|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1037 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1487 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nt, penalty for concealment of income is not leviable. In the present case also, the tax auditor has very clearly accepted his mistake on affidavit (Page No. 55 to 57) of the Paper Book in not considering the unpaid interest on term loan while preparing the final account and statement of computation of return due to his ignorance of the amended provisions of Sec. 43B(e) regarding interest on loan from Scheduled Bank came to in effect from the A.Y. 2004-05 itself. We following the above cited decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal thus find that in the present case, the mistake committed on the part of the consultant engaged for the purpose was bonafide in nature for which assessee cannot be penalized. We thus while setting aside the orders of the authorities below direct the A.O to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c ) at ₹ 4,04,232/-. The Ground is accordingly allowed. 7. Consequently, appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on31st January,2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1486 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as been pointed out to indicate that the assessee is otherwise not entitled to the benefit of the notification. In the memo of appeal a ground has been raised that the assessee was promoting the business of a registered/branded entity and was liable to pay service tax from the first amount. However, no such contention appears to have been raised before the Tribunal. Moreover, a perusal of the show cause notice indicates that no such ground has been taken in the show cause notice also. In the circumstances, since the said ground does not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it is not permissible for the appellant to take such a plea for the first time before this Court, more so, since the same would also involve disputed questions of fact. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is not possible to state that the impugned order gives rise to any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law, warranting interference. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1485 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s would be made to get stay application heard and to obtain the order from the Hon’ble High Court, the matter was posted on 28.1.2011. However, when the matter was called today, again another letter dated 27.01.2011 is submitted which does not reflect any effort made by the Revenue during the period from 10 Jan to 27 Jan 2011 to get the matter heard. In view of the above discussion, I find that it is necessary to give directions to the concerned Commissioner to implement the order of this Tribunal dated 12.8.2010, as was done in the case of Overland Agency. 4. Accordingly, I allow the miscellaneous application and direct the Commissioner of Customs Kandla to implement the order of this Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today and report compliance on 18.02.2011. This order may be issued today to the learned DR and the learned DR is directed to communicate this order immediately to the concerned Commissioner to avoid delay. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (1) TMI 1484 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... form the SEBI." From the said paragraph, we find that the High Court has given liberty to SEBI to proceed with the inquiry. At the same time, the High Court has directed Respondent No.1 to give the names of the investors to ROC in terms of the notice dated 21st September, 2010 and 14th October, 2010. We make it clear that SEBI would also be entitled to call for any information which it deems fit, including the names of the investors who have invested in OFCD in the course of the inquiry. Mr. Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.1, very fairly states that they agree to give information that SEBI will call upon them to furnish in the inquiry. However, it shall be given without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the pending matter. Before concluding, we make it clear that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. We request the High Court to expeditiously hear and decide the case. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1483 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... hat penalty u/s.271D should not be levied. In view of above, respectfully following the decisions cited above and keeping in mind the intent and purpose of incorporating sec.269SS and sec.269T as explained by CBDT Circular No.387 reported in 152 ITR (St)1, I delete the penalty levied by the A.O. u/s.271D and sec.271E." In view of the above and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the revenue authorities, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. Besides, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by following the decisions of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench, Mumbai Bench, Jodhpur Bench and the CBDT Circular also. Therefore, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed." In view of the above, the penalty so sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 271D and 271E are hereby deleted. 4. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. 5. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21.1.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1482 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... luded both from the export turnover as well as from the total turnover, which are the numerator and denominator respectively in the said formula. We, therefore, respectively following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Special Bench in the case of SAK Soft Ltd. (supra) confirm' the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismiss the Grounds taken by the Revenue." 9. Since the issue before us is identical to the aforesaid issue decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in assessment year 2002-03, cited supra, we accordingly modify the order passed by the learned CIT by directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange for the services rendered outside India from the export turnover and also the total turnover for computing the deduction available to the assessee under sections 10A and 10B of the Act. 10. In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1481 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... from the total turnover while calculating deduction u/s 10A/10B of the Act. 10.2 As regards to the revenue's appeals (ITA Nos.684 & 685/Bang/2010), the assessee has produced letter of RBI dated April 2, 2008, the Competent Authority, mentioned u/s 10B(3) of the Act. In the said letter, it has been clearly stated that the assessee is granted post facto extension. The assessee company has subsequently also realized the said amount. Since the assessee company has obtained post facto approval from RBI coupled with the fact that it has also realized the said amounts, it entitled to the deduction u/s 10A/10B of the Act on the said amounts. Therefore, the conclusion of CIT(A) in this issue is affirmed. Hence, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. The order pronounced on Thursday, the 13th day of January, 2011 at Bangalore.