|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 2041 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 1704
Unexplained investment in house property - statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the assessee surrendering ₹ 1 crore on this point - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Taking into account the observations made by the tribunal where after calculation and taking into account true facts and evidence on record the finding has been arrived by the tribunal on the basis of rationality and reading out the documents under its true spirit. In the circumstances, the finding arrived at by the tribunal cannot be disturbed and being the final fact finding authority, the view taken by the tribunal is just and proper. - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1703
Registration u/s 12AA cancelled - AO was of the opinion that the assessee is to be treated like any other assessee - whether Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in relying on its decision for restoring of registration u/s. 12A - Held that:- Merely because the Revenue has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal restoring assessee's registration under Section 12A of the IT Act and that Appeal is admitted and pending means we must, as of right or course, entertain this Appeal, was our specific query.
Which principle of law will enable the Revenue to urge that the order of the Tribunal should be interfered with, has not been clarified. The only argument is, namely, if the Revenue succeeds in the Appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal restoring assessee's registration, then it may be open for the Revenue to tax its income and by holding that both Sections 11 and 12 of the IT Act have no application thereto. We do not think that such ifs and buts would permit the Revenue to get over a presently binding order of the Tribunal. That order of restoration of registration binds the Revenue. That order has not been quashed and set aside by this Court. The Appeal is merely admitted. To our mind, the question as proposed in the present matter is not a substantial question of law.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1702
Pre-deposit - Doctrine of Merger - Recall of order - appeal rejected on account of non compliance of the directions for deposit of the amount contemplated under Section 35F of the Act - Whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the recall application by declining to recall the order dated 10.01.2006 and to adjudicate the appeal on merits despite the appellant having deposited the entire amount of duty of ₹ 56,06,662/- in view of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that:- Section 35F of the Act provides that the person desirous of appealing against the order imposing duty or penalty has to deposit with the Adjudicating Authority the duty demanded or the penalty imposed. However, where in any particular case, the Appellate Tribunal is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or the penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the Appellate Tribunal may dispense with such deposit subject to such conditions as it may deem fit to impose to safeguard the interests of the revenue.
It is not possible to accept the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the order dismissing the Appeal should be recalled and the Appeal should be heard on merits since M/s Sameer Ispat has now deposited the entire amount of duty. The order passed by the Division Bench in SAMEER ISPAT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (1) TMI 713 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] filed by M/s Sameer Ispat has attained finality. If the Appeal could not be heard after the deposit of amount of ₹ 5 lacs, there is no good reason as to why it should be heard after deposit of certain additional amount.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1701
Addition on account of long term capital gain - disallowing the claim u/s 54F as the assessee was having more than one residential house as on date of transfer of the original asset - as contended that the two other properties were never in possession. The title of the property transferred only on execution of an agreement - Held that:- In our considered opinion, merely an agreement or booking of flat is not the property ownership, it is only a claim over the property.
The view taken by the tribunal in deleting the addition made on account of long term capital gain by disallowing the claim u/s 54F is just and proper - Decided in favour of the assessee and against the department.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1700
Disallowance of sum contributed to the trust registered u/s. 12AA and holding the said amount to be business expenditure - Held that:- The expenses actually given in donation to the trust was to be with the requirement of trust for the benefit and betterment of quality of milk to meet the health of the animals, it was so held by the Tribunal - Tribunal has rightly considered the argument raised by counsel for the appellant and decision cited by him were dealt with. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1699
Disallowance of proportionate interest - Held that:- CIT(A) while granting partial relief has noted that no reasons were provided by the assessee for advancing interest free advances. Before us also assessee has not placed any material on record to demonstrate the commercial expediency. We further find that Ld.CIT(A) has noted that on perusal of the ledger account of M/s. Hira Enterprises as well as the copy of bank statement of Kharad Urban Co-operative Bank that amount advanced to sister concern was through the cash credit account. CIT(A) by a well reasoned and detailed order has decided the issue and granted partial relief to assessee. CIT(A) further directed to disallow the proportionate interest. Before us, assessee has not placed any material on record to controvert the findings of CIT(A). No reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of the assessee is dismissed.
TDS u/s 194C - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on printing charges, loading and unloading charges, payment of rent and interest - Held that:- Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT, Ludhiana Vs. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Markfed Khanna Branch [2008 (2) TMI 260 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that when assessee had purchased printed packing material from manufacturer for purpose of packing of its finished products and no raw material was supplied by it to manufacturer for manufacturing such packing materials transaction was a “contract of sale” and not a “works contract” and therefore it was outside the purview of Sec.194C of the Act.
