - joint venture agreement - assessee is to be treated as developer or builder of the project or not - Held that:- The assessee contributed the land, undertook the developmental activities on the land and thus complied with all other conditions which have to be fulfilled before claiming benefit under section 80IB(10). It is after sale of the built area, in terms of section 80IB(10), the assessee is claiming deduction - Therefore, in respect of the residential units, the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area. Thus assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of deduction under section 80IB(10) - Decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Shravanee Constructions [2012 (7) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] followed - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1089
Issues involved: Valuation of landed property for wealth-tax appeals for assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07.
Valuation of Landed Property:
The taxpayer claimed that the property was agricultural land not near a national highway, citing a previous order valuing the property at a lower rate. The representative argued for considering factors like location, infrastructure, and indexation rules for fair valuation based on a sale deed from 2003. They emphasized that market value should reflect the net amount after deducting capital gains tax. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the property's location near a highway justified a higher valuation based on recent market trends. They disputed the taxpayer's reliance on a sale deed from 2003, pointing out the lack of disclosed sale consideration. The DR also rejected the deduction claim for a loan and argued that income tax on capital gains should not affect property valuation.
Decision:
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the valuation methods used by the taxpayer and the assessing officer. It noted the importance of considering various factors like location, infrastructure, and comparable sales for accurate valuation. As both parties relied on different sale deeds, the Tribunal emphasized the need to reassess the market value by taking into account all relevant factors. Consequently, the lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the issue was remitted back to the assessing officer for a fresh determination in accordance with the law, providing the taxpayer with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The appeals of the taxpayer were allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1088
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of enhanced compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land.
2. Applicability of exemption u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Validity of reopening of assessment u/s 147.
Summary:
1. Taxability of Enhanced Compensation:
The assessee was aggrieved by the confirmation of an addition of Rs. 1,11,99,608/- as long-term capital gain u/s 45(5) of the Income Tax Act. The A.O. observed that the assessee, along with co-owners, received enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of land by the Government of Gujarat. The A.O. taxed 1/4th of the compensation in the hands of the assessee, issuing notices u/s 148 and u/s 142(1) for the same.
2. Applicability of Exemption u/s 10(37):
The assessee contended that the compensation was exempt u/s 10(37) as the land was used for agricultural purposes. The A.O. rejected this claim, stating the land was within municipal limits and thus not eligible for exemption. The CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, noting that while the land was used for agricultural purposes, there was no evidence that the assessee himself or his parents used the land for such purposes, a condition for exemption u/s 10(37).
3. Validity of Reopening of Assessment u/s 147:
The assessee argued that the reopening of the assessment was based on erroneous directions from the CIT(A) in another case and did not satisfy the primary conditions of s. 147. The A.O. maintained that the directions were binding, and the reopening was valid.
Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the plain reading of Section 10(37)(ii) does not require the assessee himself to carry out agricultural activities. The requirement is that the land be used for agricultural purposes by the assessee or his parent. The Tribunal noted that the agricultural income was regularly declared and accepted by the Revenue, and the assessee provided evidence of agricultural activities. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee fulfilled the conditions for exemption u/s 10(37) and directed the A.O. to grant the exemption.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the A.O. was directed to grant the exemption u/s 10(37) for the enhanced compensation received on the compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural lands.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1087
Issues Involved:1. Addition of Rs. 55,15,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sources. 2. Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w. 148 after four years from the end of the assessment year. Summary:Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 55,15,000/- on account of income from undisclosed sourcesThe Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee company had obtained accommodation credit entries from Richie Rich Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and reopened the assessment for A.Y. 2001-02 u/s 148. The assessee provided evidence including account copies, bank statements, and confirmations from Richie Rich. However, the AO was not satisfied, noting the absence of current date confirmations and other financial documents from Richie Rich. Consequently, the AO added Rs. 55,15,000/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68. Issue 2: Legality of reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 r.w. 148 after four years from the end of the assessment yearUpon appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) observed that the AO had issued a detailed questionnaire during the original assessment, and the assessee had provided comprehensive replies and evidence, including confirmations and financial documents from Richie Rich. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) concluded that the AO had a clear and detailed occasion to consider the issue during the original assessment, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) directed the deletion of the Rs. 55,15,000/- addition. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s decision, noting that the reassessment was based on already disclosed materials and lacked fresh material. The Tribunal emphasized that reopening after four years requires a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, which was not the case here. The Tribunal cited various precedents, including the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decisions in Wel Intertrade P. Ltd. and Another vs. ITO and Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. vs. C.I.T. & Anr., which reinforced that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the assumption of jurisdiction for reassessment invalid, upheld the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)'s order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Order pronounced in the open court on 09/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1086
