|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 918 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 846 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 05/- for the credit of input/input services for the period prior to 1.3.2008 seems to be not yet deposited by the appellant. The legal issues raised by the ld.Counsel needs to be gone in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeal. Keeping in mind that the Stay Order of the co-ordinate Bench dt.31.01.2012 and the Final Order in the case of Global Pharmatech Pvt.Ltd., prima facie, covers the issue, we find that the appellant needs to be put some condition as to the amount which has not been reversed and towards interest which needs to be paid on this amount. 6. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30.08.2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 845 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case the notice issued in 2008 is clearly barred by limitation.” 5. It was next observed that amount of ₹ 9,456/- was denied to the assessee on the ground that the credit was availed on the waste and scrap which cannot be considered as input or the final product and also that the authority had not disclosed as to how waste and scrap could not be considered as an input. That was the finding in addition to findings on limitation arrived at by the Tribunal quoted hereinabove. 6. As we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the demand made by the department was time-barred, the question sought to be raised in the present appeal in respect of credit transfer under Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 need not be considered and is not considered and accordingly it is not considered. Without going into that question, this tax appeal is dismissed only on the ground that the demand was time-barred. 7. This tax appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 844 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ik Piotr's case. Even in the present case, the detention order has been passed on the basis of subjective satisfaction regarding ground only under Section 3 (1)(i) of the COFEPOSA Act. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, this petition ought to succeed. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Same is made absolute in terms of prayer clause 7 (a) which reads thus “That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the said order of detention bearing No.PSA1211/CR54/SPL3(A), dated 25.10.2011 issued by Smt.Medha Gadgil, the principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and Detaining Authority, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032 (Exh.A to the petition) and be pleased to direct that the detenue (Mohammed Ashif) be set at liberty; forthwith.” All concerned to act on the ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the office.
-
2012 (6) TMI 843 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not tenable. In the result, the orders dated 12.01.2012 and 03.02.2012 are quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to revoke his suspension and to reinstate him in service. The applicant would be entitled to legally admissible consequential benefits. 48. We make it very clear that taking note of the grave charges leveled against him, the applicant may be posted in a non-sensitive post where the Competent Authority considers that he would have neither access to the relevant records nor would have opportunity to influence the witnesses. We also further add that if at any point of time in future the criminal trial proceedings commence by the trial court, the respondents would have the liberty to consider the possibility of keeping the officer under suspension at that point of time if the facts and circumstances so warrant. 49. In terms of the above orders, directions and observations, the Original Application is allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 842 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... w the appeal with consequential relief." 7. As against above reproduced findings, we find the grounds of appeal of department (as reproduced hereinabove at paragraph 4) are not rebutting the detailed findings. The grounds of appeal only raises technicality of the impugned order. It is also to be noted that eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of ₹ 60,50,093/- is not disputed by revenue, their objection is only for availment of such credit in later months. In our view this objection is incorrect, as, if an assessee if otherwise is entitled to credit should not be denied the benefit only on technicality. In our considered view, the impugned order has correctly appreciated the law based upon factual findings by first appellate authority. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by department is rejected. Operative portion of order pronounced in the Court after conclusion of hearing.
-
2012 (6) TMI 841 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ’ Bench in the case of Global Vantedge P. Ltd. v. DCIT reported in 1 ITR (Trib) 326. The proposition made out in the said order is not relevant for the preset case. But as rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) v. Morgan Stanley And Co. Inc. (292 ITR 416) has highlighted the requirements of considering all risk taking functions of multi national enterprises. The very nominal difference pointed out by the TPO in the pricing of sales made by the assessee to AE and non AE entities is fully justified in the light of the above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and accordingly, this appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 22nd of June, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (6) TMI 840 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D - Held that:- Whatever case law referred by the assessee in his reply are related to before A.Y.08-09 when Rule 8D was not in existence. No case law was referred by the assessee for nexus is to be established by the A.O. even in disallowance made under Rule 8D of the IT Act, 1962. The A.R. for the assessee has not pointed out any defects in computation of disallowance made under Rule 8D. Thus, we have considered view that ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance.
