|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 918 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 866 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... id have jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of assessee. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (refer to supra) has held that the appellate authority being the tribunal did have the powers to direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claim of assessee, though the same has not been made in the original return nor has been claimed in the revised return. In the circumstances, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (refer to supra), the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80GGB of the donations made by the assessee to political parties in respect of ₹ 45 lakhs given to Congress party and ₹ 80 lakhs given to BJP. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed This order is pronounced in open Court on Dt 19-06-2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 865 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Miscellaneous application is dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Further, we find that the Tribunal vide stay order dated 16.12 directed the applicant to deposit the dues as per the adjudication order and the matter was adjourned today for reporting compliance. As the appellant has not complied with the stay order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
-
2012 (6) TMI 864 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... visions of Rule 37BA(3) credit of tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. Similarly provisions of Rule 37BA(4) requires that credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the account of the Central Government shall be granted on the basis of the information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the Income Tax Authority or the persons authorized by such authority and the information in the return of income in respect of claim for the credit. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS certificate and also the corresponding income out of which such TDS has been deducted and offered during the year under consideration. After verification he should allow the credit of such TDS. We direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 7th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 863 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nd sale invoice/stock in hand by verifying the description of the goods such as grade, colour, shine etc. which has not been done. The explanation submitted by the appellant regarding the shortage in stock was also not considered in the adjudication order. 7. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the matter has to be readjudicated by the adjudicating authority by giving findings with regard to each of the defence taken by the appellants in their reply to the show-cause notice. 8. In view of this observation, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority by setting aside the impugned order. As we find that the confiscated diamonds are in the custody of the department and it being an old matter wherein the goods were seized in 1998, therefore, we direct the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the matter within 60 days of the communication of this order. All other issues are kept open. 9. Appeals are disposed of by way of remand. (Pronounced in open Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that:- It is admitted that the appellant is income tax assessee. It is his evidence that he has included the loan in his income tax account. In this context, in the absence of production of income tax returns, it is to be held that the loan transaction should not have been shown in the account. As per the settled position of law, when the income tax assessee fails to produce income tax returns containing the loan transaction, it should have been observed that the alleged loan transaction is a an illegal one. Further, he has not disputed the genuineness of Exs.D1 to D3 and the evidence of PW2 with regard to these documents.
It is also in his evidence that he does not know whether the respondent signed the cheque in his presence and he does not know who filled up the cheque. This is a piece of evidence to infer that the loan transaction may not be true.
This Court is of the considered view that the loan transaction, as pleaded by the appellant is not true. There is no infirmity factually in the judgment rendered by the trial court and it does not warrant any interference and the same deserves to be confirmed and it is accordingly confirmed. The appeal is devoid of merits.
-
2012 (6) TMI 861 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... is not having any reasonable cause for giving one more opportunity and hence the findings given in the assessment order are upheld. Even on merit, the assessee has not given any detailed submissions with regard to the additions made. Hence, I have no reason to deviate with the findings given by the AO in the assessment order.” It nowhere states the points for determination, decision thereon or reasons in support thereof as provided u/s 250(6) of the Act. 4. Although nobody has turned up on assessee’s behalf, but we have heard ld DR. The order of CIT (A) is too cryptic. Apart from being non-speaking order, it nowhere states points for determination, decision thereon with reasons in support as required under the provisions of the Act. 5. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the CIT (A)’s order and restore the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.6.2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 860 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ctics. Sh. J.M. Sharma, Consultant who has been appearing on behalf of the appellant has declined to argue and the appellant who has engaged battery of lawyers has not arranged for any other lawyer to make submissions on his behalf. Therefore, we do not find a good cause for extending a stay order earlier granted by the Tribunal which has outlived its life of 180 days. 10. In view of the above order dated 22-9-2011 2012 (279) E.L.T. 61 (Tribunal) dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit is recalled and stay vacated. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, instead of calling upon the appellant to make full deposit, we direct the appellant to deposit 25 of the duty demand within four weeks. In the event of the appellant complying with the order the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount shall stand dispensed with and recovery stayed. 11. Appeal be listed on 18-9-2012 subject to compliance of the order of pre-deposit by the appellant.
