|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (2) TMI 1590 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... essee from the contractor, wherein the fact of amount having given to him and amount refunded back by him have been stated and relying upon that affidavit and also going through the cash flow statement ld. CIT(A) has arrived at a finding that the source of the said deposit of ₹ 8,64,000/- is the amount given by the assessee to the said contractor for the renovation work of aforementioned property. None of these facts have been controverted by the revenue. If it is so, and the gap between the withdrawal and deposit of amount have been explained by the assessee, then in our opinion there is no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) vide which the impugned addition has been deleted on the ground that the assessee has been able to explain the source of said deposit which represents earlier withdrawal by the assessee. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the deletion made by ld. CIT(A) and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.2.11
-
2011 (2) TMI 1589 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he proved that he was ready and willing to perform the contract. The exhaustive correspondence between the parties clearly discloses the respective stands of the parties. Even the prayer in the plaint shows that the Appellant was not ready to pay the entire balance of ₹ 34,00,000/- as agreed under the agreement of sale but that the Plaintiff insisted upon the Appellant to pay the municipal taxes before the sale, as a condition for sale. If Appellant was not willing to pay ₹ 34 lakhs at the time of sale, as specifically agreed under the agreement of sale, the Appellant could not claim that it was ready and willing to perform its obligations. As noticed above, after appreciating the entire evidence, learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding that the Appellant was not ready and willing and consequently dismissed the suit. 9. We find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1588 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e returned. “ 30. The first effective grounds III(a) and (b) relate to expenditure incurred in foreign currency on onsite development at the client’s place. This issue stands covered by the Special Bench decision, hence, these grounds stand allowed in the same way as has been allowed in earlier years. 31. Ground No.III(c) raises the second effective issue which is an alternate plea as taken in earlier years. This also stands thus decided alongwith ground III(a) & (b). 32. In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06 stands allowed. 33. To summarize the result- A.Y 2001-02 2297/Mds/2008 - Partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes. 283/Mds/2009 - Dismissed A.Y 2002-03 2298/Mds/2008 - Dismissed A.Y 2004-05 2299/Mds/2008 - Partly Allowed 284/Mds/2009 - Partly allowed for statistical purposes A.Y 2005-06 2300/Mds/2008 - Allowed 285/Mds/2009 - Allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 28.2.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1587 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... urts. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No order as to costs 5.2 Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli 2010 45 DTR (P&H) 381 when it was held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets from the income of charitable trust for determining the quantum of fund which have to be applied for the purposes of the trust in terms of section 11. 5.3 In the light of view taken in the aforecited decisions, especially when the Revenue have not placed before us either any contrary decision nor any other material so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed. 6. Ground no.2 being mere prayer, does not require any separate adjudication and is therefore, dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 21 -02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1586 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... rt performance and not DEPB, and therefore, the judgment of the Apex Court is not applicable. Here, it is relevant to state that in the first round of litigation the ITAT has given clear direction while sending the matter back to the file of the assessing officer that the matter pertaining to export incentive was only sent back to the file of the assessing and in respect of other income, the ITAT confirmed the order of lower authorities. If, as per the interpretation of ld.AR that consideration on account of sale of licence is not an export incentive, then this part of the issue has already been decided by the ITAT in the first round of litigation against the assesse and if it is the part of the incentive, then it is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India Ltd (supra). Therefore, this alternative contention of the ld.AR also fails. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25-02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1585 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... termination is bad in law or contrary to the terms of agreement or of any understanding between the parties or for any other reason, the remedy of the Appellant was to seek compensation for wrongful termination and not a claim for specific performance of the agreement. Further, in this view of the matter, there was every reason to come to the conclusion that the relief sought by the Appellant in terms of an injunction seeking to specifically enforce the agreement, by permitting the Appellant to continue to operate the 9 LED screens installed them, was statutorily prohibited with respect to a contract which is determinable in nature. 14. Thus, the learned Single Judge correctly declined to grant interim relief as sought for by the Appellant in view of Section 14(1)(c) read in conjunction with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1584 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ith the view of the ld. Judicial Member by holding that under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned cash credit of ₹ 1,50,000/- is genuine. Therefore, in view of the majority decision, the assessee's appeal is allowed. 2. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.02.2011.).
