|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 1328 Records
-
2014 (4) TMI 1089
Transfer pricing adjustment - exclusion of comparable - Held that:- No infirmity in the action of the CIT(A) in excluding the two companies, viz. Infosys and Wipro from the list of comparables. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect reject the grounds of the Revenue on this appeal. See Capital IQ Information Systems (India) (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (International Taxation) [ 2014 (3) TMI 626 - ITAT HYDERABAD ]
Eclerx Services Technologies it is difficult to find out any relatively equal degree of comparability as Eclerx Services, which is engaged in providing high end services involving specialized knowledge and domain enterprise, i.e. KPO companies, and the said entities cannot be taken as comparable for the purpose of determining ALP of the transactions of the assessee company with its AE. Further, in the case of Market Tools Research (2013 (12) TMI 414 - ITAT HYDERABAD), it has been held that Eclerx Services cannot be taken as a comparable in view of the extraordinary profits of that company and that the company was engaged with knowledge process outsourcing business, which is distinct and different from the assessee’s business.
Moldtek Technologies Ltd., in the proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09, in assessee’s own case, the DRP has accepted the assessee’s contention that that company cannot be taken as comparable because of exceptional financial results, due to merger/de-merger. In this view of the matter, the CIT(A) in our view is justified in excluding these two companies as well from the list of comparables. - Decided against revnue
-
2014 (4) TMI 1088
Treatment to sale of shares - capital gains or business income - Held that:- assessee has disclosed shares as investment in the balance sheet, there is no claim of any expenses while computing capital gains which demonstrates the intention of the assessee to treat the shares and securities as investment and not as stock-in-trade. No borrowed interest bearing funds was invested in shares. CBDT in its Instruction No 1827 dated 31.08.1989 has laid down certain criteria to determine whether an activity of purchase & sale of shares/securities is in the nature of trading activity or investment activity. One of the criteria laid down is the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account as a trading asset or investment; treatment given in the books is indicative of assessee's intention whether to hold the shares with a view to earn dividend & long term appreciation or with a view to carrying on as business. Even various Courts and Tribunals have approved that treatment given by the assessee in its books of account as a vital factor to decide whether the assessee is a trader or an investor. We also found that the assessee has regularly treated shares as investment in the earlier year and has offered gain on sale of shares under the head “capital gain”.
Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in case of assessee’s brother, wherein facts and circumstances are same, we do not find any merit in the action of the lower authorities for treating the short term capital gain as business income, when the AO himself has accepted assessee’s investment in shares which resulted in long term capital gain as it is. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1087
Addition on account of opening cash balance - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- Entry relating to this opening balance was not appearing in the books of account in the assessment year under consideration as this is earlier year’s carry forward balance. As held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Parameshwar Bhora, [2007 (1) TMI 105 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ] amount which was credited in books of account of the assessee in the preceding year cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit or unexplained investment under s. 68/69 in the relevant assessment year. In the present case, since the opening balance of cash is only carried forward entry and it is not appearing in the financial year under consideration, following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the said case, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of opening cash balance. - Decided against revenue
Addition on amount received out of the withdrawal of his wife Smt. Padmavathi from her business - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The CIT(A) observed that as a principle the department has accepted the investment and availability of fund belonging to appellant’s wife and therefore, the AO should have accepted the claim of the assessee basing on documentary evidence. It is also found that the AO had not caused any enquiry to ascertain the existence of the concern owned by appellant’s wife. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the addition received by the assessee from his wife. - Decided against revenue
Addition made based on the scribbling found in the seized material - unaccounted payments made by the assessee for investment in lands - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In this case, the addition was made by the AO based on the loose paper and the same, in our view, cannot be considered as conclusive evidence. As held by the CIT(A) in the impugned order “except relying on the notings in the loose slips, no attempt has been made to corroborate the notings with independent evidence. The parties to the transaction particularly the vendor has not examined. In every transaction there is a circle concerning two parties. It is not known whether the vendor has disclosed the consideration as noted in the diary. Therefore, merely on the basis of presumption and some uncorroborated notings additions cannot be made.” In our opinion, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is justified and no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A) - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (4) TMI 1086
Long term capital gains under section 50C - adoption of sale consideration on the basis of the stamp duty valuation under section 50C OR the sale price received by the assessee - Held that:- Find no merit in the stand of the assessee and the objections raised against the Valuation Report have no meaning including the stand of DVO to have adopted commercial rates for valuing the said property as the assessment in the hands of the assessee has not been made on such Valuation Report but on a much lesser value of ₹ 1.25 crores and even if credit is given on account of all the objections raised by the assessee, the value of property adopted in the hands of the assessee is much lower than the value determined by the DVO. Hence, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) in adopting the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authorities as the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer in computing the income of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1085
