|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 915 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1112 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... anding demand is ₹ 11,20,023/- against which the present stay petition has been filed by the assessee. Learned Counsel for the assessee contends the financial position of the assessee is not congenial to enable the assessee to pay the balance outstanding demand. He also contends that he has a strong prima facie case and reasonable hope to succeed in appeal before the Tribunal. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the request of the assessee. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the submissions of the assessee such as the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the assessee, the financial stringency, the interest of the revenue and the balance of convenience, we are satisfied that this is a fit case where stay should be granted. We, accordingly, grant stay till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. In the result, stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed This Order Is Pronounced in Open Court On Dt. 23.7.2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1111 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT credit - Car Insurance Policy - Baggage Cover Policy - Cash Transit Insurance - Executives Club Expenses - Outstation Travel Services - Hotel Services for Executives.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1110 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the file of AO to re-examine the issue after affording proper opportunity to the assessee.” 2.3 The finding of the Tribunal in respect of ground no. 3 reads as under - “Ground nos. 2 & 3 relate to disallowance of expenses out of car running, petrol expenses, depreciation on car and telephone expenses. The benches of the ITAT in the country are taking consistent view that in case of company no personal user is involved. Latest decision is reported in 76 ITD 32. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 749 (Guj.) has also taken similar view. Therefore, in view of the precedence, I allow these grounds by holding that no disallowance can be made in the hands of the company on account of personal use.” 3. Concurring with the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, all these grounds are dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open court on 2nd July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1109 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... egation that explanation furnished by the assessee is not bona fide. For invoking explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) all the three ingredients are to be cumulatively and simultaneously satisfied as held by the Tribunal in ITAT, Lucknow Bench in Star International (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 23 SOT 88 (Lucknow) and in the present case none of the ingredients is satisfied, the penalty could not be levied even within the meaning of explanation. The three ingredients are as under - (1) The assessee offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate; (2) The fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide; and (3) All the facts relating to the same and material facts to the computation of total income then disclosed by him. Accordingly, I hold that penalty is neither leviable under the main provision nor under explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). 5. In the result, I cancel the penalty and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. Order was pronounced in open Court on 8/7/2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1108 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n defined under section 2(31A) of the VAT Act as "means any place of business where a dealer keeps all accounts, registers, documents, including those in the form of electronic records, and digital signature certificate, granted under sub-section (4) of section 35 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to his business and, includes the chief branch or head office within West Bengal". It is, thus, obligatory on the part of a dealer to comply with the provisions of the Act and Rules as discussed hereinbefore. But by mere submitting return, a dealer cannot claim that he has complied with the statutory requirements and also cannot claim that he is carrying on business at the declared place of business. In view of the discussion, as made hereinbefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders challenged in this application. The application, therefore, fails. No order as to costs. Records submitted by the learned State Representative be returned to him.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1107 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... y clear that the petitioners shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law for the delayed compliance of the statute from the date it became applicable. It is made clear that the benefit of the order shall not be available to the non-petitioners. Save as aforesaid, all interim orders are vacated and the petition is dismissed. 4. From the Hon’ble High Courts Order, it is clear that the penal action against them has been waived subject to the condition that the appellants complied with the provisions of the statute within a period of 60 days. However, it has been specifically made clear in the aforesaid order that the appellants shall be liable to pay interest in accordance with law. Hence, I am of the view that the appeal has no merit as regards the demand of interest is concerned. Further, the payment of interest is a civil liability and not a penalty. 5. The appeal is dismissed. Stay petition also gets disposed off. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1106 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lowed. The impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside. The High Court of Jharkhand shall now consider the issue of quantum of punishment afresh and make fresh recommendation to the State Government within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. If the High Court still feels that the adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Reports of the appellant for the year 1988-1989, 1989-1990, 1990-1991 and 1996-1997 should be considered, then such report(s) shall be communicated to him and he should be given an opportunity to make appropriate representation. While making fresh recommendation for imposing the particular punishment, the High Court is expected to take into consideration the good as well as adverse record of the appellant. The State Government shall pass appropriate order within three months from the date of receipt of fresh recommendation from the High Court. The parties are left to bear their own cost.