-
2012 (6) TMI 859 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... not the case of the revenue that the assessee sold the TDR after appreciation of the value and therefore, the entire amount cannot be treated as sale consideration of the housing project. The assessee has given the details of the receipts of TDR and sale of the TDR as in the same year and immediately after receiving from the MMDRA. Therefore, there is no element of any appreciation in the value in the sale consideration. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld CIT(A) for both the AYs. 6 In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.” 3. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the ITAT for the earlier years in the case of the assessee, we find no merit in the grounds raised by the department. Hence, the grounds taken by the revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 8th day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 858 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... bulk packs to retail packs, together with the fact that the petitioner has already passed on the duty element to the consumers, this Court is not inclined to delve into such issue any further. In view of the fact that refined edible oil manufactured by the petitioner was chargeable to Central Excise duty even prior to 1st March 2003, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. (supra) as approved by the Supreme Court in the later decision in the case of Collector of Central Ex., Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra), rate of duty chargeable would be that prevailing on the date of removal of goods. 13. Under the circumstances, there being no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, there is no warrant for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 857 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rused the records and documents produced before this Court. 6. The whole dispute revolves around the fact whether petitioner is entitled to Cenvat credit or not? The counsel appearing for the respondents states that credit was availed prior to the payment of tax. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has discharged the burden of tax. 7. Considering the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and taking into account the fact that the petitioner had discharged the burden of tax in its entirety, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The pre-deposit as ordered in the impugned order is dispensed with. The 2nd respondent is directed to take up the appeal and dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 856 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have become final. However, when High Court decided another case, holding disentitlement of the employees, the assessments were reopened under section 147 of the Act, which was challenged in writ petitions. 3. After hearing both sides, we find that writ appeal and the WP(c)s have to be allowed because there is no provision under section 147 of the IT Act to reopen the orders of CIT (appeals) on issues decided against the Department. In this case, the reopening proposed is to bring to tax same income in respect of which Commissioner decided the issue in appeal filed by assessees. So much so Revenue could have only file an appeal with a delay condonation petition if there was delay. However, no proceedings under section 147 is maintainable against orders of the CIT (Appeals). Hence we allow the writ appeal by vacating the judgment of the single Judge and allow all the W.P(c)s by vacating the impugned orders and by restoring the orders of CIT (appeals) which have become final.
-
2012 (6) TMI 855 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ies (supra) are under challenge before higher Courts. Revenue has further pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account the exact nature of the services and place of use of such service. The Appeal memorandum does not state the exact nature of the service or exact place of use of the service. The argument is apparently to the fact the services are utilized outside the factory. 5. The main leg of the argument of Revenue is that that the inclusive part of the definition cannot go beyond the means part of the definition of “input services”. 6. I find that all the issues raised by Revenue stand considered by the Tribunal in its decisions quoted above. In fact the decision in the case of Stanzen Tyotesu stands affirmed by Karnataka High Court as reported at 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.). 7. Since the issues are no longer res integra and are decided against Revenue the appeals filed by Revenue are rejected.” (Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 854 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... where the assessee has claimed only 25 of the total expenditure as deduction and has not claimed 100 of the expenditure as deduction, which may have been exaggerated provided so would have been the view of any of the authorities below on the basis of any evidence produced by Revenue or in view of the evidence produced even by the assessee. Therefore, these two orders i.e., assessment order as well as appellate order were liable to be set aside on this ground and were rightly set aside by the Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has carefully considered the issue and thereafter held that the assessee was entitled to deduction of 25 of the total expenditure referred above and, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the said finding. 8. Question nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly and so far question no.3 is concerned, it is only a question, consequent to the issue raised in question nos.1 and 2 , which need not to be answered. Hence, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 853 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lished in the same newspapers where the petition had been advertised. The claim of the petitioner which has already been adjudged at the admission stage may be carried before the official liquidator and the money paid out according to the petitioner's position and entitlement in the queue to receive payments. The order of winding -up will, however, not take effect if the company immediately pays off the entire amount owing from it to the petitioner in terms of the order of admission. The company has a second chance to ward off its liquidation since no other creditor of the company has applied at the post -advertisement stage when the matter has assumed a representative capacity. Ca No. 215 of 2012 also stands disposed of without any order as to costs. (17.) A prayer for the stay of the operation of the order is made, which is declined. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (6) TMI 852 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the offence under Sections 174/175 IPC is a continuing offence. 15. Further the contention that non-conferring of the authorization on Respondent No.2 was a procedural defect, which could be cured is not disputed. However, a retrospective procedural amendment cannot make the non-compliance of a procedural provision a substantive offence. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the Respondent No.2 was not authorized to issue summons for appearance on the dates when the summons were issued, the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offences under Sections 174/175 IPC. Consequently, the criminal complaint No. 8/1 of 2008 under Sections 174/175 IPC titled as "Shri R.K. Chibber Vs. Rakesh Kumar Goyal" pending with the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the order dated 15th January, 2008 summoning the Petitioner for offences under Sections 174/175 IPC are hereby quashed. 17. Petition is disposed of.