Validity of claim for deduction/exemption u/s. 54F as well as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) - denial of claim by treating the gain, returned by the assessee(s) as LTCG, as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. - Held that:- both the purchase and sale transactions in shares have been executed off market, without in fact even fulfilling the reporting requirements in respect thereof under the regulatory framework.The Revenue’s findings and decision are thus completely endorsed and upheld, confirming the additions
The fringe services provided merely facilitate the assessee’s principal business of making available office space to others for carrying on their businesses, at least in so far and the extent as could be carried out from within the confines of a cabin. It is stated that even tea, snacks are provided for a charge. Whether, however, the assesse has employed staff, incurring expenditure on their preparation, toward which we find no contention, much less material. All it has done, as it would appear, is make available peon for serving tea or even snacks, as bought-outs, as would be the case in any office setting. In fact, tea could be prepared in-house, or even through a vending machine, with little or no impact on the essential character of the ‘services’ being provided. Why, a landlord may provide services of a lift, security services, even a caretaker to take care of the needs of the tenants of different flats residing in his building. That, however, would not though make it any less an arrangement to exploit the inherent rental capacity or potential of the property. Further, what is the furniture and fixture, also let, and if it is inseparable from the letting the building and, further, not a part of the cabin itself, remains to be clarified. The assessee has referred to a hotel, implying perhaps that while the said industry falls in the hospitality sector, it operates in the business sector. The argument is flawed, and the comparison ends before it begins. We have already noted absence of any economic activity of merit, which alone would enable the assessee’s business being categorized under a particular sector or even be termed as an industry. While a hotel would fall in the hospitality sector, which business segment signifies the assessee’s business it fails to convey. No separate charge for the electricity consumed or the equipment used, viz. TV and other equipments, installed therein, being part of the hospitability services being provided, is made in the case of a hotel. An analogy thereto, if at all, could be of a taxi operator or a photocopier, who for a charge make available, through user their equipments, furnishing the required service, viz. the transport service or the copying service, as the case may be. In fact, even in the case of hotel, where there is a continuing arrangement, as in the instant case, the charge for the space provided would only be a measure of the AV of the property. As such, where the contract/s for stay is to subsist for any significant length of time, the same under certain cases would assume the nature of rent, and not a license, even as clarified by the CBDT per its circular in the context of section 194I of the Act.
We may, however, add that on the same basis and premises as the telephone and electricity charges, the assesse, at its option, is entitled to segregate the charges, if any, toward receipt for internet, fax, etc. collected by it, and claim expenditure there-against u/s. 37(1) or any other applicable provision. We say so as, as it appears, these may also be provided on a continuous, systematic basis, so as to constitute a separate source of income. Subject to this modification, we find little merit in the assessee’s case and endorse the findings of the Revenue authorities. We decide accordingly, partly allowing the assessee’s ground.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1084
Disallowance u/s 43(1) - CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on account of depreciations - whether A.O. correctly made the said disallowance by applying Explanation-10 to section 43(1)? - Held that:- In order to invoke Explanation 10, it is necessary to show that the subsidy was directly or indirectly used for acquiring an asset. This is again a question of fact. The relatable subsidy to such asset can be reduced from the cost only if it is found that the cost for acquiring that asset was directly or indirectly met out of the subsidy.Likewise in the proviso, it is necessary to show that the subsidy has been directly or indirectly used to acquire an asset but it is not possible to exactly quantify the amount directly or indirectly used for acquiring the asset. Here also, a finding of fact is necessary that an asset was acquired by directly or indirectly using the subsidy. The above Explanation and the proviso thereto do not dilute the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court] that asset-wise subsidy alone can be reduced from the actual cost. The above Explanation and the proviso therein attempt to explain the law. They are not bringing any new law different from the law considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of depreciation of assessee. We uphold the same. - Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of expenses at 1% of exempted income by invoking the provisions of section 14A - Held that:- We find that the relevant assessment year involved is 2007-08 and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT [2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] wherein it is held that Rule 8D of the Rules as inserted by the I. T (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 24.3.2008 is prospective and not retrospective. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at 1% of the exempted income u/s. 14A of the Act. We find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and hence, the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1083
Condonation of delay - Pre deposit done though CENVAT Credit - Held that:- The delay in depositing the amount through Cenvat credit account is condoned. The Tribunal may first decide the question whether the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- can be deposited through Cenvat credit account or not. - amount mentioned in the order 13-12-2010 can be paid through Cenvat credit account, then the appeal of the Assessee will not be dismissed merely on the ground that this amount was deposited with delay. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1082
Benefit of additional depreciation - Held that:- The additional depreciation on new Plant & Machinery u/s.32(iia) has been allowed with a view to give boost to the manufacturing sector. Benefit of such additional depreciation is in addition to the normal depreciation which is allowed to all the assessees. However, the benefit of additional depreciation is given subject to certain conditions. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Cosmo Films Ltd., (2012 (9) TMI 281 - ITAT DELHI) and ACIT Vs. Sil Investment Ltd., (2012 (6) TMI 83 - ITAT DELHI ) has allowed the claim of assessee for 50% of additional depreciation u/s.32(i)(iia) in respect of new Plant & Machinery installed at the new eligible industrial undertaking where Plant & Machinery were put to use for less than 180 days in the year of installation and the assessee had claimed only 50% of the additional depreciation and the balance amount was claimed in the next year.