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1480 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... re u/s 37 of the Act. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, this ground of appeal is rejected. 28. Coming to ground No.21 relating to disallowance of certain income for the computation of deduction u/s 10A of the Act, we find that this issue is similar to ground of appeal No.5 of the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and respectfully following the same, we hold that these receipts are also eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act as they are all related to the assessee's business and are part of business income. In view of the same, this ground of appeal is allowed. 29. Ground of appeal Nos.16 and 22 in the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2002-03 and 2005-06 respectively are only consequential and therefore needs no specific adjudication. 30. In the result, the assessee's appeal for assessment year 2005-06 is also partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1479 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing sand filter in river, waste weir back filling, extra masonary, providing heavy gate, additional amount due to raising of prices, additional amount towards establishment charges, interest etc., the trial Court based on the materials placed accepted certain items in toto and rejected certain claims and ultimately granted a decree for a sum of ₹ 2,27,758/- with proportionate costs and interest 6 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization. On going through the materials placed, relevant issues framed, ultimate discussion and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, we fully agree with the same and the plaintiff is entitled to the said amount as granted by the trial Court. 12) In the result, the impugned judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 2038 of 1983 dated 07.10.2002 is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 30 of 1977 dated 14.12.1982 is restored. The civil appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1478 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l for the Revenue states that he is unable to point out any fault with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. All the appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1477 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... , 1961 relating to a block assessment, the AO must necessarily issue notice under s. 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in the proviso to s. 143(2). In the case of Virendra Dev Dixit vs. Asstt. CIT (2010) 41 DTR (All) 43, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that service of notice on the assessee under s. 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a prerequisite for framing the block assessment; non-issuance of notice is not a mere procedural irregularity and the same is not curable. In view of the above decisions, we do not find any merit in the submissions of Shri Vivek Mishra, learned CIT (Departmental Representative). Keeping in view the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) and that of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court Lucknow Bench in the case of Rajeev Sharma (supra), we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1476 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e find that there is of business expediency in advancing the interest free deposit as disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee has also option of convert loans into purchase of its land and the interest free advances can be treated as consideration paid in lieu of the same. We find that the CIT(A) has erred in not allowing business expediency in this case, as the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) laid down the principle that business expediency is one of the consideration for allowance or disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. Respectfully, following the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra), we delete the disallowance made by lower authorities and hold that there was business expediency in advancing this interest free loan by the assessee to its sister concern 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1475 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... nders the appeal non-maintainable in terms of section 249(4A) of the Act. The said proposition is not in dispute, so, however, in the present case the case made out by the assessee is that the required taxes have been paid before hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in terms of ratio of the Tribunal in the case of Bhumiraj Constructions (supra), the same constituted a sufficient compliance with the condition prescribed under section 249(4)(a) of the Act. Thus, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of S. Alagarswamy (supra) does not militate against the pleas of the assessee. As a result, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 30.6.2010 is set aside and consequently the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 12.3.2010 for the captioned assessment years are restored. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this 31st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1474 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee paid proportionate municipal taxes in respect of the period for which he was owner to HDFC Limited. The mere fact that the record shows the name of HDFC Limited cannot be a ground of disallowance for municipal taxes because the CIT (A) has rightly noted, it is not inseisin after that entry regarding change in ownership in the municipal records because it takes some time and that unless such entries are effected, the receipts are issued in the name of the person who is owner as per municipal records. On the facts of the present case, there is reasonable explanation for the receipts not being in the name of the assessee and the payment made by the assessee is not disputed either. On consideration of these facts as also entirety of the case, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 13. Ground No.4 is thus dismissed. 14. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 28th January, 20-10
