|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 620 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 728
... ...
... ... ..... essing Officer to produce the contracts, for the Officer to verify whether the reassessment completed under Section 19 (1) in respect of the items of the work executed for PWD, i.e. fish farming, is correctly made. The assessee is directed to produce copy of this judgment along with the work order and other details for the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter. Therefore, this revision case is allowed by vacating the order of the Tribunal and by restoring the assessment confirmed in first appeal to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. If the assessee does not produce the records or appear before the Assessing Officer within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then the Assessing Officer can treat the reassessment as final. If the assessee produces records along with a copy of this judgment, the Assessing Officer will reconsider the assessment afresh and make modifications to the extent necessary. This S.T.Revision case is allowed as above.
-
2011 (12) TMI 727
... ...
... ... ..... the order of the CIT(A) and hold that the asesssee is entitled to deduction of society charges of ₹ 1,32,300/- from the rent so received for the purpose of determining the ALV u/s 23(1)(b) of the Act. 8. As regards the non-occupancy charges, the learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharmila Tagore Vs. Jt. CIT, 2005 93 TTJ (Mumbai) 483 wherein it was held that non-occupancy charges levied by the housing society have to be considered even while arriving at the ALV of the property. Respectfully following the said decision, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction of nonoccupancy charges of ₹ 6,300/- from the rent so received for the purpose of determining the ALV u/s 23(1)(b) of the Act. 9. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 725
... ...
... ... ..... g the course of remand proceedings submitted the declaration on stamp papers of two persons alleged to have been tenants of the said property which amounted to only (assessee’s share) ₹ 2.5 lakhs only as against the assessee’s claim of ₹ 17.25 lakhs. 15.3. In view of the conflicting claim of the assessee, this issue requires a detailed verification/investigation. To facilitate the AO to conduct further verification, the issue is remanded back on the file of the AO with a specific direction to look into all these aspects and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act, of course, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. It is ordered accordingly. 16. In the result (1) The Revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes; and (2) the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th day of December, 2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 724
... ...
... ... ..... all these findings, he has deleted not only estimation of gross profit at higher rate, but also addition made on account of higher sales. Inspite of these findings the fact that the sales of the assessee was unverifiable remained in record. Only on the basis of sales figures the accuracy of profit rate declared by the assessee can be verified. In absence of verifiable sales figures, one have to go on estimation keeping in view the profit earned by the assessee engaged in similar trade vis-à-vis totality of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we modify both the orders of the lower authorities and direct the AO to apply net profit rate of 1.5 % in place of net profit rate of 1.25 % as shown by the assessee. We direct accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 21st December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 723
... ...
... ... ..... ed a suit for specific performance. The Court is to consider the balance of convenience also while passing order of reference, while doing so in this case we hold that it is not a case where domestic forum would be appropriate as one of the parties to this suit would be deprived of having access to justice, but in the Court in this suit all parties are free to approach whatever way they like the Court for justice. In view of discussion as above we are unable to sustain the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge passed under section 8 of the Act. Accordingly we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge. We think that this suit as well as the suit filed by Mimani for specific performance of the agreement for sale ought to be heard analogously. 32. Thus the appeal is allowed. Stay of operation of this judgment and order is prayed for. We grant stay for a period of four weeks after the Christmas Vacation. Joymalya Bagchi, J. I agree.
-
2011 (12) TMI 722
... ...
... ... ..... the detenu and the date of approval by the State Government. In this case, the representation sent by the detenu was received by the detaining authority on 28.7.2011 and the approval of the detention order was made on 29.7.2011. It was rightly contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that once the approval of the detention order is made by the Government, there is no obligation on the part of the detaining authority to consider the representation and it is only for the government to consider the said representation. The representation being received on 28.7.2011 by the detaining authority and the approval of the detention order being made on 29.7.2011 and there being not even a single day gap between these two dates, we are to hold that there is no violation of the Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. For the above said reasons, the impugned order of detention clamped on the detenu is not liable to be set aside and the habeas corpus petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2011 (12) TMI 721
... ...
... ... ..... up an effective defence. If a notice is vague or it contains unspecified or unintelligible allegations, it would imply a denial of proper opportunity of being heard. Natural justice is not only a requirement of proper legal procedure but also a vital element of good administration. 5. Coming to the impugned notice, it does not state the reason as to why the petitioner should appear before the Special Tahsildar except stating that the subject relates to change of khatha, when factually no application of the petitioner for change of any khatha is pending.- Hence, the impugned notice is vague and is accordingly violative of the principles of naturaljustice. 6. In the result, the impugned notice (Annexure-A) issued by respondent No. 2 directing the petitioner to appear before him is quashed. However, respondent No. 2- Special Tahsildar is at liberty to initiate any appropriate action against the petitioner by issuing a proper notice in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
-
2011 (12) TMI 720
... ...
