|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 725 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... tion of the room , as argued has been specially designed for the purpose of the wind mill and therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is directed to allow the depreciation as per the rules applicable on the wind mills. Thus Ground No. 6 of the assessee is allowed.’’ 2.4 We therefore, hold that the depreciation will be allowed on the foundation of windmill as well as for the construction of the room. In respect of other civil work, ITAT Jodhpur bench vide order dated 11-02-2011 (ITA No.195/JU/2010) has restored the issue in the case of Delhi Rajasthan Transport Co. Ltd. 3.1 The third ground of appeal of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred confirming the levy of interest charged by the AO u/s 234D and withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Income Tax Act. We have heard both the parties. The charging of interest is mandatory and consequential in nature. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 723 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... et aside. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall re-auction the property by following the provisions of the SERFAESI Act, 2002 and Rules made therein by giving paper publication as required under the provisions of Rule 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall refund the amount paid by respondent No.3 along with the cost incurred by the respondents in getting the sale certificates. Since respondent No.3 has enjoyed the property, he is not entitled for any interest or damages. Respondent No.3 is granted four weeks time to hand over the possession of the premises to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall take possession of the property within four weeks as granted by this Court and take action in accordance with law to sell the property and recover the dues payable by the appellant to the respondent No.2. The bank has to bear the cost of litigation, which we quantifying at ₹ 50,000/-, payable to the appellant.
-
2011 (11) TMI 722 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... see submitted that no deduction of 2 of the receipts treated as income of the assessee AOP was allowed by the Department in the hands of the members of the AOP. We find that the CIT(A) has given a finding that the appellant AOP did not execute any contract work in question and therefore, did not derive any income during the year and the additions made by the assessing officer could not be sustained. In the facts of the case, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the question of estimating profit does not arises and in deleting the addition made in the hands of the assessee. We hold that no case for disallowance/addition could be made under S.40A(2) by the Revenue and accordingly, there being no merit in the grounds of appeal of the Revenue, the same are rejected for all the three assessment years in appeal before us. 7. In the result, all the three appeals preferred by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 4.11.2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 721 - ITAT DELHI
Non-realization of provision of surcharge - accrual of income - accounting policies - Held that:- Looking at the intricacies the facts may vary, therefore, basic principles of accrual or mercantile system as laid down by various authorities are to be applied in a careful manner. The assessee being a state PSU; the sur-charge on delayed payment being disputable item; was not mandatorily payable at the time of payment of electricity consumption bill; was not an accrued receipt in view of the accounting policy accepted by the revenue. Therefore, such amount of surcharge cannot be held to be taxable as it is not the real income of the assessee and is hypothetical by nature in given facts and circumstances.
We are of the view that the amount of surcharge not realized by the assessee, does not amount to accrued of receipt taxable as income. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, which we uphold.
-
2011 (11) TMI 720 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ng of stay petition, on merits. 3. After considering the submissions made by learned SDR, we find that stay petition in this case needs to be allowed as the amount involved is substantial. In view of this, application for out of turn hearing of stay petition is allowed and registry is directed to list the stay petition for disposal on 30.11.2011. Notices to be issued. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 719 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction u/s 80-IB - allocation of interest expenditure of ₹ 12.64 lacs to the Daman unit - allocation of general expenses and administrative expenses for computation of deduction u/s 80-IB - allocation of loss of Daman unit to other units for computation of deduction u/s 80-IA and 80-IB - disallowance u/s 14A - allocation of interest expenses on the basis of investment ratio - allocated salary expenses - allocation of salary expenses for the Daman and Baddi units.