-
2012 (6) TMI 839 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... educed inter alia by “(ii) the amount of income to which any of the provisions of section 10 (other than the provisions contained in clause (23G) thereof) or section 10A or section 10B or section 11 or section 12 apply, if any such amount is credited to the profit and loss account”. A bare perusal of the provision indicates that if the amount otherwise eligible for deduction/exemption under the provisions specified is credited to the profit and loss account then such amount shall be reduced from the amount of profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the purposes of computing “book profit”. It is not the case of the Revenue that such amount deductible u/s 10B was not credited to the profit and loss account. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the learned CIT(A) has taken an unimpeachable view on this issue. We, therefore, uphold the same. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 06th day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 838 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- The direction of the learned CIT is modified and the AO is directed to re-frame the assessment order in accordance with law ignoring the observation of the learned CIT on allowability of deduction u/s 80 P(2) (a) (i) of the Act.
-
2012 (6) TMI 837 - ITAT DELHI
Cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) - whether the income from sale of stock options is assessable as long term capital gain (as disclosed by the assessee) or short term capital gain (as assessed by the AO) - Held that:- In the assessee’s case, evidently, there is no furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has either concealed any fact or has submitted any wrong or incorrect fact. It is only the question of opinion whether the income from sale of stock option is assessable as short term capital gain or as long term capital gain. Thus mere making a claim which is not admissible does not lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars - Decided against revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 836 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C(2) on the ground that the assessee is an individual? - Held that:- We are of the view that this appeal does not require admission for hearing as the applicability of law involved herein is admittedly settled. It is admitted position that the matter relates to the assessment year 2006-07, whereas Section 194C(1) has been made applicable to the individual assessee with effect from 1.6.2007. There is no dispute that the respondent is an individual assessee.
Considering the position of the law, the learned Tribunal has consistently held that Section 194C(1) cannot be made applicable for the assessment year 2006- 07.
-
2012 (6) TMI 835 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... annot be any disallowance on this count. Even if there is any disallowance, it should be considered as income from business only and is to be considered for the deduction u/s. 10A of the IT Act. Our view is fortified by the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery (India) Ltd., 330 ITR 175 (Bom) wherein the High Court held that the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s. 10A with reference to addition of disallowance u/s. 43B as the plain consequence of the disallowance and add back made by the Assessing Officer is an increase in the business profit of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). 5. Further regarding the disallowance made towards product development expenses is also to be considered as business income in view of the judgement of Bombay High Court (cited supra) for determining the deduction u/s. 10A of the Act. 6. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 834 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ave preferred the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee to the decision in the case of Chandigarh Golf Club (supra) . Therefore, to maintain consistency also, we do not see any merit in these appeals of the Department. 11. In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed.” 6. We have carefully perused the rival submissions, facts of the case and found that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, as pointed out by ld. 'AR', which was not disputed by ld. 'DR' . 7. Respectful ly fol lowing the decision of the Tribunal in assessee's own case, on the same issue, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the Tribunal in ITO V Gymkhana Club, Sector 3, Panchkula in ITA No.777/Chd/2007 and ITA 778/Chd/2007. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st June,2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 833 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Eligibility for exemption u/s. 11 - Held that:- Find out whether the assessee has received any money over and above the fees prescribed and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We make it clear that the assessee is not entitled for exemption either u/s 11 or u/s 10(23C) in case it collected any money by whatever name it is called i.e., donation, building fund, auditorium fund etc. etc., over and above the prescribed fee for admission of students.
Depreciation claimed by the assessee trust - Held that:- Where an assessee trust is claiming depreciation on assets where cost of the relevant assets stood claimed as an application of income for a preceding and/or the current year under S.11(1), its claim under S.32(1)is eligible only in respect of business assets and where entire cost of the asset stands allowed by way of application of income under S.11(1), the depreciation claimed by the assessee under S.32(1) is not allowable as the trust is not undertaking any business activity. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify in respect of each asset on which depreciation claimed, whether the value of such asset was in fact allowed under S.11, and if it was so allowed, the depreciation would not be allowed in respect of such asset. Only if the value of the asset was not allowed as expenditure under S.11, the Assessing Officer is required to allow depreciation thereon
-
2012 (6) TMI 832 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 004 which are set out herein below for convenience 13. Obligations of Customs House Agent- A Customs House Agent shall- (e) exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage; (f) not withhold information contained in any order, instruction or public notice relating to clearance of cargo or baggage issued by the Commissioner of Customs, from a client who is entitled to such information; Prima facie, the allegations against the petitioner do not disclose any contravention of Regulations 13(e) and 13(f). There shall therefore be stay of operation of the impugned order of suspension for a period of 3 weeks from date. In the meanwhile, it will be open to the petitioners to renew their prayer for stay before the Appellant Authority. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance with the requisite formalities.
