|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 851 Records
-
2010 (3) TMI 1203 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... y invoices. He fairly agrees that the issue is covered against the appellants by the Honble Supreme Courts decision in the case of CCE, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (239) ELT 385 (SC). As such after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit in both the cases, the appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2010 (3) TMI 1202 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... prepared by the police officer or at his dictation. If the hand writing of the writer of the information is neat and clean and he could express himself clearly, no fault could be found against such writing. In the present case, there is a clear deposition of PW-1 that it was drawn by himself and in his own hand writing and there is no evidence to impeach or doubt the said statement of the witness. Consequently, the aforesaid submission is also found to be without any merit. 23.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish by leading cogent and reliable evidence, the guilt of both the accused persons who are appellants before this Court, and therefore their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or unjustified. 24.The appeals, therefore, have no merit and are dismissed. The records may be transmitted immediately.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1201 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... -03 would hold good even in the context of these five appeals. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, did not dispute this position. In view of this mutually agreed position, for the detailed reasons discussed in paras 7 to 10 hereinabove, in the context of assessee's appeal ITA No.261/Hyd/06 for the assessment year 2002- 03, we hold for these years also that the assessee is entitled to succeed with regard to its claim for exemption under S.10(23C)(iiiad) Act, and direct the Assessing Officer accordingly. Similarly, while grounds taken by the assessee in these appeals with regard to levy of interest under S.234A, 234B and 234C, being consequential, are disposed off accordingly, other grounds, not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee, are rejected as such. Consequently, these five appeals of the assessee are also partly allowed. 16. To sum up, all the six appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5.3.2010
-
2010 (3) TMI 1200 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Claim of the State Government - Entitled to Recover the amount - company under liquidation - HELD THAT:- In our opinion, the learned single Judge clearly erred in holding that though Section 529A of the Companies Act operates, Section 38C of the Sales-tax Act also operates. If Section 529A which is the Central Enactment giving priority to the secured creditors and workers operates in relation to a property of the company, then provisions of Section 38C giving priority to the State Government will not operate in relation to that property. It is further to be seen here that if Section 38C does not operate in relation to a property of the Company because of operation of Section 529A, then by operation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there is no change brought about in the situation. In our opinion, the provisions of Section 169 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code makes the position absolutely clear.
The above observations make it clear that by operation of Section 529-A, priority is given to the dues of the secured creditors and workers over State first statutory charge. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge was not justified in holding that dues of the State Government are recoverable pari pasu with the dues of the Appellant.
In the result, therefore, both the Appeals succeed and are allowed. The order of the learned single Judge in Company Application No.540 of 2002 and Company Application No.101 of 2002 is set aside. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1199 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he revenue department. We may also note that substantial additions on merits have been deleted in this order while considering the cross appeals on merits. Therefore, nothing survives in favour of the revenue for levy of the penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances, in the light of the findings of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we are of the view , Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act. We do not find any merit in the departmental appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. 52. In view of above discussion, Departmental Appeal in ITA 1665/ahd/2008 is dismissed. 53 No other points is argued or pressed by both the parties. 54. As a result, all the departmental appeals are dismissed. However, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No.52, 53/Ahd/2007 are allowed and Appeal of Assessee in ITA No.54/Ahd/2007 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5th March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1198 - SC ORDER