... ... ..... any justification in sustainance of the disallowance, that has been done, in which, no infirmity was pinpointed, therefore, we find no justification to interfere with the impugned order, consequently, these grounds of the CO No.53/Ind/2007 are also dismissed. 21. The last Cross-objection raised through CO No.39/Ind/2005 pertains to sustaining the disallowance of ₹ 1,75,000/- out of travelling expenses and ₹ 2,25,000/- out of training expenses are concerned, we find that wherever the ld. CIT(A) found the travelling expenses for non-business purposes or excessive or without support of proper bills or vouchers, the same were disallowed. Similar is the position for training expenses. Consequently, we find no merit in the claim of the assessee, resulting into dismissal of both the grounds of the CO No.39/Ind/2005). Finally, the appeals of the Revenue and Cross-objections of the assessee are dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 28TH December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 719
... ...
... ... ..... s of accounts audited, in our opinion, there was a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. Moreover, the assessee admittedly has filed the return of income on 30-12-2004 along with the audit report. It is a well settled principle of law that filing of the audit report is mandatory. However, time limit for filing the audit report is discretionary. The audit report is only to assist the assessing officer to compute the correct income of the assessee. In this case, the assessee filed the audit report along with the return of income. Therefore no prejudice is caused to the revenue in completing the assessment. In this view of the matter, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, we hereby delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act at ₹ 1 lakh for the assessment year 2004-05. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th December, 2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 718
... ...
... ... ..... t in the instant case, the assessee has not commenced its business and hence it cannot be said that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture or production of Foods. Therefore, benefit of deduction under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act cannot be allowed to the assessee. Similar was the position with regard to the depreciation claimed on the Machineries installed in the Food Division. We have, however, carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has blindly accepted the contentions of the assessee without verifying the facts that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate that the production was commenced before the end of the financial year under consideration. We, therefore, do not find ourselves in agreement with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we accordingly set aside his order and restore that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 717
... ...
... ... ..... g to ₹ 1,05,240/- because this expenditure was allowed by the Tribunal in the earlier year. However, penalty was confirmed in respect of the other addition. 32. Both the parties were heard in detail. 33. After considering the rival submissions, we find that now penalty survives only on disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 38,43,799/-. This issue has already been set aside by us while adjudicating the assessee’s appeal in I.T.A.No.6200/Mum/07 in the above noted paras. Therefore, penalty proceedings also require to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the AO. The penalty may be considered after completion of the set aside proceedings. 34. In the result, assessee’s appeals in I.T.A.Nos.6200/Mum/2007 & 2289/M/2010 are allowed for statistical purposes while Revenue’s appeal in I.T.A.No.6647/Mum/2007 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 28-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 716
... ...
... ... ..... edule to the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing with suits for recovery of money due on running and current but non-mutual accounts, in such circumstances, the residual article viz. Article 113 applies to such suits. 24. Under Article 113, the period for limitation for filing a suit is three years and the same begins to run when the right to sue would accrue when claim was denied in response to the legal notice dated 26.6.1985 on 13.7.1985 but since ₹ 7,000/- was paid on 13.7.1985 and 24.7.1985 (Rs. 2,000/- on the former date and ₹ 5,000/- on the latter date), limitation would commence from 24.7.1985. The suit being filed on 2.9.1985, governed for purposes of limitation by Article 113 the suit would be within limitation. 25. In view of the above discussion, the above captioned appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29.8.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.. Appellant to pay the costs assessed by the Taxation Officer to the respondent.
-
2011 (12) TMI 715
... ...
... ... ..... o alloy, reference has been made to annexure P-3. It has further been submitted that MPSEB vide order dated 21.11.1996 has classified the petitioner as alloy industry. While inviting our attention to communications contained in Annexure P-10 and P-11 it was submitted that place where the processing of manganese takes places does not fall under the mining area therefore action of the respondents in levying higher electricity duty for manufacturing ferro alloy is arbitrary. 3. It is not in dispute that manganese which is a mineral is processed and after processing the mineral, namely manganese, the alloy, namely ferro-manganese, comes into existence. The activity of processing of manganese is subjected to levy duty under the Act and is covered by explanation (b) appended to Part B of Section 3 of the Act. 4. For the aforementioned reasons as well as reasons assigned by us in the order dated 1.12.2011 passed in MP No. 2821/1988, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 714
Filing of Return u/s 153A beyond the period of limitation - The assessee had claimed interest expenditure of loan in the returns filed u/s. 153A which was not claimed in the returns of income filed u/s. 139(1) - Increase in loss was not carry-forward as response to notice u/s 153A was beyond time limit
HELD THAT:- As laid down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6 MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. EVERSMILE CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. [2011 (8) TMI 495 - ITAT MUMBAI], If any deduction is claimed by the assessee in the proceedings u/s 153A that cannot be rejected simply on the ground that it was not claimed in the original assessment or was disallowed.