-
2012 (6) TMI 831 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of depreciation on assets taken over from Bank of Thanjavur(BOT)- Held that:- Down-loaded master detail from the official website of Registrar of Companies, clearly mention that status of M/s.BOT as dormant. It is also mentioned that corrections are to be submitted by the concerned persons, if such data is incorrect. This downloaded material cannot be considered as material evidence proving the existence of that company. These were only the master data, which could be incorrect and such master data was always subject to correction. It would not show that the M/s.BOT continued its independent existence and continued its operation despite amalgamation. - Decided against assessee.
Broken period interest - Held that:- When interest received by an assessee, from transferees for broken period is included under the head ‘business income’, amounts paid by the assessee to the transferors for broken periods could not have been disallowed.
Bad debts written off need to be allowed.
Allowance of normal write-off of bad debts - Held that:- The issue regarding write-off of bad debts raised by assessee in its ground No.4 for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07and as ground No.3 for Assessment Year 2005-06 requires reconsideration by the Assessing Officer, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd‘s case (2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) as held that once bad debts were written off in the books of accounts, the claims had to be allowed
Disallowance made under Section 14A -Held that:- We are of the opinion that this issue requires a fresh look by Assessing Officer. Rule-8D was held to be applicable only from Assessment Year 2008-09 by Hon’ble Mumbai High Court. It was also held that even for earlier years, disallowance had to be made under Section 14A of the Act considering the facts and circumstances. We, therefore, set aside the orders and remit back to the file of Assessing Officer for consideration of this issue afresh in accordance with law. This issue thus, stands decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
MAT applicability - Held that:- The provisions of Sec.115JB could not be applied on the assessee. In the result, this issue stands decided in favour of assessee.
Exclusion of income of assessee from its Singapore and Colombo operations -branch income of assessee at Singapore and Colombo, whether to be excluded or to be considered for only tax credits.? - Held that:- Hon’ble apex Court in the case of PV.AL. Kulandagam Chettiar (2004 (5) TMI 8 - SUPREME Court ), after studying the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between Govt of India & Govt. of Malaysia, held that even if a person was resident in India, once such a resident in India was deemed to be a resident of a contracting state, on account of economic and personal relationship with such contracting state, then residence in India will become irrelevant and treaty would be prevail over Sections 4 & 5. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) took a correct view that income of the foreign branches in Singapore and Columbo had to be excluded and not considered only for tax credits.
-
2012 (6) TMI 830 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Whether Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XV, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act? - Held NO
-
2012 (6) TMI 829 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... Toll Act, are to be remitted to the State Government. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the assessee can be called to be engaged in commercial activities. This aspect was not examined by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax while adjudicating the issue of registration under section 12AA of the Act. We are, therefore, of the view that the issue of registration under section 12A of the Act should be re-adjudicated by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax in the light of U.P. State Highways “The Determination of Rates and Collection of Tolls Rules, 2011”. We accordingly set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax and restore the matter to his file with a direction to re-adjudicate the issue afresh in the light of relevant material and aforesaid Rules after affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6.6.2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 828 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Estimation of income at 5% of the gross receipts - Addition made towards the income of the assessee, who is engaged in supply of vehicles for goods transportation - deduction of interest and remuneration to partners claimed by the appellant in view of the provisions of Sec.40(b) - Held that:- The estimation of income of the assessee made by the assessing officer adopting a rate of 5% is on higher side, and it would meet the ends of justice if the income is estimated applying a rate of 3%. In deciding the issue as above, we considered the fact that the assessee does not own trucks used in the business and is incurring huge incidental expenditure. From such income estimated applying rate of 3%, deduction towards interest and remuneration to partners in terms of S.40(b) of the Act may be allowed.
Impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the assessing officer is directed to recompute the income of the assessee. Accordingly, assessee’s ground No.2 is partly allowed and ground No3 is allowed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 827 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2004-05 holding that the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports Vs CIT, Mumbai reported in (2012) 67 DTR (SC) 185, and hence we remand the issue to Assessing Officer with a direction to recompute the deduction u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), in accordance with law and in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports (supra). The Assessing Officer is also directed to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the matter. For statistical purposes, the common grounds No. 1 & 2 of the appeals bearing ITA Nos. 926 to 928/Chd/2011 are allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 21.11.2011 is rectified to the above extent. 5. In the above terms, the Misc. Applications preferred by the assessee stand disposed off. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 22nd day of June, 2012
........
|