Pre-deposit - Held that: - petitioner directed to deposit Rupees fifty crores by 31st March, 2010, without prejudice to its rights and contentions - Permission to file additional documents is granted.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1197 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... DR agrees that such option should have been given to the appellants as per proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise law. In view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Swati Chemicals Industries & Others being order No. A/1556-1576/WZB/AHD/2009 dt. 21.7.2009 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. M/s. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Limited 2009 (93) RLT 471 (Guj.),. We give option to the appellants to deposit duty, interest and 25 of the duty amount towards penalty, within 30 days from receipt of this order. It is made clear that failure to pay either duty or interest in full and 25 of duty towards penalty within 30 days of receipt of this order, appellants shall be liable to pay 100 of duty demand towards penalty. 2. Regarding penalty imposed on Director, since Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable, we do not think we need to reconsider the issue. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2010 (3) TMI 1196 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee by the decision in the case of M.S. Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2006) 125 Taxman 220 (Hyd) (MAG) as well as the decision in the case of Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra). Thus both the grounds of reopening have to be decided in favour of the assessee on merits also. 16. Be as it may, as we are of the considered opinion that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reassessment was done merely based on a change of opinion, without any new material, and for fresh application of mind to same facts, we hold that the reassessment is bad in law. Thus, the reassessment order is hereby quashed. 17. As we have quashed the reassessment order, it would be an academic exercise to adjudicate all the other grounds that arise both in the assessee’s appeal as well as in the Revenue’s appeal. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1195 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ble to tax has escaped assessment. We therefore hold that learned CIT(A) was right in annulling assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02 is therefore upheld and the revenue’s appeal in this regard is dismissed.” 11. The above order of the Tribunal has also been followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in ACIT vs. Abhishek Bachchan (supra). 12. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the revenue we respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the consistent view of the Tribunal(supra), hold that the A.O. was not justified in initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the whole assessment is annulled. The grounds taken by the revenue are, therefore, rejected. 13. In the result revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.3.2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1194 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not come in the way of the petitioner in moving the rectification application. The second argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that order rejecting the rectification does not assign any reason therein. 4. Undisputedly, order of the learned Commissioner dated 31.12.2008 is a detailed order which was challenged before the Tribunal. We are of the view that there is no need to pass detailed order while dismissing rectification/review application, if order under review/rectification is detailed speaking order. 5. Application for rectification was not rejected by the learned Commissioner on the ground appeal was dismissed for noncompliance of pre-deposit order. Order impugned shows that rectification application was dismissed because competent authority found that there was no apparent need for any rectification. 6. In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition which in our view is an abuse of process of law. 7. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1193 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sale of units. Accordingly, it is held that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that surplus realized on sale of units was taxable as capital gains. Therefore, his order on this issue is reversed and that of the AO is restored. 5. It is also the argument of the ld. counsel that in case the surplus is held to be taxed as business profits, the assessee may be granted credit for Security Transaction Tax (‘STT’ for short) paid by it. Such a claim was raised even before the ld. CIT(Appeals). However, he did not decide this issue because it was held that the transactions result into capital gains. This decision has now been reversed. Therefore, the matter of grant of credit is restored to the file of the AO to allow deduction as per law. 6. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal of the revenue is allowed subject to grant of credit for the STT paid as per law on transactions of the units. The order was pronounced in the open court on 31 March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1192 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... carefully gone through the orders of authorities below. It is pertinent to note that in the immediately preceding assessment year, i.e. assessment year 2001-02, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Ahmedabad vide order dated 13.11.2009 accepted the alternate plea of the assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act against the interest income assessed under the head “income from other sources”. This, in our opinion, clearly demonstrates that explanation of the assessee was bonafide. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are convinced that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has given cogent reason for cancelling the penalty of ₹ 21,77,060/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. We, therefore, decline to interfere. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 05.03.2010
-
2010 (3) TMI 1191 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Formulation of Fiscal Policy - exemption simplicitor or incentive offered? - promissory estoppel - withdrawal of the benefit/incentive - retrospective effect or prospective effect?