-
2011 (11) TMI 718 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ur years from the end of year of assessment under consideration, with nothing to indicate at all of the assessee not having disclosed fully and truly all material facts. The very basis for reopening is not found sustainable. And therefore, notices issued under Section 148 require to be quashed. 5.8 It needs to be also mentioned at this juncture that this Bench in Special Civil Application No. 15719 of 2011 also considered identical question of the petitioner who was a works contractor and who had availed deduction under Section 80IB (10) of the Act, notice of reopening issued by the department was quashed. 6. Thus, cumulatively when all the factual details are considered, applying them the law on the subject, it can be held that the notices for reopening having been issued with no valid basis, being contrary to law, the same warrants quashment and are accordingly quashed. 7. Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Timewell Technics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Rajkot 2009 (238) ELT 643 (Tri-Ahmd) and Gillette India Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur 2006 (193) ELT 331 (Tri-Del) that exports are excluded from the applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. If that be so, the goods are not required to be treated as packed form, and as other than packed form in terms of 3rd proviso to said Serial Number 1C of the notification. If they are not in packaged form, they will attract the concessional rate of duty appearing against said S.No. 1C. 6. As admittedly the export goods neither carry MRP on them nor are required to carry the same according to Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, we are, prima facie in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and allow the stay petition accordingly. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 716 - ITAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... he dictum laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we direct the AO to calculate deduction u/s 10A of the Act without setting off of the carried forward business loss and depreciation. It is ordered accordingly. In the result, grounds no.2 to 4 are allowed. 6. Ground Nos.5 to 7 does not require adjudication, since the alternative plea of the assessee was accepted by the CIT(A) and the order of the CIT(A) was affirmed by us in ITA Nos.84 and 85/Bang/2011. Moreover, on the issue whether telecommunication expenses attributable to the delivery of computer software outside India should be reduced from export turnover while computing the eligible deduction u/s 10A of the Act, had not been adjudicated by the first appellate authority. Hence, we feel ground nos. 5 to 7 does not require any adjudication and the same are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 715 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... come tax Act by the DIT(E) which means that charitable character of the assessee is not in dispute. Therefore, exemption under section 11 in case of the assessee can not be denied. We also find that identical dispute had arisen in case of SRA in which the Tribunal in ITA No.5150/Mum/2010 noted that charitable purpose included advancement of any other job of general public utility. Moreover the institution had also been registered under section 12A by the department which also confirmed its charitable status. The Tribunal, therefore, held that exemption under section 11 could not be denied. The facts in case of the assessee are identical, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of SRA (supra), we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) allowing the claim of exemption under section 11 to the assessee. Accordingly the order of CIT(A) is upheld. 4. In the result, app of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 713 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Computation of deduction u/s 80HHC on account of income by way of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) - See M/s Fitex Industries And Ors. Versus ACIT [2011 (6) TMI 844 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (11) TMI 712 - SC ORDER
Deductions u/s 80-IB - Capital or revenue receipt - Notification No. 1(11)/2002-NER dated October 22, 2002 - HC ref case [ 2011 (1) TMI 394 - Jammu and Kashmir High Court] - Held that:- Mr. Ajay Vohra, learned counsel appears for the respondent. Liberty is granted to the learned counsel for the respondent to file counter affidavit within four weeks.
-
2011 (11) TMI 711 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... in the departmental appeal being the Respondent. 4. On consideration of the above facts, we permit the assessee to withdraw the Cross Objections. Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules provides that the Respondent (assessee) though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against him on any of the grounds decided against him. Since the points raised in the Cross Objections have been decided by the learned CIT(A) against the assessee, therefore, remedy under Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules is available to the assessee and as such no sufficient cause is disclosed in the affidavit of the assessee for explaining the delay in filing the Cross Objections. The Cross Objections of the assessee are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the assessee to argue the same points at the time of disposal of the departmental appeals. 5. In the result, all the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. Order pronounced in the open Court.
-
2011 (11) TMI 710 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... l expenditure incurred for acquisition of the new flat prior to taking over possession has to be considered as part of the cost. However, it is required to be seen that the assessee does not claim any bogus expenditure to inflate the cost so as to claim higher deduction or show double expenditure in respect of the same type of work. This aspect is required to be verified. The authorities below had rejected the supplementary agreements only on the ground that the same could not be entered before the assessee acquired the title of the flat which, as pointed out earlier, is not justified. As the claim of the assessee requires verification, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 18.11.2011 o p /o p
-
2011 (11) TMI 709 - ITAT INDORE
Reasseement Proceedings u/s 147 - Assessee contended A.O. has not validly initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for A.Y. 2004-05 and A.Y. 2005-06. CIT upheld such proceedings - HELD THAT:- Carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and find from record and find that the original return of the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 was processed u/s 143(1) and thereafter on the basis of reasons recorded the AO reached the conclusion that there was escapement of income. Accordingly, he reopened the assessment. As per the verdict of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LIMITED [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT], processing of return us/ 143(1)(a) is not an assessment and it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind to the facts of the case. In view of the detailed findings recorded by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), we do not find any infirmity in his order for holding the reopening of assessment valid.
Reopening of assessment in the assessment year 2004-05 was within four years of relevant assessment year, therefore, proviso to section 147 was not applicable and the learned CIT (A) was justified in upholding the reassessment u/s 147.
Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Retrospective Application of Amendment - Ld. CIT observed that the assessee has not obtained completion certificate in respect of the housing project from the local authority till 31st March, 2008, therefore, not fulfilled the conditions laid down u/s 80IB(10). Accordingly, confirmed the action of AO for declining the claim of deduction for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 on the basis of amended provisions which came on the statute at a later date i.e. 1.4.2005.
