|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 709 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 1012 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... m which is in accordance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra). In the interest of natural justice and keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., 284 ITR 323, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue on merit in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides.” o p /o p 7. In view of the above decision of the Coordinate Bench, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has power to consider assessee’s claim on merits. Since the issue on merits has not been examined by the CIT(A), in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to examine the claim on merits in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. o p /o p 8. In the result, assessee’s appeal is considered allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 1011 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ), as amended by the Finance Act, 2008 w.r.e.f 1-4-2005 as under - “Substituted for has not been paid - (A) in a case where the tax was deductible and was so deducted during the last month of the previous year, on or before the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139; or (B) in any other case, on or before the last day of the previous year.” In view of the above clear position of Section 40a(ia) sub-clause (A) of the Act that the tax deductible or so deductible during the last month of the previous year should have been paid on or before the due date specified in sub-section-1 of Sec. 139 of the Act and the assessee has paid the TDS before the due date of filing of return and this tax was pertaining to the month of March, 2005 payments. Accordingly, the CO of the assessee is allowed. 22. In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of assessee’s CO is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/11/2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1010 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Addition in block assessment proceedings in the hands of other person - According to the Department, the actual price received was ₹ 6.5 crores, the consideration shown in the sale deed was only ₹ 1.40 crores - Held that: - before invoking the provisions of Section 158 BD of the Act, the Assessing Officer of the person searched u/s 132 (1) must satisfy himself that some undisclosed income belongs to a person other than the persons with respect to whom search was made under Section 132 (1) of the Act. Such satisfaction must be based on the material found in the course of search. In the absence of any such satisfaction (which is to be recorded in writing) the concerned Assessing Officer does not get any jurisdiction to assess that other person by invoking the section 158 BD of the Act. During the search carried out at the premises of Mr. & Mrs. Charla, no books of accounts or other documents or other assets pertaining to the assessees herein was found or seized. The entire foundation of the block assessment under Section 158 BD of the Act, in so far assessees are concerned, was the statement of Smt. Suraksha Charla recorded during the course of search. Revenue appeals dismissed in view of Manish Maheshwari Vs. ACIT, (2007 -TMI - 2889 - SUPREME COURT), Amity Hotels (P) Ltd. (2004 -TMI - 10034 - DELHI High Court) and CIT Vs. Karan Engg. P. Ltd. and Janki Exports International Vs. UOI, (2004 -TMI - 10668 - DELHI High Court)
-
2010 (11) TMI 1009 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the final customers is much than the sale consideration shown in the impounded Page No.10. We are of the view that in the light of all these surrounding circumstances, the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee. Besides the above, we do not find any material brought on record by the AO to show that these monies were received from the persons against whose names they were found to be recorded especially when the flat nos. against which their names were found were found allotted to third parties. When these persons did not have any interest on any of the flats in the project of the Assessee it is not possible for them to have paid any money to the Assessee. In these circumstances, we feel that the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the AO. We therefore confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss ground No.III of the revenue. 56. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th day of Nov. 2010
-
2010 (11) TMI 1008 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Customs accepts notice on behalf of the respondent, no further notice need be issued. Let the appeal be added to the hearing list in the category of “Regular Matters” in the week commencing 17th January, 2011. The appeal shall be listed in the first ten cases at the top of the Board. CM No.19125/2010 (Stay) This is an application for stay. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. With the aforesaid direction, the application stands disposed of. If any adjournment is sought for by the appellant, the order of stay passed today shall stand vacated.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1007 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... , therefore, they do not lose their character of business income. Accordingly, we hold that liabilities written back are entitled for deduction under section 80IA as they are business receipts. As a result, we dismiss this ground of Revenue. 25. Ground No.5 relates to allowing provision for doubtful debts. While disposing of appeal for Asst. Year 2002-03 we have held that provision for doubtful debts will not be allowed as deduction but the amount actually written as bad debts can be allowed as deduction while computing profit u/s 115JB.For that matter we restore the issue to the file of ld. AO. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 26. Ground Nos. 6 & 7 are general and therefore, they are rejected. 27. In the result ITA No.3458/Ahd/2007 is partly allowed and C.O. No.317/Ahd/2007 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No.1953/Ahd/2007 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in open Court on 12.11.10.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1006 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... re was violation of CHALR, 2004 is not made out. It is undisputed that the current applicant is one of the recognized and oldest CHA Lincence Holder in India and has got Pan India operations and also international operations. Suspension of CHA lincence at this juncture, would definitely operate as a retrograde step for the trade, as well as the families of the employees, who are employed with the CHA. At the same time, the matter cannot be left to be disposed off in its regular course and hence staying the operation of the impugned order, we direct the Registry to list the matter for disposal on 25th November, 2010. Both sides are informed that the matter will be taken up for disposal and are directed to be prepared to make their submissions on the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the operation of the impugned order is stayed till the disposal of the appeal filed by the applicant, which is to be taken up for disposal on 25.11.2010. (Pronounced in open Court on 15.11.2010)
