|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 746 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ment Commission is yet to pass their final order u/s 245D(4) of the Act, the aforesaid directions of the ITAT could not be complied with. In nutshell , position remains the same as on 1.6.2007, when the ITAT issued their aforesaid directions. Since the Settlement Commission is yet to pass their final order u/s 245D(4) of the Act, we have no alternative but to vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and reiterate the directions in order dated 1.6.2007 in IT(SS)A no. 381/Del./2003. With these observations, ground nos. 1 to 5 in the appeal are disposed of. 6. Ground no.6 in the appeal being general in nature nor any submissions having been made, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.7 in the appeal, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 7. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 8. In result, appeal is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2011 (11) TMI 745 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of depreciation on office building, addition on account of foreign traveling expenditure, addition on account of foreign traveling expenditure, addition on account of unregistered Provident Fund Trust, disallowance u/s 14A, disallowance towards interest on late payment of TDS.
-
2011 (11) TMI 744 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... urate claim would amount to giving an inaccurate particulars. The contention of the Revenue was rejected in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd., 322 I.T.R.158. In the case of the assessee, assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35D of the Act, on bonafide belief that the assessee will be eligible for deduction which was however, disallowed in earlier assessment years. The assessee had not claimed bogus deduction without incurring the expenditure. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee’s case is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (supra). Since, the claim of the assessee for deduction is not mala fide, it is held that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not imposable. We accordingly cancel the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 18.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 743 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... that the benefit is of enduring nature, therefore, is of capital in nature. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the latest decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swaraj Engines Ltd dated 18th May 2006 wherein the Hon'ble Court has already followed the decisions from the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Swami Satsang vs CIT (supra) and Wavin India Ltd (supra), we uphold the stand of the ld CIT(A). Consequently, this ground of the revenue is also having no merit.” 5. Respectfully following the above or order of the Tribunal we uphold the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this regard.” 15. Respectfully following the aforesaid order, Ground No.3 taken by the Department is dismissed. 16. Other grounds of appeal taken by the Department do not require specific adjudication. 17. In view of the fore goings, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 742 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 43B - Held that:- We find that though previously assessee had included said amount of ₹ 1.18,53,407/to be disallowed under Section 43B of the Act, even before the assessment was finalised, the assessee through its letter contended that same was purely an error and that exclusion would not apply to cash credit account since the same is not covered under Section 43B of the Act.
To our mind this was a pure question of law. If under Section 43B of the Act such interest was not included, mere fact that assessee initially himself excluded in the return, would not prevent him to contend that same was erroneous and that correct treatment should be as per the statutory provisions. In that context CIT(Appeals) as well as Tribunal both were justified in entertaining such additional grounds. Had the entire issue being highly contested on facts and had such claim not being made in original assessment, could the same have been entertained by the Assessing Officer without revised return and whether consequentially higher authorities could have directed the Assessing Officer to examine the same are questions we are not required to go into.
-
2011 (11) TMI 741 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... fresh evidence, it was submitted that this is not a fresh evidence and the ld. CIT(A) within his powers under section 250(4) can make further queries. In view of these powers, the ld. CIT(A) sought certain clarifications from the Auditor of the assessee Company which were given by the assessee. 18. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are convinced with the arguments made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Daga that the ld. CIT(A) within his powers under section 250(4) of the Act can conduct enquires while disposing of an appeal. In view of those powers, certain clarifications were sought which were given by the assessee Company and therefore, the same cannot be held to be an additional evidence under Rule 46A. Therefore, in the circumstances and facts of the case, ground no.4 of the Revenue is dismissed. 19. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA no.651/Agr/2008 is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.11.2011)
-
2011 (11) TMI 740 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... erwise authorizes them to take remuneration and interest on their capital contribution. Having factually observed that there was no such payments made and neither was there any liability for such amounts, in our view the Assessing Officer was not empowered to reduce the profits on this score for the purpose of Section 80IA(10) of the Act.” 9. The issue raised in the present appeal before us is identical to the issue raised before the Tribunal (supra). Following the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are thus dismissed. 10. The issue raised in ITA No.1324/Chd/2010 is identical to the issue raised in ITA No.1323/Chd/2010 and even the facts in both the appeals are identical. In view thereof, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 739 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unaccounted sales - Nexus proved between the seized documents and the assessee.