HELD THAT:- It is established law that substantive law unless made specifically retrospective has only to be understood as having prospective operation from the date on which it becomes law or any other date specified in the statute.
With regard to the retrospective application of the amendment, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF KERALA VERSUS ALEX GEORGE AND ANOTHER [2004 (11) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT],that where schedule of rates was modified reducing inter alia exemption limit, the effect could be given in the next succeeding year.
Applying the relevant provisions of the law with respect to the date of approval of the project by the local authority as on 4.12.2002, we can safely conclude that the provisions applicable for the assessment year 2004-05 do not require any completion certificate of the local authority in so far as amendment was brought with effect from 1.4.2005 i.e. assessment year 2005-06. Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the assessment year 2004-05.
In respect of the assessment year 2005-06 since the amended provisions came into force, the assessee was required to obtain certificate from the local authority for completion of the project as a pre-condition for deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. As the assessee has not obtained such certificate, we confirm the action of the lower authorities for declining the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06.
-
2011 (11) TMI 708 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... garding quantum of the tax liability to be worked out as per applicable tax slab. Ground No. 1 of the Penalty appeal is partly allowed. 20. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2001-02 are partly allowed whereas the appeal of the revenue for this year stands dismissed. In quantum proceedings of this year, the income assessed should be ₹ 16,474.65 plus ₹ 27,687/- out of Vehicle Expenses, ₹ 14,907/- out of Telephone Expenses and ₹ 916,000/- being unexplained cash total ₹ 975,068.65 but Penalty should be worked out on ₹ 9,16,000/- only because no penalty was levied on account of addition in respect of G.P. addition and disallowance of expenses. 21. In the combined result, both the quantum appeals of the assessee and penalty appeal for A. Y. 2001 - 02 are partly allowed, penalty appeal for A. Y. 2000 - 01 is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2011 (11) TMI 707 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ion I to Section 32 of Income-tax Act has not been considered in this case. The erection of the sheds and other structures on leased premises were essentially in the nature of capital. The details of expenditure incurred shows that a major expenditure has been made on the teak /plywood, glass, electrical fittings, sanitary fittings, aluminum sections, handles/knobs, locks, chitkhani, cement, granite/tiles, POP, iron sheets, saria/ingot/jail, flooring and labour. All these facts shows that the structure which came into existence was having enduring benefits, hence such expenditure cannot be termed expenditure on current repairs. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Saravana Spinnings Mills P. Ltd., cited supra, the CIT (A) is justified in upholding the addition. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 9th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l importance being a remedy available to the lowliest citizen against the most powerful authority see Halsbury, Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 11, para 1454 . 22. That is why it has been said that the writ of Habeas Corpus is the key that unlocks the door to freedom see The Common Law in India-1960 by M.C. Setalvad, page 38 . 23. Following the aforesaid time-honoured principles, we make it very clear that if we uphold such technical objection in this proceeding and send the matter back to the High Court for reagitation of this question, the same would deprive the detenus of their precious liberty, which we find, has been invaded in view of the manner in which their representations were unduly kept pending. We, therefore, overrule the aforesaid technical objection and allow these appeals. 24. We direct that the detenus should be set at liberty forthwith unless they are required to be detained in connection with any other case. 25. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 705 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... contentions and perused the facts of the case. We are convinced with the arguments of the ld. A.R. of the assessee that during the course of carrying of the business the appellant company appoints sub-brokers terminal is required to be installed at the place of the sub-broker. Installation of Vsat terminal involves substantial cost. The appellant company has incurred expenditure on installation of V-sat at the locations of sub-brokers. Cost of v-sat, however was met by the sub-brokers. This expenditure is of revenue nature as the appellant company had not acquired any capital asset. Therefore, expenses incurred by the appellant company amounting to 22,480/- is allowable as business expenditure. We, accordingly, direct the A.O. to allow the claim of the assessee. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Thus, ground no.3 of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1050/Del/2008 is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.11.2011)
-
2011 (11) TMI 704 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... for promoting the sales of goods or services or towards celebrity endorsement but the payments were made towards expenditure on advertisement being in the nature of expenses covered by sub-clause (i) and (v) of clause (D) of sec. 115WB(2) of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on advertisement by making ad-film employing Mr. Kapil Dev etc. would not come under the purview of sales promotion including publicity as they are covered by the exclusive clauses (i) and (v) of the proviso to clause (D) of sec. 115WB(2) of the Act for the purpose of determining the fringe benefit deemed to have been provided by the assessee. We, therefore, delete the amount of ₹ 15,15,526/- being 20 of expenses of ₹ 75,77,632/- from the value of fringe benefit, and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th November, 2011
............
|