We are of the view that no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act was called for on the payment of printing charges paid by the assessee. With respect to the other expenses on which the disallowance has been confirmed by CIT(A), before us, assessee has not placed any material to controvert his findings and therefore to the extent of such disallowance, no interference to the order of Ld.CIT(A) is called for.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1698
Representation of the applicant made in reply to the Charge Memorandum - Commencement of inquiry proceedings - Held that:- The main ground raised by the applicant in view of the contention of the respondents and the other grounds of the applicant, are required to be examined in detail - Further, as submitted by the respondents’ counsel that the inquiry has not yet been commenced, the prayer for interim relief shall be considered after filing of counter by the respondents or at an appropriate time, if the applicant shows any urgency.
Issue notice.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1697
Addition u/s 68 - whether the ITAT was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which deleted the addition u/s 68 only on the ground that the payments to the creditors have been made by the Assessee in the subsequent years - Held that:- The fact remains that the explanation offered by the Assessee regarding repayment to the creditors in subsequent years was accepted by the Revenue. Therefore the Court is not inclined to examine the question as urged. Nevertheless, the question is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1696
Capital gain computation - Value of sale consideration - Held that:- The assessee has sold the land to 32 persons as stated whereas the Ao has mainly relied upon the statement of Smt. Mithlesh Gupta which has no evidentiary value. The assessee Shri LK. Gupta, Chartered Accountant had submitted the affidavits of 7 persons which were admitted by the ld. CIT(A) as an additional evidence and the AO was required to verify the veracity of the same as per direction of the CIT(A).
The remand report was submitted by the AO and counter comments by the assessee at PB 52. The AO in the remand proceedings has taken the statement of 5 persons except Shri Gauri Shankar and Shri Balwant Kumar whose statements were recorded later on and are on record. All the 7 persons have confirmed to have purchased the land ₹ 200/- per sq. yard and no defect in the same has been pointed out by any of the authorities below.
We appreciate the submissions of the assessee Shri L.K. Gupta, that other purchasers of the land have not been examined by the AO and no step has been taken in this regard by any of the authorities below. Therefore, in such circumstances and facts of the case, the AO is not justified in taking the value of the land at ₹ 900/-per sq. yard. CIT(A) who has gone a step ahead to invoke the Provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act which was not even invoked by the AO and valuing the rate of sale of land at ₹ 600/- per sq. yard is without any material on record and purely on surmises and conjectures. Rate of sale of land adopted by the assessee is directed to be accepted. Therefore, capital gain as declared by the assessee is directed to be accepted. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (9) TMI 1695
TDS u/s 194A on the amount of interest paid on term deposits - Whether the provisions of section 194A(3)(v) apply to cooperative society involved in the business of banking? - Held that:- We find that this issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Almora Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO(TDS), Kashipur [2015 (8) TMI 13 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it was held that the provisions of section give blanket exemption to the interest paid by any cooperative society to its members and that neither section 2(19) nor section 194A(3)(v) claims any discrimination between the cooperative societies carrying on banking business and other cooperative societies. CIT(A) has rightly followed the aforesaid decision and deleted the demand in dispute, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we uphold the same and reject the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue.
Short deduction of TDS and interest thereon - Form No. 15G/15H were not submitted to the CIT(TDS), Chandigarh on or before 7th day of the week - Held that:- Assessee had received Form 15G/15H from all the persons to whom the interest was paid and the assessee had also sent these Forms to the Income Tax Department. Not sending these Forms Specifically to CIT, TDS is a mere technical breach. CIT(A) has rightly held that assessee was not required to deduct TDS on interest so paid, hence, the demand raised by the AO was accordingly deleted, which does not need any interference on our part, therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and reject the ground no. 2 raised by the Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1694
Deduction u/s 10AA - proof of manufacturing activity - Held that:- The activity which was carried out comes within the area of manufacturing and trading will go together. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the circular issued by the Ministry of Commerce of Industry as referred above the view taken by the authorities is required to be confirmed. The appeal preferred by the department against the same assessee. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR (RAJ) VERSUS M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELLERS LTD [2017 (8) TMI 1405 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT]. - Decided in favour of the assessee.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1693
Inclusion and exclusion of comparables for determining the arms length price (ALP) for the purpose of transfer pricing adjustment - as submitted that the conclusions of the ITAT in respect of each of the comparables are perverse - Held that:- Neither in the questions of law as urged by the Revenue nor in the grounds in the memorandum of Appeal is there a specific plea that the conclusions of the ITAT are perverse. In any event, the ground of perversity is not to be casually urged. It has to be supported by a proper pleading which again has to be on the basis of a detailed study of the impugned order of the ITAT pointing out to the High Court in what manner the ITAT’s conclusions can be said to be perverse.