-
2012 (6) TMI 851 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... be treated as withdrawn. As ground no.1 is not pressed in both the appeals those grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 5. So far as the issue of sustaining addition of 30 of ₹ 1,50,000/- is concerned, in my opinion, the same has to be deleted. Both the authorities below have not at all brought on record the size of the family, their monthly expenditure, what is the meaning of the status? etc. At least some facts are required to be brought on record when a particular finding is to be given. Ld. CIT(A) deleted 70 of the addition but without giving any convincing reason sustained 30 addition. In my opinion, judicial propriety demands that there should be some justification even to sustain 30 addition. I delete addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) in both the years and allow ground no.2 6. So far as Ground no.3 is concerned, it is consequential. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 1st June 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 850 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... llaneous income are to be considered as business income under section 41(1). Just because they are shown as “other income” in the companies account these cannot become ‘income from other sources’, which is altogether a different head under the Income Tax Act. There is no justification in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Since Ground No.1 is dismissed,the Ground No.2 has no merit. With reference to the gratuity also, there is no merit in the Revenue ground as there is a clear finding by the CIT (A) that the gratuity amount was not allowed as expenditure in the earlier years, the question of taxing the amount when the amount was written back in the books of account does not arise, as provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of this Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are also dismissed. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (6) TMI 849 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... CIT (A) as the amount written back out of the bad debts and miscellaneous income are to be considered as business income under section 41(1). Just because they are shown as “other income” in the companies account these cannot become ‘income from other sources’, which is altogether a different head under the Income Tax Act. Since Ground No.1 is dismissed, the Ground No.2 has no merit. With reference to the gratuity also, there is no merit in the Revenue ground as there is a clear finding by the CIT (A) that the gratuity amount was not allowed as expenditure in the earlier years, the question of taxing the amount when the same was written back in the books of account does not arise as provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of this Ground Nos. 2 & 3 are also dismissed. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (6) TMI 848 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ility or otherwise of sub-clause (5) of clause (i) of section 2(ea) of the Act in respect of the subject property, as the same does not arise for consideration in the present case. 12. At this stage, Mr. Bhargav Karia, learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that in light of the fact the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the respondentassessee, it had not entered into the merits of the dispute as regards of valuation of the subject property and as such the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for adjudicating upon the said controversy. The request appears to be reasonable. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds, and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 1.06.2005 passed by the Tribunal in WTA No.63/Ahd/2004 for assessment year 1998-99 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, for the limited purpose of deciding the issue as regards the valuation of the subject property the matter is restored to the file of the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 847 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... cision delivered by the Hon’ble ‘A’ Bench is in the right prospectus. Therefore, M.A. is not maintainable. 4. We have perused our order dated 02.03.2012 in case of the assessee and also heard both the sides and gone through Hon’ble Apex Court decision in case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra). We consider that ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) has to be considered in the light of the fact of the case of the assessee. This aspect was left inadvertently in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which needs the hearing of the issue from both sides. Accordingly we hold that it shall be in the interest of the justice to recall the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent of ground no.4 of appeal only and the Registry is directed to fix the appeal to the extent of ground no.4 in due course. 5. In the result, the M.A. is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
........
|