Section 40(a)(ia) r/w section 194H - rate of tax applicable
-
2011 (11) TMI 738 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e assessing officer in the quantum proceedings and the said issue has been decided against the assessee by the tribunal, but appeal of the assessee is admitted and pending in ITA No.467/2003 on the said question The Tribunal after considering the explanation given by the assessee has deleted the penalty and held that the issue involved is a legal issue and two views were possible. The question raised was debateable. It may be noted that the Assessment Year involved is 2004-05 and it is accepted and admitted that the respondent-assessee had maintained separate books of account for the two sole proprietorships. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, the tribunal has held penalty should not be imposed in the present proceedings. Looking at the factual aspect and the order passed by the Tribunal, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 737 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... irect the Ld. A.O. not to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, as because the revenue has no where mentioned that reopening is made to assess the interest income on the NSC, Fixed Deposits and savings bank account. On the other hand, we observe that the assessee was under the bona fide impression that the accrued interest on NSC, Fixed Deposits and savings bank account to be offered at the time of their maturity. However, since the revenue has served the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee offered the same voluntarily. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. o p /o p 5. The facts for the other two assessment years 2004-05 & 2005-06 are identical to those of assessment year 2003-04 dealt with above. In view of the above, we direct the Ld. A.O. to delete the penalties of ₹ 12,378/- and ₹ 8,905/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for these two assessment years as well. o p /o p 6. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. o p /o p
-
2011 (11) TMI 736 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... This Court has held that the law as enacted is what is contained in the Finance Act after it is legislated upon by Parliament. The Petitioner in person submits that the budgetary proposals which are accepted by Parliament constitute law and that the Finance Act which does not implement the proposal must to that extent be ignored. It is not possible to accept the submission. The law as enacted by Parliament in the Finance Act is the authoritative exposition of the will of Parliament. In any event, no error apparent on record has been made out. Nor is any case for exercise of the jurisdiction in review established. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 735 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ptions or assumptions can survive. Hence, the disallowance of ₹ 1,24,480/- stand deleted. This ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 26. Ground No.7 relates to charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that this ground is consequential only. The A.O. is directed to allow consequential relief, if any, at the time of giving effect to the order. This ground of appeal is disposed of in these terms. 27. Ground No.8 relates to the grounds contested by the assessee from Sl. No.1 to 7. Since we have disposed of all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, supra, no separate adjudication is required for this ground. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 28. Ground No.8 is general in nature and requires no adjudication. 29, In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 th November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 734 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the receiving back of the amounts paid to the assessees. It is for the assessees to prove that the monies received by them have been returned to M/s. Siemens Ltd. in some manner or the other, directly or indirectly, and this moves the issue out of the realm of a mistake apparent from the record into a highly debatable issue. In the circumstances we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on both the issues of rectification u/s. 154 as also on merits is erroneous. In the circumstances, the findings of the learned CIT(A) are reversed and that of the Assessing Officer restored. Here we may also mention in the passing that in the case of Shri Durga Das Vyas all the assessments are protective assessments. They are not substantive assessments. The assessment order is also silent in regard to the hand in which the substantive assessment has been made. In the circumstances the appeals of the Revenue are allowed. 9. The order was pronounced in the court on 14/11/11.
-
2011 (11) TMI 733 - ITAT MUMBAI
Unexplained investment/ purchases u/s 69 - bogus purchases - Held that:- The purchases made by the assessee are real and genuine for which the payments have been made through banking channels. Further it is confirmed that the sales made by the assessee were effected and the consideration was received by cross order cheques. Hence additions made by the AO deserves to be deleted in its entirety - Decided in favor of Assessee
-
2011 (11) TMI 732 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nses. 11. The assessee is a sole proprietor of his business and expenditure on account of car cunning, insurance, car depreciation and telephone expenses have been debited to his business Profit & Loss Account. The element of personal use cannot be ruled out out of the aforesaid expenditure. However, we restrict the said disallowance for personal use to 1/10th of the total expenditure. Further the assessee had incurred entertainment and staff welfare expenses totaling ₹ 3,09,917/-, out of which ₹ 40, 000/- was disallowed. We find no merit in any disallowance being made out of staff welfare expenses of ₹ 1,61,730/-. However in respect of expenditure incurred on entertainment totaling ₹ 1,48,187/-, sum of ₹ 10,000/- is disallowed for personal use. Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 731 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... dy was in Capital account.” o p /o p Therefore, let us apply the purpose test based on the findings recorded by the Special Bench. The object of the subsidy was to set up a new unit in a backward area to generate employment. In our opinion, the subsidy is clearly on capital account. In that view of the matter, Question (D) as framed would also not arise.” o p /o p 22. On careful consideration of the facts of the case and in view of the case laws cited before us, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) by which the receipts have been held to be capital in nature.” o p /o p 8. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd (supra), we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the receipt in question is capital in nature. Therefore, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). o p /o p 9. In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 04-11-2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (11) TMI 729 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Interest - while filing the ST-3 returns for the period ending September 2001 and March 2002 and March 2003, the appellant had submitted a covering letter indicating the amounts received by them from UNDP for rendering services and had also claimed exemption under Notification No. 48/98 dated 24-4-98 - Once the appellant intimated the fact to the department, the suppression of fact or misdeclaration cannot be alleged - In view of the above position, appellant has a very strong prima facie case in their favour and therefore unconditional stay against the recovery of the service tax and penalty is allowed after waiving pre-deposit.
-
2011 (11) TMI 728 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t maintainable. 7. Even on merits, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the information sought for by Respondent No. 2 does not fall within the exempted category under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act because the information, which respondent No. 2 has sought, relates to pending proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. However, what is exempted under Section 8(1)(h) is information, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. It is not the pleaded case of the Bank that any investigation or apprehension or prosecution of respondent No. 2 will be impeded by furnishing information sought for by him. Even if the information relates to a pending dispute before a Court or Tribunal, that would not fall under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. 8. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. As a sequel, WPMP No. 35591 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
-
2011 (11) TMI 727 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Krishnan,Adv. Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 726 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appellant-assessee from M/s. Newell Rubbermaid Inc. in terms of agreement dated 04.03.2002 is a revenue receipt and not a capital receipt?? Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. Liberty is, however, given to the parties to file documents/material which were filed before the Tribunal/Authorities within a period of 12 weeks. List along with ITA No.958/2006 and other connected ITAs in the category of Regular Matters as per its own turn.
............
|