-
2010 (3) TMI 1190 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... action of share purchase and sale; accordingly, he made the impugned addition u/s 69C of the Act. The CIT(A) has also confirmed the action of the AO. 13 After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that no material was found during the course of search to suggest that the assessee has arranged the purchase and sale transaction and has paid a sum of ₹ 7,20.080/- for arranging such transaction. It is well settled position in law that in case of search addition can only be made on the basis of material found during the course of search. 13.1 As stated above, no material of any kind was found in respect to expenditure incurred for arranging transaction of sale and purchase of shares. Therefore, we hold that the addition made by the AO which was confirmed by the CIT(A) was without any basis; accordingly, the same is deleted. 14 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly and partly for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 8.3.2010
-
2010 (3) TMI 1189 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Mum.) (SMC) taking the similar view. In the like manner another order passed in the case of McKinsey and Co. (Switzerland) dated 29.12.2005 in ITA No.7238/Mum/2002 reiterating the same view has also been placed on record. It was contended that the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee's own cases has been in its favour holding against the taxation of the amounts in dispute. The learned Departmental Representative conceded that the facts and circumstances of the instant appeals were similar to those already considered and decided by the Tribunal. In view of the rival but common submissions and respectfully following the precedents we uphold the impugned orders. 5. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances in other cases are mutatis mutandis similar to those discussed above. Following the view taken hereinabove, we uphold the impugned order for all the years. 6. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. Order pronounced on this 24.3.2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1188 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad 'D' Bench in the case of Bipinchandra Mohanlal Gajjar Vs. ITO, W-6(1), Surat in ITA No. 3128/Ahd/2008 dated 18-02-2009 relating to AY 2005-06. The issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is similar to that of the case of Bipinchandra Mohanlal Gajjar (supra). Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bipinchandra Mohanlal Gajjar (supra), we hold that since admittedly, the twisting machine was used by weaving sector of textile industry, depreciation on the said machinery 50 should be allowed. We accordingly, allow the ground of appeal." 5. In view of the above order, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the claim of the assessee for higher depreciation. As a result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 22-03-2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1187 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... edings. Here, in the present case, as mentioned earlier, the penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order itself. 18. So as it relates to cases relied upon by learned Authorised Representative on merits, it may be mentioned that merits with regard to levy or otherwise of concealment penalty have to be discussed on the basis of its own facts. None of the decisions relied upon by learned Authorised Representative is pari materia on facts. They were also not discussed individually by learned Authorised Representative to show that how they are applicable to the case of the assessee and on the basis of facts of the present case we have discussed the merits, therefore, the case law relied upon by learned Authorised Representative in this regard are not applicable to the present case. 19. For the reasons discussed above, we find no substance in the appeal filed by the assessee and the same is dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erest payable holding that the amount was revenue expenditure allowable u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act ? (B) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Nagathone unit was a totally new unit and cannot be said to be an expansion of the existing unit ? 2. It is an accepted position between the parties that in respect of the same controversy, in relation to earlier years in the case of the assessee itself, the Tribunal had decided the questions against Revenue and in favour of the Assessee which were carried in Appeal before this Court and the Appeal came to be dismissed. The issues raised in the present Appeals, therefore, stand concluded against Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. 3. In the circumstances, no questions of law, much less any substantial questions of law can be stated to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Appeals accordingly stand dismissed. Registry to place copy of this order in connected matter.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1185 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cements and the legal position clearly emanating from the discussion above and having regard to the facts of the case, we hold that the applications filed by the assessee beyond the period of four years from the date of the corresponding order passed u/s. 254(2) are barred the limitation and the same are liable to be dismissed in limine. We may also note here that as is evident from the sequence of events furnished by the assessee that the appeal being ITA No. 895/Mum/97 was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal in February, 1997 and despite its change of address immediately thereafter, a letter informing the new address was sent to the Registry of the Tribunal only in March, 2004 i.e. after a period of about 7 years. The non-service or delay in service of the order of the Tribunal passed ex parte on 3.3.2003 to the assessee thus was clearly attributable to the assessee. 5. In the result, the M.A. filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 25th March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1184 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ce of vehicle and telephone expenses of ₹ 53,584/- and ₹ 14,599/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed 1/4th of vehicle and telephone expenses at ₹ 53,584/- and ₹ 14,559/- for both the year. The assessee has incurred total income of ₹ 2,15,535/- under the head of Telephone expenses, vehicle expenses and vehicle depreciation in the case of Siddharth Corporation and ₹ 58,237/- on account of telephone expenses in the case of Gautam Enterprises. The AO has disallowed 1/4th of the expenses. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance at ₹ 21,535/- in the case of Siddharth Corporation and ₹ 14,559/- in the case of Gautam Enterprises. 11. We find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) as he has restricted the disallowance to a reasonable extent, i.e. at 10 and accordingly we confirm the order of CIT(A). 10. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed partly as indicated above. Order pronounced on this day of 26th March,2010
........
|