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - applicants were not serious to pursue their petitions at any stage. Accordingly the applicants were directed to make 50% duty demanded in each case as against the demand of duty of ₹ 19,51,315/- and equal amount of penalty in one case and duty of ₹ 5,81,003/- and penalty of ₹ 10,000/- and to report compliance on 12.09.2012 - application mot maintainable, dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1085
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appeal as the plea regarding levy of excise duty was not raised before the Tribunal. The appellant was advised to seek a review/rectification of the impugned order as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Naik, AIR 1982 SC 1249.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1084
Issues involved: Interpretation of abatement under Notification No. 15/2004 and Notification No. 1/2006 for levy of Service Tax.
Summary:
Issue 1: Abatement under Notifications No. 15/2004 and No. 1/2006 - Prospective or Retrospective Application
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original confirming a demand of Rs. 1,82,09,723 against the appellant, denying the benefit of abatement under the mentioned notifications. The key issue was whether the abatement provisions included the value of materials supplied free of cost in the assessable value of service, with a focus on the prospective or retrospective application of the explanation. The appellant cited decisions from the High Courts of Madras and Delhi, which held that the explanation had only prospective effect. The Tribunal, in line with these decisions, granted waiver of pre-deposit and stayed recovery of the dues during the appeal, following the view that the value of free materials should not be included for calculating taxable service.
This judgment highlights the importance of legal interpretations in tax matters, specifically regarding the application of abatement provisions under relevant notifications. The Tribunal's decision to follow the precedents set by the High Courts demonstrates the significance of judicial decisions in guiding tax disputes and providing clarity on complex legal issues.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1083
When a court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment imposed in a disciplinary proceeding on technical grounds, i.e., non-observance of statutory provisions, or for violation of the principles of natural justice, then whether the superior court, must provide opportunity to the disciplinary authority, to take up and complete the proceedings, from the point that they stood vitiated?
If the answer to question no.1 is, that such fresh opportunity should be given, then whether the same may be denied on the ground of delay in initiation, or in conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings?
-
2012 (11) TMI 1082
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Erroneous and prejudicial nature of the assessment order.
3. Allowability of depreciation on goodwill.
Summary:
Jurisdiction of CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee contended that the CIT lacked jurisdiction to initiate revision proceedings u/s 263, arguing that the original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The CIT, however, concluded that the Assessing Officer (AO) had wrongly allowed depreciation on goodwill without proper application of mind, making the original assessment orders erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.
Erroneous and Prejudicial Nature of the Assessment Order:
The CIT found that the AO had allowed depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs. 4,92,18,750/- for AY 2006-07 and Rs. 3,69,14,063/- for AY 2007-08 without proper examination. The CIT set aside the assessment orders and directed the AO to make fresh assessments disallowing the depreciation claimed on goodwill. The assessee argued that the AO had made relevant inquiries and allowed the claim correctly, citing various judicial precedents to support their position.
Allowability of Depreciation on Goodwill:
The assessee argued that the depreciation claimed was on intangibles like customer/supplier contracts, export quotas, and assembled workforce, not goodwill. They cited the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v Smifs Securities Ltd., which held that "goodwill" is an intangible asset entitled to depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the CIT did not consider these precedents and directed the AO to re-examine the issue afresh, without being influenced by the CIT's categorical direction to disallow depreciation on goodwill.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals for statistical purposes, directing the AO to reconsider the matter in light of relevant case laws and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v Smifs Securities Ltd. The stay petitions were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1081
Addition made on account of books purchases from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation - Held that:- When sales declared by the assessee have not been doubted, it was not proper on the part of the AO to deny the claimed purchases on the basis of which sales were made. Only option if any was available with the department was to estimate the income of the assessee during the year on the basis of trading result of earlier three years, made available at page no- 38 of the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee.
