|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 721 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 812
Whether activity of kitting carried out by the appellants amounts to “manufacture” - appellant imported various parts/modules/accessories of Printers, Copiers and Photocopiers and performed kitting activities including assembling of all the components with the use of imported parts/modules and indigenous components and accessories - kitting activity was an essential function to make the machine operational - appellant contended that their activities were nothing but installation of Copiers-cum-Printers and no new product emerged from such activities - held that:- Moment there is a transformation into a new commodity, commercially known as distinct and a separate commodity, having its own character, use and name, whether be it the result of one process or several processes, manufacture takes place. It was only upon completion of process of kitting which comprised of assembly of the imported modules and parts along with indigenously procured parts and accessories that the machines become functional. The conversion of an article, which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of finished articles into complete or finished article would amount to manufacture and the same has necessarily to be understood qua the requirement of the customers - Decided against the assessee
Jurisdiction of the excise officer for conducting the investigation and adjudication proceedings - Held that:- It is settled law that when a cause of action in relation to offendable incident or in relation to series of activities which are offendable or the violation of the provisions of law arises within the jurisdiction of different investigating officers or adjudicating officers, every such officer will have jurisdiction to investigate and or adjudicate upon such offence or violation arising in all such territories. Merely because installation was carried out beyond territorial jurisdiction, once it is established that the major activity of manufacturing in relation to such machines was carried out at Rampur which lies within the jurisdiction of Meerut Commissionerate, it cannot be said that Commissioner at Meerut had no jurisdiction to investigate and adjudicate upon the matter - Decided in favor of Revenue
Extended period of limitation - Held that:- The relevant information was suppressed from the department and assessee misdeclared their activity as trading activity and thereby wilfully indulged in contravention of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade the duty payable on those goods. Obviously, therefore, the authorities were justified in invoking extended period of limitation.
Penalty - Held that:- There was a clear case of suppression of material facts with intent to evade the duty and that itself justified the imposition of penalty. See Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT)
-
2010 (11) TMI 811
Legality of the charge sheet issued against the respondent - Import of gold - duty free under Advance License Scheme under Foreign Trade Policy - adjudication order dropping the proceedings initiated against the aforesaid exports for recovery of Customs duty foregone on 21428.693 KGs Gold imported by them - duty free under Advance License Scheme under Foreign Trade Policy - whether Shri H.V. Chauhan acting as a quasi-judicial adjudicating authority has relied on the copies of the Bills of Entry produced by the aforesaid exporters and gave no credence to the copies of Bills of Entry relied upon in SCN issued by the Department - Held that:- As regard Article II framed against the respondent is concerned, suffice would it be to state that grounds similar to irregularity (ii) were raised by the department before the CESTAT. After examining the adjudicating order passed by the respondent in great detail, the CESTAT did not find any merit in the said grounds raised by the department and held that the respondent had correctly appreciated the documentary evidence adduced by the department and REL & AEL, the department was wholly unjustified in issuing a charge sheet against the respondent in respect of Article II, adjudication order passed by the respondent while exercising quasi-judicial power was the foundation of the charge sheet and shorn of technicalities, at the heart of the charge was the allegation that the order was passed contrary to law to confer benefit upon the assessees. Meaningfully read, the charge sheet seeks to inculpate the respondent with reference to his acts performed in a quasi-judicial functioning and Tribunal has returned a correct verdict, petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 807
Bad debts written off - Whether ITAT is justified in law in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) ignoring the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and had failed to substantiate its claim of bad debts written off - Held that:- In view of judgment of T.R.F. Ltd. (2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT) it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt had already become irrecoverable. If the assessee takes a bonafide decision that it was necessary to write off the bad debts, the writing off may be justified. In any case, for levy of penalty, it has to be shown that the assessee had made concealment or had given wrong information to evade tax, there was no intention to evade tax - no substantial question of law arises, appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (11) TMI 806