In the case of SUJANI TEXTILES (P.) LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2003 (1) TMI 281 - ITAT MADRAS-B], it was held that, if the assessee has filed a loss return u/s. 139(3) within the period provided under the Act and if the assessee has filed a revised loss return under Sub-section (5) thereof again within the prescribed time limit, the A.O is bound to take cognizance of the revised return because the original return is replaced by the revised return, undisputedly, the assessment u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been framed on the basis of return filed in response to notice issue u/s. 153A of the Act. Hence, now it is not open to raise contention by the revenue that return was filed beyond the prescribed time period mentioned in the notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act. The return of income filed in response to the notice u/s. 153A on the basis of which assessment in question has been framed thus has replaced the original return for determining the net income in the assessment u/s. 153A.
Thus, in a sense, return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 153A was a revised return and the assessment was re-assessment. For the purpose of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c ), excess income in difference to the originally assessed income may be subject matter under the facts and circumstances of the case that the same was due to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof, but for the purpose of assessment of net income, the return filed in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act is the revised return superseding earlier return of income and the assessment based upon that original return of income.
We, thus, following the ratio laid down by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Eversmile Construction Pvt. Ltd., hold that the A.O was not justified in denying the claim of carry forward of loss in question in the A.Ys. under consideration - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (12) TMI 713
... ...
... ... ..... ing the same may be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he requested to uphold the same. 8. After hearing the rival submissions, on careful perusal of the material available on record including the copies of the bills in respect of 7 parties, where the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the addition. We are of the view that all the works are relating to purchase of material with some specifications. It is further observed that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, Markfed, Khanna 304 ITR 17 . Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of. Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. We uphold the same. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This Order Is Pronounced In Open Court On Dt.15-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 712
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.591/H/2011 and CO.No.40/H/2011, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the income of the assessee at 3% of the stock put up for sale. 7. With respect to Ground No.2 that the disallowance of license fee and discount made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A), we are of the opinion that once the books of accounts are rejected, the very same books of accounts cannot be a basis for making any addition as held by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT (232 ITR 776), Moreover, when the profit is estimated by rejecting the books of account, all the expenditure including other heads of expenditure are deemed to be allowed. Therefore, once the profit is estimated there should not be any further addition on this count. Therefore this ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court 16.12.2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 711
... ...
... ... ..... or connected with the partnership through a nominee. 28. From the judgments cited above it stands established that an HUF as such cannot be a partner in a firm but it is competent to the manager or karta acting on behalf of the HUF to enter into a valid partnership with a stranger or with the karta of another family. 29. In the present case Mr.V.P.Verma had joined partnership with the respondent-firm as karta of HUF and there was no bar on him to join the partnership as karta of HUF. 30. Thus there is no substance in the arguments of the appellants that the suit filed by the respondent-firm is barred under Section 69(2) of Partnership Act or that Mr.V.P.Verma was not duly authorized to file, sign and verify the pleadings. 31. As observed above, that learned counsel for the appellants did not opt to challenge the findings of the learned trial court on other issues. 32. We find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is dismissed. 33. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 710
... ...
... ... ..... me the A.O. made the assessment under sec. 143(3) of the Act. A copy of said appellate order is also placed before us in the assessee’s Paper Book. It is not the AO’s case that service charges for installation and/or de-installation of V-SATs has not been shown by the assessee in its books. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the learned CIT(A)’s order in deleting the addition of alleged sales made by the A.O. Thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld on this issue. 19. The ground relating to chargeability of interest under sec. 234B of the Act, raised by the assessee is consequential in nature. The AO shall recalculate the interest chargeable under sec. 234B, if any, on the income finally determined after giving appeal effect. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed in the manner as indicated above. 21. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 26th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 709
... ...
... ... ..... ose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del), the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, which was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal field by the revenue as un- admitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.” 4. In the result, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine. This decision was pronounced in the open court soon after the conclusion of hearing on 19.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 708
... ...
... ... ..... s to have been installed or otherwise used within the unit or re-exported within a period of one year from the date of importation or procurement thereof or within such extended period not exceeding five years as the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not using them as above within the said period allow;” 7. With regard to the duty on consumables etc., the relevant clause that is applicable is clause 3(b)(iv). This requires the exporter to achieve Net Foreign Exchange Earning as a Percentage of Exports (NFEP) and Export Performance. Insofar as this is concerned, the Tribunal seems to have only adverted to it without any discussion on the applicability or otherwise of this clause. 8. Under the circumstances, we issue notice to the respondent only with regard to the interpretation of clause 3(b)(iv) of the Notification No. 126/94, dated 3-6-1994. 9. List on 1-2-2012.
........
|