-
2011 (2) TMI 1583 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in the hands of the firm and secondly in the hands of the partner. Therefore, we f ind that the provisions of section 14A would not apply to the assessee/partner and it is not necessary for the assessing authority to disallow the proportionate expenditure from the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the disallowance of ₹ 3,09,792/- is deleted and the AO is directed to allow ₹ 3,95,500/- claimed by the assesee. This finding is fortified by the fact that the assessee partner is not allowed to claim any conveyance expenditure from the firm as provided in the partnership deed. “ 6. Since the facts of the case are identical to that of the case decided by the ITAT in the case of Sudhir Kapadia, we respectfully follow the decision of the ITAT and, therefore, the disallowance of ₹ 3,88,852/- out of expenses claimed by the assessee is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1582 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... hus having come to a lawful view after considering the details submitted by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the CIT was trying to substitute his view to the lawful view taken by the A.O. When two views are possible, and the A.O. has taken one view, we cannot say his order is erroneous as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). This is not a case where A.O. remained passive in the face of the return filed by the assessee but, on the other hand, had made further enquiries and passed the assessment after obtaining the reply of the assessee. We are of the opinion that in these circumstances, CIT fell in error in invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act, the twin conditions for invoking such powers having not been satisfied. 7. In the result, order of the CIT is quashed and appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the First Day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1581 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nding of a Subordinate Court, if the findings of the Sub-ordinate Court is perverse on a question of fact. It is accordingly found in this case that the findings of the appellate Court that the Plaintiff failed to establish his title to the property and that the Plaintiff failed to establish the entrustment of paddy crop to the first Defendant are perverse and deserve to be rectified. Added to it, in view of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium, the Plaintiff who laid the suit and established his title and entrustment cannot be shut off from questioning the findings of the appellate Court. 49. For the reasons set out, the revision is found to be meritorious and is accordingly allowed. The judgment of the appellate Court is set aside. The judgment of the trial court is restored. The Plaintiff is granted a decree against the first Defendant for a sum of ₹ 8,500/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. There shall be not order as to costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1580 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... if the answer is in affirmative then that expenditure cannot be allowed irrespective of the fact that it was allowable under different provisions of the Act-Further, disallowance has to be of the entire amount of the expenditure so related and cannot be reduced by the receipt of interest which has no relation to such expenditure.” 10. The above clearly shows that even if there is no exempt income, still, provisions of sec.14A are applicable. However, at the same time Rule 8D has been held to be not of retrospective nature by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 43 DTR 171 . Therefore, in the interests of justice, we set aside the issue in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.Ltd. vs. DCIT 43 DTR 171 supra . 11. In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 4th day of February 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1579 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cause the requirement of section 54 is that the capital gain arising from transfer of a residential house should be invested in a residential house. The requirement is that the investment should be in one residential house. There is no bar on investing the capital gain arising from sale of more one residential house in one residential house. Therefore in our view, the capital gains arising from sale of more than one residential house will be eligible for exemption under section 54 if gains from both the houses are invested in the same residential house. This view is also supported by the decision of tribunal in case of Rabindra K.Merchant Vs JCIT (supra) in which case exemption under section 54 and 54F both were found allowable in respect of investment in the same residential house. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1578 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, but is in connection with selection of the case for scrutiny, which is to be exercised by the Assessing Officer in line with the guidelines issued by the Board for the year 2008-09. As observed by us in the paras hereinabove, that the selection of the case of scrutiny was in violation of the CBDT guidelines and accordingly the impugned assessment is bad in law. In the result, the orders of the authorities below are set aside being bad in law. The Assessing Officer is directed to accept the returned income as such. 7. In the result Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 8. Since the assessment has been set-aside being in violation of law, the other Grounds raised by the assessee relating to the merits of the various additions/disallowances are rendered academic in nature, and are therefore not being adjudicated. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 24th day of February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1577 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... fact remains that the trades that were executed were circular in nature and would be regarded as unfair trade practices in the securities market and this is what is prohibited by regulation 4 of the regulations. 3. The authorised representative of the appellant then urged that since the appellant had traded only for a small period of 15 days during which period the volumes did not increase on the trading screen and that she made no profits out of the trades executed by her and that she stopped trading as she incurred some losses and in this background, the amount of penalty levied may be reduced. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking a sympathetic view, we reduce the penalty to ₹ 1.5 lacs. This shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. In the result, we uphold the order of the adjudicating officer holding the appellant guilty but reduce the penalty to ₹ 1.5 lacs. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1576 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt for the mesne profits payable to the plaintiff for the period after the institution of the suit no decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff for that period and, therefore, that part of the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. 18. In view of the fore-going conclusions, this appeal is allowed partly. The impugned judgment and decree to the extent the defendant has been ordered to vacate the premises in his occupation forming part of the house in dispute and to pay mesne profits for a period of three months prior to the institution of the suit @ ₹ 5000/- per month is concerned it is affirmed and the counter claim stands formally rejected. The decree awarding mesne profits to the plaintiff for the period after the institution of the suit, however, is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own costs and the appellant is granted three months‟ time to vacate the accommodation in his possession.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1575 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... r finding of facts have reached finality in assessment year 2003-04 because the assessee did not challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) before the Tribunal in assessment year 2003-04. Since the facts are identical as has been considered in the earlier year in which it was held that the VSAT equipments cannot be categorized as computer software, there is no material on record to dispute the findings of the authorities below. Nothing is brought to our notice on facts to distinguish the facts considered in earlier year as noted above. Only, the decision of Special Bench, ITAT Mumbai in the case of Datacraft India Ltd. (supra) was relied upon which we find is clearly distinguishable. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee on ground No.1. 7. Charging of interest is mandatory and consequential and is also not argued. The same is also rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15-02-2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1574 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... length price and thereafter DRP will pass a speaking order. We order accordingly. 5. The second issue relates to AO’s action in not granting higher rate of depreciation on UPS for the computers. We find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Expeditors International for AY 2001-02 dated 29.08.2008 in I.T.A.No.2684/Del/2005 wherein it was held that the peripherals such as printers, scanners, NT server etc. form integral part of the computer and the same, therefore, are eligible for depreciation at a higher rate as applicable to a computer. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal in we direct the AO to allow the depreciation on the computer UPS at a higher rate of 60% as claimed by the assessee company. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 18th February, 2011.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1573 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y. Learned Senior Counsel for the Revenue has relied on the decision rendered by this court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam v. Mangalam Publications India (P) Ltd. ( 2010 190 Taxman 38 (KER.) ) wherein this court has considered the scope for disallowance of interest attributable to funds utilised for other purposes. In support of the Revenue's contention that interest on deposits is to be assessed as income from other sources, the learned senior counsel also relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Popular Vehicles & Services Ltd. (2010) 325 I.T.R. 523 (Ker.)) and Pandian Chemicals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 262 I.T.R. 278 . 3. In view of the above findings, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and remand the matter to the CIT(Appeals) for consideration of both the issues after giving an opportunity to the assessee and after discussion with the Assessing Officer.
-
2011 (2) TMI 1572 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... nds that may be urged at the time of hearing. 2. Though various grounds are raised but they all relate to the nature of expenditure incurred by the assessees on plastic canes and crates. 3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, our attention was invited to the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case pertaining to the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 in which the identical issue was raised and the Tribunal has treated this expenditure to be of revenue in nature following the order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Palnadu Dairy Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.47/Vizag/2006, dated 14.7.2006). Copy of the order of the Tribunal is placed on record. 4. This factual aspect was not disputed by the revenue. The CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue following the order of the Tribunal in the said case. We therefore find no infirmity in his order. Accordingly, we confirm the same. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 4.2.2011
-
2011 (2) TMI 1571 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ed on the orders of the revenue authorities. 5. After hearing the rival submissions and taking into consideration of the submissions filed by the assessee before the revenue authorities as well as before us and based on the documents filed by the assessee at pages 9 to 15, which are not filed before the revenue authorities, we are of the view that the additions on account of unexplained money of ₹ 11,00,000/- requires fresh verification. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) on account of additions u/s 69A of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer to redecide the same after considering the documents before us as per law, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. As regarding additions on account of interest, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 28.02.2011.
........
|
