|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 733 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 977 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
-
2009 (9) TMI 976 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... in the account of such creditors is much higher, hence, the assessee cannot be said to have not been in touch with such creditors. It is also noted that notices u/s 133(vi) have been issued at the instance of the assessee, hence, which have remained unserved. Thus, non service of such notice can result into an adverse inference against the assessee. It is also noted that the assessee did not make any claim of deduction thereon u/s 80HHC. In this regard, we also find that the assessee has not produced any material on record to show that the goods purchased by the assessee from these creditors were actually used in the business of export of the assessee, hence, the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80HHC if the impugned addition is sustained, cannot be accepted. Thus, in view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we reject both the grounds of the assessee. 3. In result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on -09-2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 975 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Bail application - seizure of Maruti Zen Car carrying a huge quantity of contraband i.e. 22.855 kg of heroin - It is alleged that the recovered contraband were supplied by the present petitioner to the co-accused persons - Held that: - it does appear that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the said contraband. therefore, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. As regards the question as to whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail, no circumstance has been brought to my notice which would indicate that there is such a likelihood. It is also not the case of the State that the petitioner has been involved in any other NDPS related cases. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court - the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lakh - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2009 (9) TMI 974 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is right in dismissing the appeal of revenue and holding that no redemption fine can be imposed and penalty levied when the goods are physically not available for confiscation?
Held that: - as the goods are not available for confiscation no redumption fine can be imposed - In so far as penalty is concerned, the Commissioner of Customs reduced the penalty from ₹ 60,000/to ₹ 5,000/- - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 973 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ; 13,500/- has been added in each case. In our view, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the difference of ₹ 27,000/- is honest difference of opinion between the actual cost of acquisition as on 19-1- 2006 and the value determined as on 28-3-2006 by unrecognized and un-approved valuer. We, also agree with this observations of the CIT(A) that since for all purposes the books of accounts and book result has been accepted by the AO particularly having regard to the fact that cost of ₹ 2,00,000/- debited is accepted to arrive at the difference of ₹ 27,000/- in valuation of diamonds and no defect is found, the case of valuation of diamond should have been accepted as such by the AO. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not see any merits in the ground No.4 of each appeal by the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 24. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25-09-09.
-
2009 (9) TMI 972 - ITAT MUMBAI
Bogus share transactions - transaction is off-market - AO has doubted the purchase of shares by the assessee mainly because of the report received from the ADIT (Inv.), Kolkotta, that the transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee is an off-market transaction as no evidence could be found from the Calcutta Stock Exchange - CIT(A) deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- As regards the purchase of shares from off market, the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of Mukesh R. Marolia [2005 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein it has been held that the purchase and sale of shares outside floor of stock exchange is not an unlawful activity and the off-market transactions are not illegal.
As regards the AO’s observation that there is exorbitant rise in the sale price of the shares which created a doubt about the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision of Smt. Memo Devi [2008 (3) TMI 689 - ITAT AGRA] wherein it has been held that increase in share price by more than 25 times cannot be the basis to assume that the transaction was bogus as abnormal increase in the share price is a normal phenomena. As decided in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Kusumlata [2006 (8) TMI 266 - ITAT JODHPUR] wherein it has been held that for making an addition u/s 69, the Department is required to prove to the hilt that the impugned transactions are bogus.
Transactions of sale being accepted as genuine in the AY 2003-04 but the same being disallowed by the AO in the year 2004-05, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decision of ‘F’ Bench of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Neelam Chawla [2007 (12) TMI 477 - ITAT DELHI] wherein it has been held that after the assessee furnished proof for purchase, sale, registration of shares in her name duly supported by market quotations etc. and AO ignored the same on the basis of the statement of the share broker through whom the assessee has sold the shares, the purchase of shares made in earlier years cannot be doubted.
We find that the CIT(A) has considered the factual matrix of the case in detail and the propositions of the assessee are supported by the legal precedents cited supra. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 971 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cided at all by the High Court, and, therefore, they were not the subjectmatter of the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court. Therefore, these matters are to be decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. These facts have not been disputed by the other side, but the learned counsel for the other side submits that after the Supreme Court gave its judgment, this Court applied the judgment, irrespective of pendency of these petitions to the present petitioners as well, which, in other words, would mean that the orders impugned in these petitions against the petitioners already stand revoked. Therefore, we need not pass any further orders. However, notices have been served on the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved of those notices, they are at liberty to take any appropriate remedy which may be available to them in law, irrespective of the outcome of these Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
-
2009 (9) TMI 970 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Characterization of income - Disallowance of portion of house keeping charges treated as '' income from other sources'' - AO believed money received by the assessee is not genuine and at best he could receive only a sum being the charges for giving on hire, the table, sofa sets, etc. - Principle of consistency - the assessee is in the business of providing House Keeping services to various business associate concerns., activities are being carried out since 1998-99 and except providing services, no business was carried out by the assessee - CIT(A) deleted the addition -
HELD THAT:- No case for interference in the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals) as AO has not doubted that what the assessee is receiving is income from business as part of it as has been so assessed by him. Only a part has been treated as income from “other sources”.