The exclusion and inclusion of comparables is by and large an exercise of analysis of facts. If there has to be a substantial question of law framed on such an issue, the Revenue should come up with a proper plea based on a detailed study of the impugned order of the ITAT. This Court is therefore not persuaded in the present case to hold that any substantial question of law has arisen for consideration from the impugned order of the ITAT.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1692
Revision u/s 263 - addition u/s 14A - Held that:- Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue very fairly submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is covered against the revenue, by judgments of this Court in The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017 (5) TMI 843 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. State Bank of Patiala [2017 (5) TMI 1551 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]
-
2017 (9) TMI 1691
CENVAT Credit - Tippers - composite service - Held that:- Tribunal held that the service tax paid under the BAS by considering the total service of the assessee as a composite service, essentially made the assessee eligible to CENVAT Credit claimed on tippers - the findings rendered by the Tribunal do not generate any substantial question of law for interference by answering it in favour of the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1690
CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses and also having a distillery division, whether Cenvat credit have been rightly denied? - Benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE - SCN contents that rectified spirit is manufactured in between the process to manufacture denatured spirit and rectified spirit does not find place in Central Excise Tariff with effect from 01.03.2005 and therefore CENVAT credit is not admissible as inputs & input services and capital goods going into manufacture of rectified spirit.
Whether ethyl alcohol and rectified spirit are two different commodities or one and the same commodity?
Held that:- The ethyl alcohol and rectification spirit are one and the same - rectified spirit which is not used for human consumption is nothing but ethyl alcohol and is finding place in tariff item no. 22072000 - SCN not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1689
Disallowance u/s. 14A - the method adopted by Assessing Officer is not applicable to the year under consideration i.e. Assessment Year 2007-08 - Held that:- Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the matter has become infructuous as of now and, therefore, he does not press this appeal. He further submits that if any occasion arises in future to press the issue raised in this appeal, he may be granted permission to do so. Liberty granted.
The civil appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.
It is stated that learned Solicitor General as well as Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel, are engaged by the Department to argue these matters, but both of them are busy in some part-heard matter in some other Court. On this ground, a short adjournment is prayed for. We adjourn the matter to 19.09.2017.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1688
Addition on account of late deposit of PF, ESI and professional tax - due date - applicability of provisions of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) ignored - Held that:- The payment by the Assessee employer towards the employees’ contribution of the Provident Fund was made before the date of filing of the return by the Assessee and thus, in terms of the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] it was within the ‘due date’ for the purpose of Section 36 (1) (va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 43 (B) thereof.
The Court finds that the decision has consistently been followed in later decisions of this Court - No substantial question of law.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1687
Anonymous donations - benefit of deduction in respect of the amount of donation denied - appellant received anonymous donations within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 115-BBC - Held that:- The Tribunal has recorded that the assessee had not maintained records of the identity indicating the names and addresses of the donors. Even on perusal of records, the Tribunal found that the assessee was not maintaining records of the donors indicating their names and addresses.
The Tribunal also held that mere filing of list of donors does not satisfy the condition laid down under Subsection (3) of Section 115-BBC of the Act and the donations which are alleged to have been received by the assessee were anonymous donations.
Thus the authorities below were justified in holding that the contributions received by the assessee were anonymous donations within the meaning of Sub-section (3) of Section 115-BBC of the Act.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1686
Addition on account of capital gains computed u/s 48 by adopting the full value of consideration as adopted by the Stamp valuation Authority in pursuance of provisions of section 50C(1) - Held that:- It is well settled that the parties, if they admitted even after by a MOU and in view thereof, possession was already handed over on 4th October, 2006, no person is ready to give revised rates.
Though the valuation of Registered Valuation Officer is on some authentic method but there can be some shortcomings also. The AO has not referred the matter to DVO whereas he should have referred the matter to the DVO for taking valuation from him so that both the valuation can be compared. It is a matter of small addition. Therefore, we are not inclined to send the matter to the file of the AO for referring the matter to the DVO for the purpose of ascertaining actual market value. Accordingly, we direct the AO to adopt valuation of this property at ₹ 20 lacs for the purpose of capital gains. We order accordingly. - Appeal decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1685
Annulling the block assessment order - validity of proceedings under Section 153C - Held that:- In view of the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Renu Constructions Pvt. Ltd.(2017 (9) TMI 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT), the question urged by the Revenue in this appeal requires to be answered against it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
............
|
9911796707