As during the year, the assessee has shown better gross profit at a better GP rate of 27.67 % in comparison to the GP profit and GP rates of earlier two AYs. In the AY 2005-06, the assessee has shown GP rate on 25.67 % and in AY 2004-05, the GP rate shown is 25.47%. Since the assessee has shown better GP rate during the year, we find that there is no justification to make addition even on this account. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue direct the AO to delete the addition in question at ₹ 43,34,496/- made by the AO on account of the alleged bogus purchases made from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1080
Whether the learned Single Judge who heard the petition CWJC No.10091/2006, which began the third round of litigation filed on behalf of the Bihar Education Service Association, had no business to re-open the entire controversy, even otherwise?
-
2012 (11) TMI 1079
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund claim u/s Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for GTA services utilized for export of goods; Interpretation of time-limit for filing refund claim.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Associated Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. for GTA services used in exporting goods. The claim was rejected as it was filed beyond six months from the date of export. The appellants argued that their claim was within the one-year time limit prescribed by Notification No. 17/2009, which amended the original notification. The Revenue contended that the time limit was six months from the date of export as per the amended notification. The Tribunal found that the claim was filed before the issuance of Notification No. 17/2009 and therefore, the one-year time limit did not apply. As the claim was filed after the six-month period, it was considered time-barred. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed beyond the six-month period specified in the relevant notification.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1078
Valuation - Whether the charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-service by dealers from buyers of the cars are to be included in the assessable value of cars in the light of the definition of "transaction value" given in Section 4(3) (d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Tribunal’s earlier order on same issue in respect of same appellant based on admitted facts and not on point of law.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1077
Addition on account of bonus paid to the Contractor’s labourers - Held that:- It is fact that the assessee has paid the bonus to the labourers of the contractor which has not been doubted by the A.O. The appellant had not proved the custom prevailing in the line of business of same locality before the A.O. Therefore, we have considered view in the interest of justice that one more opportunity is to be given for all three years to the appellant to prove that the bonus paid by the appellant to the labourers of the contractor falls under custom prevailing or not and decide the issues, accordingly, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Accordingly, on this issue, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the A.O. for de novo in all three years. - Decided in favour of assessee for statsitical purposes.
Addition on account of foreign travelling expenses - Held that:- A.R. fairly accepted that these expenses were incurred for business purposes but they did not have any sufficient evidence to prove that these expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Therefore, the same has not been pressed. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) is held valid - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1076
Banking & other financial services - Assessee provides service of payment and receiving money on behalf of the government - Penalty u/s 76 - Held that:- Assessee submits that on the identical issue in the case of Canara Bank v. CST [2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] has held that such activity does not fall under the category of Banking and Financial service and the above activity is exempt from banking and financial services. As the issue has attained finality by the order of the Tribunal in Canara Bank (supra) therefore following the same, we hold that the appellant are not liable to pay service tax confirmed against them by way of impugned order and we set aside the demand of service tax. There is no imposition of penalty on the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1075
Re-assessment Proceedings – Invertors whether electronic goods or not – Original assessment proceedings were framed and turnover of inverters were taxed as electronic goods – However, some doubt arose regarding taxability of inverters as competitive manufacturer, were charging tax @ 4% whereas others was charging tax @ 10% – Proceedings under Section 21(2) were initiated and necessary permission was sought by Assessing Officer, which was granted – Held that:- in re-assessment proceedings, vital questions will be gone into by Assessing Authority upon considering specification of inverters given by petitioner – Re-assessment proceedings therefore, cannot be faulted – In order/circular issued by Commissioner, he has not decided finally as to whether inverters are electronic goods or not – Commissioner had only given general direction to his subordinate authorities to examine this question – Decided against Appellant.
............
|
9911796707