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1105 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ave the benefit of the enquiries and wisdom of the lower authorities. This being so and keeping in view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the assessee by the AO, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the AO and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities on this account and send back the entire matter to the file of the AO , who shall decide the same afresh and according to law after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee to prove his case. It is made clear that if the assessee remains recalcitrant the AO shall be at liberty to draw adverse inference as he deem fit and decide the issues accordingly. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes. 8 In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1104 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hould be ordered by the Court against the official of the investigating agency by superior officials but that would not give an excuse to the Court to let off the accused or let off any other person or refuse to issue process in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 23rd February 2010 is hereby set aside and learned ACMM is directed to proceed against accused and allow the application moved by the petitioner and see to it that proceedings under Section 82/83 and other provisions of Cr.P.C are complied with by the prosecution. However, the counsel for the petitioner states that the notice was served upon the wife of the respondent/accused and therefore there was no requirement of reading it or pasting it in Village as an adult member of the family of the accused/ respondent was made aware of the proceedings pending before the ACMM. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of ACMM, New Delhi on 19th July, 2010. The petition stands disposed of with above order.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only defence which the appellant had offered to that claim was based on the law of limitation. That defence having been withdrawn by Mr. Divan, we see no real justification for disallowing the said claim especially when the counter-claim made by the appellant has been rejected and the said rejection was not questioned before the High Court. In fairness to Mr. Divan we must record that he did not seriously oppose the severance of the award made by the Arbitrators so as to separate the inadmissible part of the claim based on an interpretation of Clause 2.03 from the admissible part. 24. In the result we allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that the award made by the Arbitrators shall stand set aside except to the extent of a sum of ₹ 8,63,953/- which amount shall be payable to the respondent-contractor with the interest 9 p.a. from 1st April, 1985 till the date of actual payment thereof. 25. The parties to bear their own costs through out the proceedings.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1102 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of the Act. I find that the lower authorities has failed to appreciate the fact that depreciation was a non cash expenditure or allowance to the assessee in determining net income of ₹ 2,12,696/-. Thus the income of the assessee before depreciation was ₹ 4,22,350/- ( ₹ 2,12,696 ₹ 2,09,654 ) and after depreciation allowance of ₹ 2,09,654/- the net income of the assessee was ₹ 2,12,696/-. In other words the assessee by having income of ₹ 2,12,696/- had cash earning of ₹ 4,22,350/-. Thus in my considered opinion the maximum amount which could be added in the instant case comes to ₹ 2,309/- ( ₹ 4,24,659 - ₹ 4,22,350 ) only. I therefore modify the orders of the lower authorities and sutain addition of ₹ 2,309/- and delete the addition to the extent of ₹ 2,09,654/-. 8. Thus, the appeal of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 23rd day July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1101 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ners agreed net profit rate of 8 per cent subject to not allowing any other deduction under wrong notion. Perhaps he was of the view that administrative expenses such as salary expenses, raw material expenses, electricity expenses, labour expenses etc. may not be allowed. However, depreciation, interest and salary to partners which are otherwise allowable and moreover the partner has not specifically mentioned that these expenses will not be claimed. It seems that there is a bona fide mistake in not mentioning specifically these expenses because they are not administrative expenses but are allowable otherwise. For these reasons, we can say that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow these expenses separately. Accordingly we hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the AO to allow deduction of depreciation, interest and salary to partners, therefore, we confirm the order of learned CIT(A). 16. In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1100 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... h, 2003 at page 637 wherein following the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smruti Trading Co. 70 TTJ (Mum.) 114, it was held that salary paid to the partner who was partner in his representative capacity as karta of HUF cannot be considered to be payment to HUF but to karta as an individual. The karta of HUF is a working partner and, therefore, the remuneration paid to him is allowable. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that the revenue authorities were not justified in disavowing the claim of the assessee. The two partners though they were representatives of their respective HUFs were partners in their individual capacity and, therefore, the remuneration paid to them would be an allowable deduction. We direct accordingly." Respectfully following the above orders, we allow the claim of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 30/7/2010