On the other hand, Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Brakes India Ltd., (2012 (3) TMI 31 - ITAT, CHENNAI) and M/s.CRI Pumps (P) Ltd., Vs. ACIT (2013 (12) TMI 1357 - ITAT CHENNAI) has taken a contrary view.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd., reported as ( 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court ) has held that where two views are available, the view in favour of the assessee has to be taken. Accordingly, following the view taken by the Delhi Bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Cosmo Films Ltd., (supra) and ACIT Vs. Sil Investment Ltd., (supra), we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee. The Assessing Officer is directed to grant benefit of additional depreciation to the assessee to the extent not claimed by the assessee in the earlier AY. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1081
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- Find force in the contention of assessee that the interest has been wrongly taken as the assessee has sufficient interest-free funds available, hence the addition made on account of interest amounting to ₹ 1,37,060/- is hereby directed to be deleted. In respect of the disallowance towards administrative expenses, since both the authorities below have not given finding as to whether the ½% of average investment is of those investments wherefrom the assessee has earned exempt income. As per the provision of Rule 8D, it is only the average of the value of the investment from which the income has been earned which is not falling within the part of total income that is to be considered. Thus, it is not the total investment at the beginning of the year and at the end of year which is to be considered but it is the average of the value of the investment which has given rise to the income which does not form part of total income is to be considered. Hence, the issue is restored back to the file of AO to verify as to how much investment was made during the year on which the assessee has earned exempt income and, accordingly, re-compute the disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1080
Valuation of goods - Whether the value considered by the appellant for discharging duty on the goods cleared to their sister concern; which is based on the value charged by them to independent buyers is correct or any other alternate valuation mode needs to be adopted - Held that:- Admittedly, the clearance made to their sister concern would fall under the provisions of Section 4(i)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the clearance to their sister concern is not a sale. We find that for determining the correct value under Section 4(i)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provisions of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 needs to be followed. In the said provisions, Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules clearly indicates that the value of excisable goods shall be based on such goods sold by the assessee.
Value need to be adopted by the appellant on the goods which were cleared to their sister concern should be done under Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 which is the correct position of law, inasmuch as the Central Excise Valuation Rules were framed, to determine the correct value of the goods cleared, which fall under the provisions of Section 4(i)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the case in hand, since there is no dispute that the goods which were cleared by the appellant to their sister concern are the same which are cleared by them to the independent buyers, we do not see anything wrong in applying the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellant to the independent buyers for discharge of duty on the goods cleared to their sister concern. - impugned orders are liable to set aside - assessable value on which duty is discharged in case of independent buyers, will be the value for discharge of duty on clearances made to sister concerns. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1079
Issuance of demand notice – Petitioner submitted that respondents are not justified in issuing demand notice at Annexure-M after issuing redemption letter – On hearing advocates, impugned communication is not to be treated as executable order – On petitioner submitting reply thereto, case would be considered afresh – Petitioner granted time to file its objections/reply/representation in response to notice at Annexure-M.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1078
Refund of Entry Tax – Matter remanded for afresh consideration - Revision petition was preferred against order of Appellate Tribunal setting aside orders of assessing authority and directing to refund, entry tax paid by them – Held that:- Tribunal has not made any distinction between machines and tools, such as grinding and cutting wheel and other tools which are operated by electrical power –According to petitioner, court is concerned only with electrical power tools such as grinding and cutting wheel and various other tools and not with machines as such – In circumstances, order of Tribunal set aside with further direction to consider appeal afresh in light of judgment of R. K. Powergen Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] – Matter remanded back to Tribunal – Decided in favour of petitioner.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1077
Imposition of Penalty while pendency of Appeal – When second appeal filed by petitioner against assessment order was pending, despite that, assessing authority levied penalty – Vide impugned order Second Appeal was allowed by Board and original assessment order was set aside, with direction to assessing officer to pass fresh order, in accordance with law – Held that:- penalty was levied during pendency of second appeal against assessment order - As said second appeal has been allowed and matter has been remitted to assessing officer to pass fresh order impugned order imposing penalty needs to be quashed – Decided in favour of Petitioner.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1076