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted by ITAT - Held that:- As the assessee had the bona fide belief as to the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereon disregarding the fact that breach of a civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contraventions was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not as willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as in the matter of prosecution u/s 276C as held in the case of Union of India and others vs Dharmendra Textile Processors and others [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT]- As revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Co[urt in CIT v. Fateh Sigh (HUF)[2010 (7) TMI 849 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 805
Stay petitions - grievance of the petitioner is that without considering pendency of the appeals, demand notice has been issued as per Ext.P13 and steps for attachment of the Bank account was initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 notice – Held that:- Respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 to P7 appeals at the earliest possible, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, recovery steps now initiated pursuant to Exts.P1 and P13 notices shall be kept in abeyance, if there was any non-cooperation from the part of the petitioner, the second respondent will be at liberty to finalise the appeals without providing any further opportunity of hearing
-
2010 (11) TMI 804
Expenditure incurred by way of contribution to Employees Welfare Fund - Disallowance made for the reason that the funds are not approved and so much so, claim of deduction is hit by section 40A(9) of the Income-tax Act - Held that:- Assessee has no case that employer's contribution was made to a Fund in terms of clauses (iv) and (v) of section 36(1) or under provision of any other Act or Rules. So much so, contribution to unrecognized Employees Welfare Fund by the employer is not allowable by virtue of the express provision contained in section 40A(9) of the Act. We find support for this position in the earlier judgment of this Court reported in Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2006 (8) TMI 99 - HIGH COURT, KERALA]- therefore, reject both these appeals
Deduction of expenditure incurred for research and development under section 35(1) - finding of the Tribunal is that assessee, besides paying some advance for research equipments, has not carried out any research and the asset itself was acquired in subsequent year. Even though expenditure, both revenue and capital incurred by the assessee for research and development qualifies for deduction, the advance paid for acquiring assets – Held that:- Assessee is entitled to deduction for the year in which equipments were acquired, which happened in subsequent year and so much so, no merit for advancing the claim to this year. Consequently both the appeals are dismissed
-
2010 (11) TMI 803
Resident or non-resident - Assessee is an individual - return of income was filed under the status of "non-resident" processed under s. 143(1) which resulted in refund order being issued. Subsequently it was selected for scrutiny, assessee appeared and furnished the details of his stay in India during the previous years which according to the assessee was 140 days, AO came to a conclusion that amount received by way of salary by the assessee was income deemed to have been received in India as per s. 5(2)(b) and as such same was brought within the taxable income and demand was raised accordingly by assessment order - Held that:- Assessee was working outside India for a period of 225 days and the income in question earned by assessee has not accrued in India and is not deemed to have accrued in India, appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. In favour of assssee.
-
2010 (11) TMI 802
Loss on sale of repossessed assets u/s 36(1) (vii) r/w Section 36 (2) - Whether assessee had satisfied the conditions as prescribed in Section 36(2) so as to allow deduction of loss of 1.56 crore u/s 36 (1) (vii) - Whether loss on sale of repossessed assets is a capital loss or it is a bad debt allowable u/s 36(1) (vii) R/W Section 36 (2) – Held that:- CIT (A) was right in his conclusion to held that the amount advanced by the assessee during the course of business could not be recovered would be treated as bad debt allowable under Section 36 (2) of the Act. Relied on A.W.Figgies case [2001 (9) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA High Court].
Depreciation on computers and peripherals at the rate of 60% is allowable now settled by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. BSES Yamuna Powers Ltd. [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT]
-
2010 (11) TMI 801
Concessional rate of tax under section 115H r.w.s. 115E on the interest received from the bank deposits maintained by the assessee - NRNR deposits are transferred by the assessee from one bank to another – Held that:- Deposits retain character as a foreign exchange asset because, asset, namely the deposit, was acquired with convertible foreign exchange, so long as the original source of the deposit is convertible foreign exchange, the transfer of such foreign exchange asset, namely the deposit from one bank to another will not affect it's identity as a foreign exchange asset. So much so, finding of the Tribunal that assessee is entitled to concessional rate of tax on the interest earned from NRNR deposits under section 115H read with section 115E is correct. Accordingly, we dismiss the department appeal.
-
2010 (11) TMI 800
Reopening of assessment u/s 148 - Held that:- No merit in these appeals filed by the Revenue because without making regular assessment under Section 143(3), the Department reopened the assessment under Section 148 merely because income returned by the assessee is less than the income asssessable under Section 44AE. The first appellate authority held that Section 44AE has no application unless the Department proves that the assessee's accounts are not correct and complete. This order of the CIT (Appeals) is confirmed by the Tribunal. Against revenue.