-
2010 (7) TMI 1099 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ber that each entity is an assessee separate and the relationship does not affect the decision. Further the forfeiture has not been claimed to be bogus nor has it been shown to be a fraud or a colourable device. o p /o p The loss of money in the form of partly paid up shares remains an undisputed fact in the hands of the assessees. In the circumstances we are of the view that the principles laid own in the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. BPL Sanyo Finance Ltd., referred to supra, squarely apply to the facts of the appellants’ case. Consequently the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands reversed and the Assessing Officer is directed to accept the claim of the assessees in respect of the forfeiture of the partly paid up shares of M/s. KPR Sugar Mills P.Ltd. as short term capital loss. In the circumstances the appeals of the assessees are allowed. o p /o p 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 30-07-2010. o p /o p
-
2010 (7) TMI 1098 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rt in CC Vs. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (165) ELT 257 (SC). Following the ratio of the apex Court s decision cited supra, I set aside the inclusion of demurrage charges in the assessable value of the assessee s goods and allow the appeal. The differential duty as a result of calculating the C&F price at 48.27 US per MT as against the declared C&F price of 44.71 US per MT is upheld as it is not the subject matter in the present appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2010 (7) TMI 1097 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... having been granted to the petitioner on the question of delay, the impugned order of Commissioner holding that the application had been filed after a delay of six years, suffers from the vice of principles of natural justice and as such, cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2009 (Annexure-C) made by respondent Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The revision application bearing File No. CITII/ Jud/Tech/264/02/2009-10 is restored to the file of the Commissioner. The Commissioner shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing. If the Commissioner is of the view that the application under section 264 of the Act is barred on the ground of delay, the Commissioner shall decide the same as a preliminary issue after putting the petitioner to notice and giving it an opportunity of hearing. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tmental Representative could not point out any distinguishing features in the above quoted order of the Tribunal. He also could not show that the order of the Tribunal passed in the Assessment Year 2006-07 was reversed in appeal by the higher forum. As the facts and issue involved in the present year of appeal are identical to the facts and issue involved in the Assessment Year 2003-04, respectfully following the above quoted order of the Tribunal we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Learned Assessing Officer to allow deduction of ₹ 5,13,901 claimed on account of filtration expenses by the assessee. However, while doing so the Learned Assessing Officer shall withdraw the depreciation of ₹ 1,28,475/- allowed to the assessee. Thus this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the manner indicated above. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 9th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1095 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 2003-04. We find the Tribunal vide ITA No.394/Mum/08 order dated 29-01-2010 has dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue. It has been held in the said decision that there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition by following the orders of the ITAT in the earlier year. We find the Tribunal vide ITA No.2412/Mum/08 order dated 22-03-2010 for the asst. year 2004-05, following the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the asst. year 2003-04, has dismissed the ground raised by the Revenue on this issue. Respectfully following the consistent view of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice against the orders of the Tribunal, this ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1094 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... and processing is provided by cloth so as to infer that it is only weaving and processing of cloth whose machineries are entitled for higher depreciation. The words used are weaving, processing and garments sector of textile industry.” 9. In other words, weaving, processing and garments sector are part of textile industries which is a larger group. In this textile industry, the weaving processing and garment sector are covered in respect of whose machineries, the high rate of depreciation is provided. Thus the word processing would include texturising and twisting of yarn which is finally used in textile industry. Thus respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal we allow the claim of the assessee. 10. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”. 5. By following the above order, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. 6. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 23-07-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1093 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e has made further investment in the property by way of any additional construction or improvement to the house purchased. It is also not the case where the consideration shown in the purchase deed is below the price fixed by the Government for the Stamp Duty purposes. The AO has merely made the addition on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Valuation Officer but no material has been brought on record to establish that the assessee has paid any amount over and above the amount mentioned in the sale agreement. The AO has not examined the seller before making any addition on account of additional consideration paid by the assessee over and above the amount mentioned in the sale agreement. In this view of the matter, we therefore, find that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition on this count. The order of the CIT(A) is thus upheld. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 30th July, 2010.
............
|