Assessee has been assessed in the past on these receipts from “House Keeping Services” under the head “Business”. Facts remaining the same, the Revenue should take a consistent view. It has been so held in the case of CIT vs. Malbaro Polychem Pvt.Ltd.[2008 (9) TMI 193 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], in the case of CIT vs. Moon Light Builders and Developers [2007 (1) TMI 173 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Dineshkumar [2005 (1) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT].Thus, if the facts are not different, then view once taken should be followed in subsequent year also.
If certain part of expenditure incurred by group concerns in receiving services from the assessee-company is not genuine or is excessive, then action is required to be taken in their hands. Assessee-company is showing the receipts in full as taxable income. There is no reason to either reduce it or change the head.
The logic given by the AO in treating the part of the receipt as income from “other sources” is not comprehendible and does not create any logical difference between receipts taken under the head “business” and receipt taken under the head “other sources”. Following the rule of consistency, no such distinction should have been created and secondly, it does not at all affect the taxability of the receipt and tax imposed.
Disallowance of depreciation - Depreciation cannot be disallowed whether the part of income is assessed under the head “business” or under the head “other sources” as under both the heads there is provision for allowing depreciation. When income is computed under the head “business”, depreciation is allowable u/s.32 as per Rules and when income is computed u/s.56 and income is of the nature of clauses (ii) & (iii) of section (1) of section 56, then deduction of the nature of that provided u/s.32(1) & 32(2) are to be allowed by virtue of section 57(2). The receipt shown by the assessee is fully taxable and has been so offered by the assessee.
Order of the Learned CIT(A) is correct and, therefore, does not require any interference.
Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 969 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... employees’ contribution towards PF having been made by the assessee within the due date of filing of the return for the year under consideration, there is not ground for disallowing the same. Thus, ground no2. raised in the appeal is allowed.” In the present case, there is no dispute that the amounts deducted from the salary of the employees have been deposited with the Government before the date on which the return u/s.139(1) is due, which is 30-10-2005 in the present case. The table given in para.5 of the assessment order confirms this position. Therefore there is no need to send back the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of the dates of deposit. Respectfully following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal (supra), which is of a co-ordinate bench, we delete the disallowance of ₹ 2,72,501 made u/s.43B and allow the appeal of the assessee with no order as to costs. Order pronounced in the open court 18th September, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 968 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of unjust enrichment is not applicable on redemption fine and penalty. To substantiate his claim he place reliance on Customs Appeal No.56/2008 in the case of M/s. United Spirit Ltd., Vs. CC (I), wherein the Hon ble High Court of Bombay vide its order dated 25/06/2009 held that the principles of unjust enrichment would not arise in case of redemption fine and penalty. 10. Heard. 11. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the parties, I note that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of United Spirits Ltd., (supra) has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the matter of redemption fine and penalty. I remand back the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication in the light and directions of this Tribunal in respondent’s own case vide order dated 04/12/2008 only to the duty aspect not on redemption fine and penalty. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 967 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rm capital gain. o p /o p 8. Having heard both the sides we have gone through the orders of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that the AO is not making the addition of speculation gain of ₹ 50,500/-. As a matter of fact, the AO accepted the purchase price paid by the assessee and source of its investment. Admittedly, the assessee has sold the shares in question after holding the same for more than 12 months. The assessee earned long term capital gain which is taxable 10 . The AO treated the same as income from unaccounted sources on doubt and suspicion. Looking to the various evidence submitted before both the departmental authorities below, we are of the view that learned CIT(A) has given cogent reason for directing the AO to treat the amount of ₹ 14,00,000/- as long term capital gain. We, therefore, decline to interfere. o p /o p 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 23-09-2009 o p /o p
-
2009 (9) TMI 966 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e housing projects, the assessee should not be allowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee.” 5. It can be observed that the distinction between the contractor and the developer as laid down in the aforesaid decisions were not taken into consideration by either of the lower authorities for arriving at the conclusions. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it shall be just and fair to allow the A.O an opportunity to examine the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid decision. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and restore the matter back to the file of A.O for fresh adjudication in the light of the decision quoted above as per law and after allowing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 30/09/2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 965 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... of law, insofar as it is relevant for our present purpose, it is safe to deduce that the claim of the assessee cannot be said to be patently erroneous in the eyes of law. In fact, no falsity in claim of the assessee has been found even during the assessment proceedings. The disallowance is based on a mere view adopted by the AO. The claim made in the return cannot be said to be bereft of bona fides. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find ample force in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) that the AO was not justified in imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In view thereof, having regard to the fact that the claim of the assessee made in the return was bona fide, and no factual falsity or patent error in law having been detected, the AO was not justified in holding the assessee guilty for levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby affirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 964 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gem India Manufacturing Co. (2001) 249 ITR 307, cannot be faulted. In this view of the matter, appeal stands dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (9) TMI 963 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s issue of the assessee’s CO. Now coming to assessee’s CO No.266/Ahd/2006 . 16. The only issue in this CO of the assessee is as regards to partly confirming the disallowance of administrative expenses. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground - “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, Ahmedabad erred confirming the disallowance u/s.14A of the Act for the administrative expenses to the extent of ₹ 27,804. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no disallowance is required to be made u/s.14A of the Act. It is submitted that it be so held now.” 17. We find that this issue has already been dealt with in para-12 of this order and respectfully following the same, we dismiss this issue of the assessee’s CO. 18. In the result, both the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessee’s CO are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 11/09/2009
-
2009 (9) TMI 962 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... as submitted by the Ld.DR of the revenue that no such direction is required to be given and no such direction was to be given by the Assessing Officer also in the assessment order in connection with losses of earlier years because, if the losses were allowed to be carried forward in the earlier years, the same will be available in the subsequent year also to the extent it is not set off in the present year. 23. We have considered the rival submissions and we are in agreement with the Ld.DR of the revenue that if any losses were allowed for carry forward in any earlier year, the same will be available for set off in subsequent year also to the extent it was not set off in the present year and, if the prescribed period of 8 yeas has not expired. Under these facts, we feel that this ground of the assessee deserves to be rejected as no specific direction is required. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed. 25. Order pronounced in open court on 11.09.2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 961 - KARNATAKA- HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, and particularly as the Tribunal was not required to go into these questions in an appeal of the nature before it and we have discussed above on the authority of the binding Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd.’s case (supra). The questions in all other appeals are answered alike and in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 23. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. 24. We place on record our appreciation for the guidance and assistance rendered to us by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned standing counsel for the revenue, in understanding the intricacies of the provisions of section 195 of the Act which was very efficiently and elaborately elucidated by Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessees who had made very fair submissions even while appearing on behalf of the assessees.
-
2009 (9) TMI 960 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... as claimed at the time of filing of return, which was though changed by a subsequent decision, the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was held to be not justified. While deleting the penalty, there is a finding in the impugned order that there were divergent opinion on the issue of deduction under s. 80HHC in respect of sale of scrap, therefore, being the issue was debatable/vexed legal issue, wherein two views were possible, the penalty was held to be not justified. In view of the aforesaid facts and judicial pronouncements, we have not found any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld. 7. As far as the cross-objection filed by the assessee is concerned, it is in support to the order of the learned CIT(A). Since, the impugned order has been upheld, therefore, the cross-objection filed by the assessee has remained for academic interest only. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2009 (9) TMI 959 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... B to the individual Shri M Sathyanarayana, the proprietor of M/s PMS Industries. In the lease agreement also there is no mention of HUF. The lease agreement is dated 26.4.2000 and on execution of the same, a sum of ₹ 6,52,641/- is to be paid by the lessee to the lessor. Here, the lessee is clearly mentioned as the assessee-individual and not as the HUF. The possession certificate issued by the KIADB also mentioned Shri M Sathyanarayana, the individual. Therefore, we are of the view that the property in question is owned by the individual -assessee and it is to be assessed in his hands. For declaration of rental income from plot No.58, in hand HUF, it is for the HUF-assessee to take remedial measures, such as rectification etc. 5. For the aforesaid reason, we are of the view the order of authorities below, is correct and in accordance with law and we uphold the same. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 18th Sept, 2009.
-
2009 (9) TMI 958 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... dquo; 8. From above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that provision for warranty has to be estimated on scientific method. In the case before us, the assessee had estimated, the provision for warranty on the basis of past history Therefore, the estimate for warranty made by the assessee on the past history of the case cannot be treated a provision for unascertained liability. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers (supra) and the latest decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra), 314 ITR 62. Respectfully following the precedent, it is held that the provision for warranty is allowable as deduction and accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in open court on 18.09.2009.
............
|