Condition of Pre-deposit – Waiver – Appellant was required to deposit sum as additional demand including interest vide assessment order – However, appeal was filed against assessment order along with application for entertainment of appeal without payment of additional demand and stay of its recovery proceedings – Joint Commissioner dismissed appeal in default being not maintainable as appellant had failed to comply requirement to deposit additional demand – Held that:- appellant directed to deposit reduced sum as condition precedent for hearing of appeal before Joint Commissioner (Appeals), whereupon, Joint Commissioner (Appeals), shall hear appeal on merits – Decided partially in favour of Appellant.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1075
Denial of mining lease of iron ore reserves - Contempt of Court - Held that:- There is a judgment, inter parties, which has become final. Even when the Civil Appeal was being heard, certain other parties claiming their interest in these very lands had moved intervention applications which were dismissed. At that time also it was mentioned that there are 195 applicants. However, notwithstanding the same, this Court issued firm directions to the State Government to recommend the case of the petitioners for mining lease in both the areas. In view of such categorical and unambiguous directions given in the judgment which has attained finality, merely because another judgment has been delivered by this Court in Sandur Manganese case, cannot be a ground to undo the directions contained in the judgment [2012 (3) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT]. In so far as law laid down in Sandur Manganese (2010 (9) TMI 1058 - Supreme Court Of India) is concerned, that may be applied and followed by the State Government in respect of other applications which are still pending. However, that cannot be pressed into service qua the petitioner whose rights have been crystallised by the judgment rendered in its favour. It cannot be re-opened, that too at the stage of implementation of the said judgment.
Respondents/ Contemners are in contempt of orders dated 14.3.2012 passed by this Court in not complying with the directions in respect of Keora area. However, we are giving one final opportunity to them to purge the contempt by transmitting requisite recommendations to the Central Government. It would be for the Central Government to consider the said recommendations on its own merits and in accordance with law. In case the recommendation is sent within one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, we propose not to take any further action and the respondents/ contemners shall stand discharged from this Contempt Petition. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1074
Addition in the closing stock of Press mud - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2008-09. We decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) - Decided against revenue.
Addition in the closing stock of baggase - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- In the statement of facts on page No. 2 filed by the Assessing Officer, it is stated that opening stock of baggase has been shown at 4,400 quintals and after deducting sales of 5,107 quintals, closing stock of baggase remains at 3,262 quintals. The Assessing Officer has made addition on account of closing stock but he has not given any credit for opening stock, which was not valued by the assessee since the assessee is following this system of accounting that closing stock of baggase is not valued by it. It is true that the system adopted by the assessee is faulty and the assessee should have valued the closing stock year after year but since inception, the assessee is following this system and the same was accepted by the Department and therefore, to make any change in the system, we have to give effect in value of opening stock also. Considering the entire facts and smallness of amount involved, we feel that this defect in the system of accounting followed by the assessee can be ignored because the amount involved is small and to rectify the same, change will be required in several years. We, therefore, decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue.
Addition on account of molasses in Kachha pit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is stated by the Assessing Officer on page No. 2 of the statements of facts that the assessee has valued the closing stock of molesses weighing 11,205 quintals @Rs.11/- per unit, which is substantially low in comparison to molasses kept in tanks. The claim of the assessee is that the molasses stored in Kachcha pit is not saleable. This is by now a settled position of law that valuation of closing stock can be at cost or market price, whichever is lower. This fact has to be accepted that molasses stored in Kachcha pit is defective and is not comparable with the molasses stored in tanks. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not justified in the facts of the present case.- Decided against revenue.
Addition on account of bond money payable - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- There is opening balance of ₹ 13,01,473.10 as on 01/04/2004 and there is deduction of ₹ 3,93,417/- on 31/03/2005 but there is no payment against this opening balance. When this position is considered along with the facts that the assessee has not furnished any detail regarding grower-wise list of money payable, it has to be accepted that such payment is not made by the assessee and the growers are also not claiming the same. Hence, to this extent of the amount deducted from cane price payable to growers, the assessee has not incurred the expenses but debited the same to the profit & loss account in the form of cane price paid and created a liability in the books for which the assessee is not making any payment to anybody and the assessee is not in a position to give partywise details. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is justified - Decided against assessee.