-
2011 (1) TMI 1473 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the returned income. It is a settled position of law that the consideration which applies in a penalty proceedings is different from the consideration which applies in an assessment proceedings. Merely inability of the assessee to substantiate its return of income and therefore estimation of income does not necessarily mean either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income by the assessee. There is difference between “unproved” and “disproved”. Thus, it is observed that no material could be brought on record by the Revenue to show that the assessee has either concealed any particulars of income in the return of income or has furnished any inaccurate particulars of income in the return of income filed by it. We, therefore, delete the penalty of ₹ 4,58,240/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the instant case and allow the appeal of the assessee. Order pronounced in the court today on 21-01-2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1472 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessee in default u/s 201(1) - liability to pay interest on TDS amount u/s 201(1A) - Payments of interest on the amount of tax to be deducted from the date of deduction till 1st Nov., 2004 under section 201(1A) - assessee in default - HELD THAT:- From the judgment in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI VERSUS ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2009 (3) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT] and the Explanation to section 191, it is clear that once the payee acknowledges the receipt of the sale consideration, files a return assessing the said amounts in his hands and pays tax, which is accepted by the Department, the payer ceases to be an ‘assessee in default’. He is not liable to pay tax under s. 201(1) of the Act. However, that does not absolve his liability to pay interest on TDS amount which he has not deducted. Therefore in order to foist the liability of payment of tax under s. 201(1A) it is not necessary that on the date when the demand is made, the assessee should be an ‘assessee in default’.
As held by the apex Court, both these sections are independent and mutually exclusive. They could be operated independent of each other. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in holding that on payment of tax due by the payee, the liability of the payer under s. 201(1) ceases, he ceases to be an ‘assessee in default’. But he has to pay interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1471 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on sale of shares, which were purchased to facilitate acquisition of managing agency, was taxable as capital gains - and not as business profits, even though the assessee happened to be trading in shares as well. It is thus clear that even if an investment are made for acquiring controlling shares, it cannot be treated as stock in trade. 10. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the authorities below were not justified in holding that the gains, on sale of shares by the assessee to its holding company, are to be treated as ‘business income’. That is the only reason because of which CIT(A) upheld denial of exemption under section 47(v). To this extent, we disapprove the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to grant the relief accordingly. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 19th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1470 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iginal assessment order dt. 24th March, 2005 was passed, the AO had specifically raised and examined the issue whether the petitioner had PE in India. The contention of the petitioner that they did not have PE in India was accepted. The present case is not one where there was no consideration or examination of the issue at the time of the original assessment proceedings. This is not a case in which there was no application of mind by the AO to the issue in question. Proceedings on record, the questionnaire raised and the answers given at the time of original assessment proceedings show conscious application of mind on the facts and material available before the AO. The present case is one of change of opinion. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the notice dt. 26th March, 2007, Annex. P-5 and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom including the order dt. 28th Sept., 2007. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1469 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... upled with exclusion of loss claimed for set off in the assessment year 2004-05, lead to the wrong figure of brought forward of carried forward loss being adopted. It is clearly incorrect, but then it is explained, on an affidavit, as mistake committed by the chartered accountant handling the tax matters. On perusing the above affidavit, as also the documents accompanying the affidavit - in support of its averments, we see no reasons to reject the explanation as unacceptable. In our considered view, therefore, there is a reasonable explanation for the lapse of the assessee, and we are satisfied that it was not a fit case for imposition of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 6. For the reasons set out above, we vacate the orders of the authorities below and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on 28th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1468 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ax in respect of five projects but deposited the same subsequent to the relevant financial year. He disallowed the claim of assessee. It appears that this disallowance has been deleted in further appeal because no penalty has been initiated against the assessee which is an identical aspect as far as the disallowance of ₹ 10,70,353/- is concerned for which penalty has been levied. It comes out from the penalty order that this amount was not disputed by the assessee in the appeal. Thus taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances particularly the amount of disallowance vis a vis the returned income, we are of the view that it is a bonafide lapse at the end of the assessee. There is no deliberated attempt to conceal the particulars of income. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances we do not see any reason to interfere in his order. 10. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7.1.2011.
............
|