-
2010 (11) TMI 1005 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... bsence of the parties. The transactions are admittedly recorded in the audited books of accounts of both the assessee-company as well as aforesaid share-applicant companies, who purchased shares of the assessee-company. Therefore, no addition on account of unexplained cash credit is warranted in the case of the assessee on the given facts and circumstances as discussed above. In view of the above, in our opinion, the action of the A.O. is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra). 6.4. In view of above facts and the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of the ld. C.I.T.(A) in deleting the addition ₹ 45 lakhs made by the A.O. u/s. 68 of the Act. Hence, we uphold his order and reject the grounds of appeal taken by the department. 7. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 26.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1004 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 2.00 Crores (Two Crores only) within eight weeks from today and make compliance on 4th March, 2011. Subject to compliance, balance demand shall be waived during pendency of the appeal. 6. We have worked out the above interim modality, keeping in view the Apex Court decision in the case of Benara Values Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2006 (204) E.L.T. 513 (S.C.) and also in the case of Ravi Gupta vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax Delhi 2009 (237) E.L.T.3 (S.C), We have not tried at all to cause any undue" hardship to the appellant since protection of interest of Revenue has become paramount consideration in view of the decision of the Tribunal in respect of supply of material by contractee decided in favour of Revenue. Also there is no material before us to appreciate any undue hardship or financial hardship to the appellant. Thus, aforesaid order has been passed considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case. Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1003 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... verse the decision of the ld. CIT(A), which is based on the precedent cited and relied upon. Therefore, in view of the facts, circumstances and material on record, it was pleaded for confirmation of the impugned order. o p /o p 11. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as precedents relied upon by the ld. CIT(A) and find that the issue raised in this appeal is covered against the Department and no contrary material or evidence are produced nor there is any higher court’s decision produced which has overruled the said decision as followed by the ld. CIT(A). Since the issue is covered by the precedent, therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), which is confirmed and appeal of the Revenue being devoid of any merits is dismissed. o p /o p 12. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. o p /o p The order is pronounced soon after the conclusion of hearing on 16.11.10. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 1002 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - canteen services - whether Service tax paid on canteen services is input service in manufacture of final product ? - Held that: - the questions raised in this Appeal are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product and allowed credit on canteen services - matter is restored to the file of CESTAT who will decide the questions raised in this Appeal in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1001 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quot; o p /o p Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clauses 1,2 and 3 in Writ Petition No. 876 of 2010, which read as under o p /o p "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the notice dated 16.4.2010 issued under Section 153-C of the Income Tax Act by respondent No. 3 and consequential assessment proceedings thereof (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). o p /o p (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 30.3.2010 passed under Section 127 of the Act by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). o p /o p (iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent not to proceed in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 16.4.2010and impugned order dated 30.3.2010and not to compel the petitioner to conduct the assessment proceeding at Allahabad." o p /o p 7. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 1000 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r to recompute disallowance as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules.” 3. Facts in short are that the Assessing Officer as well as learned CIT(A) are of the opinion that computation of disallowance has to be worked out u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D. 4. Learned counsel submitted before us that in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., ITA No. 626 of 2010 dated 12.8.2010, the matter requires to be reconsidered in accordance with law. Learned DR has not raised any objection in this regard. 5. Considering the factual matrix, we deem it fair and reasonable to set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer who is directed to recompute the amount disallowable u/s. 14A in line with the decision taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra). 6. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as partly allowed. Order has been pronounced on 1st Day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 999 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... il 1, 1989, in order to obtain a deduction in relation to bad debts, it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable it is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the bad debts written off by the assessee in his books of account shall be allowed as a deduction. 16. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed for all the assessment years under appeal. 17. In the result, (i) the assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2001-02 is dismissed; & (ii) The assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007- 08 are partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 998 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ent year under dispute. The Ld. CIT (A)’s stand in upholding the findings of the AO was also not justifiable for the reasons recorded supra. It is ordered accordingly. 8. The issue of applicability of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the fore-going paragraphs, the assessee’s other grievance that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the actual tax liability of the relevant current year from the profits of that year for the purposes of computation of accumulated profits has not been addressed to. 9. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 10. In the result, The assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2006-07 is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 997 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... )’s stand in upholding the findings of the AO was also not justifiable for the reasons recorded supra. It is ordered accordingly. 10. The issue of applicability of s.2 (22)(e) of the Act is not applicable in the case of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the fore-going paragraphs, the assessee’s other grievance that the CIT(A) erred in not reducing the actual tax liability of the relevant current year from the profits of that year for the purposes of computation of accumulated profits has not been addressed to. 11. The last ground of the assessee that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act is not maintainable as charging of interest u/s 234B of the Act is mandatory and consequential in nature. This ground is, therefore, dismissed. 12. In the result, The assessee’s appeals for the assessment years 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 996 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing will also be filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner to the effect if the special leave petition/civil appeal is dismissed, the balance amount will be paid with interest at such rate as this Court will fix. Both the Department and the petitioner will give such Undertaking within eight weeks from today. o p /o p Till further orders, the Department will not take any coercive steps to recover the outstanding demand, as of date. o p /o p I.A. No.5/2010 seeking leave to amend Writ Petition No.1325 of 2010 and I.A. No.6/2010 for urging additional facts and grounds are allowed. Leave is granted to the Department to file a comprehensive reply within eight weeks. Place this petition for final disposal on 19th July, 2011. o p /o p S.L.P. (C) No.30928 of 2010 o p /o p Taken on Board. o p /o p In view of the order passed today, S.L.P. (C) No.30928 of 2010 filed against order dated 22nd October, 2010, will not survive and the same is, accordingly, disposed of." o p /o p
-
2010 (11) TMI 995 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... expenses under the heads ‘repairs and maintenance’, ‘business promotion expenses’ and ‘traveling expenses’. There is no dispute that the assessee had failed to produce bills and vouchers in support of these expenses. The A.O. therefore, is entitled to consider disallowances of expenses claimed under the above heads. However, the Assessing officer has to give basis for disallowance. The disallowance has to be based on some material and cannot be arbitrary. The Assessing Officer has not placed any material on record to show that the expenses were excessive compared to the earlier year. Therefore, the round figure estimated additions made by the Assessing Officer with out giving any basis cannot be sustained. The order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition is, therefore, set aside and the additions made are deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 994 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e interest was determined under the Interest Liabil ity Regularisation Scheme (2004). We, are therefore, of the opinion that the liabil ity crystall ized during the Assessment Year 2005-06 and the same is allowable.” In the case under consideration, the disputed interest to SEBI has been crystallized during FY 2004- 05. Therefore, the facts of the under consideration are identical to that of the case decided by the ITAT in Star Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.(supra) we respectfully follow the same and in the light of that we confirm the order of CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the deduction of ₹ 9,33,101/- paid by the assessee to SEBI on account of interest. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 30. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 31. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 19th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 993 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Claim the deduction u/s. 43B - payment towards excise duty - The fact is that the assessee had made the payment towards excise duty albeit on the direction of the CESTAT as pre-deposit which therefore, would not seize to have the character of excise duty as held in the case of Bharat Carbon & Ribbon Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. [1999 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT]. The ultimate decision in the appeal will have no bearing on the issue. Before us, the admitted position is that the said amount of ₹ 7.5 crores is made against as a part payment against the excise duty demand raised by the excise authorities and since it was a statutory liability on that part, therefore, the conditions stipulated in s. 43B are duly fulfilled and thus the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction thereof.
We thus answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and as a result thereof, this appeal is dismissed.
............
|