Addition of legal expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- The first person is Shri Raghvendra Singh, Advocate to whom payment of ₹ 25,575/- was made which included ₹ 18,500/- on account of his fees and ₹ 6,775/- on account of misc. expenses. The CIT(A) has correctly deleted this disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the basis that since the amount paid on account of fees was less than the limit of ₹ 20,000/- on which TDS has to be deducted, there was no requirement for any addition.The second person to whom the payment of ₹ 54,454/- was made is Satish Arora & Co. which included ₹ 3,092.50 on account of travelling expenses and photocopy expenses. It is held by CIT(A) that there was no requirement of TDS from the reimbursement of expenses and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Considering the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the action of CIT(A)- Decided against revenue.
Addition made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of commission payment - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- From the para of CIT(A), we find that a clear finding is given by CIT(A) that as per certificate of UP Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, TDS was deducted on sale of sugar and TDS was deposited with Central Government. This finding of CIT(A) could not be controverted and hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).- Decided against revenue.
Addition u/s 36(1)(va) on account of late deposit of employee’s deduction of P.F. and on account of G.I.S. recoveries from employee's late deposited u/s 36(1)(va)- CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision in which the Tribunal has followed the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manoj Kumar Singh [2012 (5) TMI 176 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Respectfully following this Tribunal decision, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT(A).- Decided against revenue.
Addition on account of non refundable deposit - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgment of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2004 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court ] and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. as reported in (2005 (3) TMI 82 - ALLAHABAD High Court ).- Decided against revenue.
Addition on account of payment of subscription to federation u/s 40(a)(ia) - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision rendered in the case of this very assessee for assessment year 2006- 07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 - Decided against revenue.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1073
Application for registration u/s 12A rejected - CIT observed that the main activity of the assessee is running a training institute for stitching and embroidery for women, accordingly giving training of stitching etc. is an occupational training which cannot be termed as educational training, thus held that as per provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, the activity being carried out by the assessee are commercial activity which are not of charitable nature - Held that:- The assessee-trust is giving sewing training class at Ramania, Tal. Mundra-Kutch for women staying in rural areas to give them full training of preparing various clothes/garments so that they themselves can earn their own. The trust had provided raw materials like cloth, threads and other items free of charge to all the 80 mahilas who had participated in the project. By giving training in stitching and embroidery to rural women, the sole purpose of the assessee-trust is to uplift them so that they can become independent. Though the assessee-trust is also charging meager fee, the income & expenditure accounts it shows the stitching training income of ₹ 192668/- whereas expenses incurred for such activities amounting to ₹ 231756, thus resulted to deficit of ₹ 39088/-.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. DGIT(E) (2013 (7) TMI 205 - DELHI HIGH COURT), held that where dominant objective of ICAI was to regulate profession of Chartered Accountancy in India, it was a charitable institution and conducting coaching classes and campus placements for a fee could not be held as business as per section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. In view of the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, just by charging nominal fee for providing training in stitching and embroidery for rural women, the dominant purpose of the assesseetrust is to uplift the status of rural women which is charitable activity within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, set aside the impugned order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I, Rajkot and direct to grant the registration u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1072
Waiver of pre deposit - Merit case in favour of assessee - Held that:- waiver of pre-deposit is not sought on the ground of financial hardship or economic constrain or showing any reason on the part of the petitioner as to why the amount cannot be deposited except for contending that they have a very good case and their appeal is likely to be allowed, no other ground is pointed out, which goes to show that the petitioner has any hardship in the matter from making pre-deposit. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1071
Maintainability of appeal - Alternate remedy - Held that:- when a statutory system of appeals and revisions are provided, then the aggrieved person should take recourse to the said statutory provision and a writ Court should not interfere in the matter. - in view the legal principles laid down by the Apex Court and considering the fact that statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is available to the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere in the matter. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (4) TMI 1070
Denial of refund claim - notification No. 17/2009-S.T., dated 7-7-2009 - held that:- appellate authority cannot introduce conditions in the Notifications from his side, which amounts to the legislation activity of which does not fall under the ambit of appellate jurisdiction being exercised by the Commissioner (Appeals) If the legislation, in its wisdom, has thought it fit not to introduce the conditions of the previous notification in the subsequent Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., it is not open to the departmental authorities to adopt the conditions of the previous notification and apply the same to the present notification - Similarly, in respect of the refund of the other 2 services, I though Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the proper documents satisfying the conditions were not submitted by the assessee, but is the case of the appellant, that such I documentary evidence was filed and is duly available with them - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