-
2010 (11) TMI 799
Long term capital gain or income from other sources - sale consideration of shares – Held that:- CIT(A) and Tribunal have both given reasons in support of their findings as at the time of transactions, the broker in question was not banned by SEBI at the time of transaction and that assessee had produced copies of purchase bills, contract number share certificate, application for transfer of share certificate to demat account along with copies of holding statement in demat account, balance sheet as on 31st March, 2003, sale bill, bank account, demat account and official report and quotations of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. thus CIT(A) directed AO to treat sale consideration of shares as long-term capital gain - present appeal does not raise any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, appeal is accordingly dismissed
-
2010 (11) TMI 798
Income from house property - deemed owner - Whether the ITAT has not erred in directing AO not to charge the annual letting value of the West Tower under the head 'income from house property' since the principle of res judicata does not apply in income-tax proceedings? - assessee took ground predicated on the provisions of section 27(iii) r.w.s. 269 UA (f) (ii) and submitted that under those provisions, it would be a sub-licensee as deemed owner would be charged to tax in his hands – Held that:- Tribunal examined the licence agreement entered into between the NDMC and the assessee on the basis of which it has come to the conclusion that it is the NDMC, which is the "owner of the premises and remains to be the owner of the premises in question". The Tribunal has further accepted the submissions of the assessee that in view of the provisions of section 27 (iii) of the Act, it is the sub-licensee who would be "deemed owner" of those premises which the sub-licensees whereof transferred to the present occupiers and those occupiers are paying rent/licence fee to the sub-licensees. On that basis, the Tribunal has set aside the addition made by the AO and deleted this component of income holding that the same would not be chargeable to tax, Tribunal in deciding the aforesaid issue is perfectly justified. There is no reason to interfere with the same - in favour of the assessee.
-
2010 (11) TMI 797
Royalty - Additions under s. 40A{3) of the IT Act - assessee was a contractor and collecting the royalty and payment had been made to the contractor who had collected the royalty on behalf of the State - AO disallowed 20 per cent of the amount as the payment exceeded Rs. 20,000 – Held that:- Amount was paid to the contractor which was collected on behalf of the State Government as such no disallowance could have been made in view of r. 6DD(b). The Government has granted contract to collect the royalty to the contractor. The payment was made to the contractor not in individual capacity, but on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan, hence, no disallowance under r. 6DD(b) could have been made, CIT(A) and Tribunal have not committed any illegality in passing the orders, no substantial question arises in the instant appeal. Consequently, the income-tax appeal is hereby dismissed
-
2010 (11) TMI 796
Denial of unabsorbed investment allowance and unabsorbed depreciation allowance - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that no interest under section 234B and 234C was leviable in the case of the assessee as the provisions of section 34A (4) of the Act override the provisions of section 234B and 234C of the Act, since the assessed taxes had been paid before the due date for filing the return - Held that:- assessee was not required to pay any tax on the original return income. By virtue of the order dated 26.03.1999 the set off pertaining to the previous years came to be altered. Consequently the unabsorbed allowances that were required to be shown for the year 1992-1993 became altered. This happened only in the year 1999, obviously the assessee was not expected to guess, imagine or presume such an alteration in the years to come which is almost seven years later than the return of income filed by the assessee. Therefore the Tribunal was justified in saying that as on the date of return of income field on 29.12.1992, there was neither delayed payment of tax nor short fall of tax payable as income tax, substantial questions of law have to be answered against the revenue, appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 795
Assessment - Tribunal by order and Cross-Objection and other connected matters, after going through the accounts of ICA and KSD produced by the Assessee opined that in the revised returns filed by the Assessee, the income of ICA and KSD were wrongly included and that the income of the said entities could not be considered as income of the assessee. It also opined that in case of Transcorp Associates - Delhi, Megacorp-Bombay and Intercorp-Bombay should not be computed as the income of the assessee and the income of the said firms to be excluded from the scrutiny while reassessing the income of the assessee – Held that:- Tribunal directed for redoing the assessment as directed by the C.I.T earlier, there should not have been a fresh assessment orders. By virtue of the orders in the [2008 (10) TMI 326 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] there cannot be any order which could be enforced order than the order dated 14.10.2008. The authorities concerned have a mandate to follow the directions of this court as this order 2008 (10) TMI 326 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has reached finality now. In that view of the matter, neither the assessment order passed on the second occasion nor the orders of the C.I.T nor the orders of the ITAT in the second round of litigation will hold good, authorities concerned directed to redo the entire assessment in the light of the observations made by this Court in the order dated 14.10.2008, appeal stands disposed of accordingly
-
2010 (11) TMI 794
Applicability of provisions of section 144B - Held that:- As in the case of Saraya Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.'s case (1985 (3) TMI 83 - ITAT ALLAHABAD-A) it cannot be said that IAC exercised the powers or performed the functions of the ITO, merely for the reason that he was conferred the concurrent jurisdiction, neither any order was passed by the IAC assessing the income of the assessee nor is there anything to indicate that he exercised the powers or performed the functions of the ITO, it cannot be said that the case was covered by section 144B(7) of the Act. The question is answered in negative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
Limitation for making assessment - Held that:- In the present case, the period falling under both the heads was different. They were not overlapping with each other and as such the period when the case was referred under section 142(2A) till receipt of audit report as well as, when the draft order under section 144B was received by the Assessee (when it was served on the assessee) till the IAC issued direction, was to be exclude. It is accepted that in the event the period under both heads was to be excluded then the assessment order would not be barred by time. Against assessee.
-
2010 (11) TMI 793
Export profit - Deduction u/s 80HHC in the computation of book profit u/s 115JB - whether the assessees whose gross total income after setting off business loss and depreciation carried forward from previous years is nil are entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC in the computation of book profit under s. 115JB(2)(iv) - Held that:- Export profit eligible for deduction under s. 80HHC, assessees are certainly entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC but it is only by following the method provided under sub-ss. (3) and (3A) of s. 80HHC, restriction contained in s. 80AB or s. 80B(5) could not be applied in as much as carry forward of business loss or depreciation should not be first set off leaving gross total income nil, which disentitles the assessee for deduction under other provisions of Chapter VIA-C which includes s. 80HHC also. But assessees' contention that export profit has to be computed with reference to the P and L a/c prepared under the Companies Act is equally unacceptable because there is no such provision in s. 80HHC to determine export profit with reference to P and L a/c maintained under the Companies Act, assessees are entitled to deduction of export profit under s. 80HHC and the relief is to be granted in terms of sub-ss. (3) and (3A) of the said section, AO directed to recompute the book profit by granting deduction under s. 80HHC in terms of above findings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd.'s case (2010 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT) - direction to the AO to recompute the book profit by granting deduction under s. 80HHC.
-
2010 (11) TMI 777
Unexplained investment - Estimation of addition u/s 158B(b) by the multiplication of receipts being de hors the material available - Whether the Tribunal's order is sustainable in confirming the addition being contrary to the modus operandi and the nature of transactions carried on by the assessee? - Held that:- The assessee was unable to point out that the findings concurrently recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal while sustaining the addition of Rs.3,18,000 were erroneous or perverse in any manner. Only an effort was made by the counsel for re-appreciation of evidence by this court which is not within the ambit of section 260A of the Act. As noticed earlier, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted by any of the authorities below. The Tribunal has taken a plausible view
-
2010 (11) TMI 776
Taxability of IPRS - as per revenue IPRS accrued on the date of export, i.e., March 22, 1993 and therefore, the same was exigible to income-tax relating to the assessment year 1993-94 - Held that:- The issue regarding accrual of income from export incentive came up for consideration before this court in CIT v. Sriyansh Knitters P. Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 638 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that no income accrued till the claim of the assessee was quantified and verified. Admittedly, in the present case, the assessee had submitted the claim for IPRS and received it during the next assessment year, i.e., the assessment year 1994-95 and, therefore, the same could not be held to be taxable in the current assessment year.
-
2010 (11) TMI 775
Rectification of Assessment order - application u/s 154 claiming that deduction u/s 80-I was to be allowed on the gross total income without reducing it by unabsorbed allowances - Held that:- Relying upon the decision of Kotagiri Industrial Co-operative Tea Factory Ltd. (1997 (3) TMI 1 - SUPREME Court) wherein held that deduction under section 80P is from gross total income determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act and unabsorbed losses of the earlier years are to be set off before allowing the deduction under section 80P of the Act - thus legal position on the basis of which rectification under section 154 of the Act had been initiated stood crystallized in 1985, it cannot be said that the issue was debatable when Assessing Officer assumed jurisdiction to rectify order and rectification done was in order, no illegality is noticed in the order of the Tribunal and finding no merit in the appeal hence dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
