|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 847 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1011 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... timate at one month. Where shares are held for more than a month, they should be treated as investment and on their sale short term capital gain should be charged. When shares are held for less than a month, gain on them should be treated as profit from business.” Since basic data required to work out the frequency of transactions of holding period is not collected by the AO, we restore the matter back to the file of AO and direct him to give opportunity to the assessee to work out on the basis of holding period as to what would be the business income and what would be the capital gains as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sugamchand C. Shah vs. ACIT (supra). In other words, the AO will work out business income/capital gains in accordance with the decision in Sugamchand C. Shah(supra). As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed but for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed but for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1010 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... her co-ordinate Bench in Swarnaben M Khanna & Others(supra) also cancelled the penalty levied u/s 271(1) (b) of the Act . In the instant case also the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144 of the Act and none of the addition is at tributed to any default on the part of the assessee in submitting the details. Rather as already stated , all the details have been filed on behalf of the assesse and thereafter, assessment completed. In these circumstances, following the view taken by the co-ordinate Benches in the aforesaid two decisions, penalty levied u/s 271(1) (b) of the Act is cancelled. Consequently, ground no.1 in the appeal is allowed. 7. Ground no.2 being general in nature, does not require any separate adjudication while no additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no. 3 in the appeal, accordingly, these grounds are dismissed. 8. In the result , appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 31-05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1009 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... show the fact that the assessee has constructed a convention centre kalyana mantapa by investing a sum of ₹ 1,42,30,000/-, which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the said kalyana mantapa convention centre has been leased in favour of Sri. S. Ramamuthy, who is one of the trustee of the trust. It is also the case of the assessee that the land was leased in favour of Ramamurthy in his capacity as a manager. The lease deed under which the lease was created in favour of the trustee has been produced It is well settled that the question of character of the trust is a question of law and however, whether the trust is carrying out the charitable purpose is a pure question of fact and wherefore, the concurrent finding arrived at by the Tribunal, Appellate Authority and the Assessing Officer is justified having regard to the above said facts of the case and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1008 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ial facts necessary for the assessment. When we go through the reasons recorded and as mentioned above we do not find any reference to such failure on the part of the assessee to disclose any material fact necessary for assessment and in fact narration given in the reasons do not show any such failure which could be inferred even if not so mentioned specifically in the reasons. In our considered view when neither there is any allegation of failure nor the AO has brought any material on record to suggest escapement of income then it is only a change of opinion and therefore assessment cannot be reopened after expiry of four years. Under these circumstances, we allow the ground Nos.1 & 2 of the assessee and accordingly quash the assessment. Other grounds became infructuous and hence not separately discussed. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 5/5/11.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1007 - ITAT DELHI
Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - Principle of Natural Justice - AO's decision regarding income from undisclosed sources was based on third party evidence whose cross examination was not done - CIT(A) quashed the assessment on the ground of principles of natural justice
HELD THAT:- It is observed that undeniably, the witness, the complainant, was not allowed to be crossexamined by the assessee, though the assessee had requested specifically for such cross-examination being allowed to him. In fact, such request has been noted even in the assessment order. Thus, the addition having been based on third party evidence at the back of the assessee, the same was correctly quashed by the CIT(A).
Coming to the merits, undisputedly, the addition was based only on some entries in the bank account of the assessee. The provisions of sec 68 are, therefore, not attracted where the assessee does not maintain books of account. It is correct that since no books of account are maintained in the ordinary course of the business of the assessee, in the absence of any corroborative evidence to support action u/s 68, no such addition is tenable.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1006 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... we are inclined to direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the assessee at 8 on main contract receipts and at 5 of the sub-contract receipts, as aforesaid. This ground is allowed partly. 7. The next common ground in both the appeals is with regard to levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. The learned counsel for the assessee relied on the Full Bench judgement of the Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Tej Kumari & Ors. v. CIT, 247 ITR 210 whereas the learned DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have heard both the parties on this issue. In our opinion, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and Others (2001) 252 ITR 1 (SC), levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory and consequential in nature. Accordingly this ground is dismissed. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed Order pronounced in the open court on 27th ay, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1005 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ubmissions and on perusal of the materials available on record keeping in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Idhayam Publications Ltd. cited supra has held as under - o p /o p “Held, dismissing the appeal, that the transaction between the assessee and the director-cum-shareholder was not a loan or deposit and it was only a current account in nature and no interest was being charged for the above transaction. The deletion of penalty was justified.” o p /o p 6.1. Respectfully following the same, we find no justification on the part of the revenue to levy penalty either u/s 271D or 271E of the IT Act in respect of the transactions made by the assessee company with one of the directors. Therefore, we delete the penalty levied by the revenue authorities and allow the appeals of the assessee. o p /o p 7. In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 1004 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . Compliance has been reported. 4. Both sides agree that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits of the case and disposed of the appeal for failure to comply with the conditions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration without insisting on further pre-deposit and after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. The appeal is allowed by way of remand as above. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2011 (5) TMI 1003 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... applied to the fabric under process, they lose their identity and cannot be part of the stock in process. The assessee is valuing the stock by following the same method consistently in which there is no illegality. On this basis, addition made on account of suppressed work-inITA progress is deleted by the Tribunal, ‘D’ Bench vide order dated 3rd April, 2009 in the case of Kanhaiya Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6.1 The similar view has been taken in other cases relied on by the assessee company in the written submissions. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the AO was not correct in law in valuing the work-in-progress in respect of various expenses incurred by the assessee relating to fabric while in process for dyeing and printing. We, accordingly, delete the addition of ₹ 5,35,942/-. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 13.05.2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1002 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ises and conjunctures the estimation was made by the authorities and the assessee was able to establish that there cannot be any suppression of sales. Hence, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Matha Enterprises is directly applicable. Respectfully following the said order of the Tribunal, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and allow the appeal of the assessee for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. 19. Levy of interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C are consequential in nature and as such no adjudication is called for. 20. S.P.Nos.54 to 60/Coch/2010 arising out of the above appeals were heard on 08-10-2010 and petitions were rejected. However, early hearing was granted and accordingly appeals were posted for hearing on 12-01-2011. 21. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 are allowed whereas the appeal for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 are dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1001 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... not be taxed under section 41(1). The High Court accordingly held that the deposits could not be taxed as income. Thus in that case even when the assessee had credited the surplus to the P & L account the amount was not found taxable by the High Court. In the present case the assessee had not credited the amount. There is also no material placed on record to show that the parties had forgone the claim and that the liability was no longer in existence. Therefore following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (supra) the amount could not be taxed in case of the assessee. No contrary judgment of jurisdictional High Court or the Apex Court has been brought to our notice. We therefore respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (supra) set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made. o p /o p 5. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. o p /o p The decision was pronounced in the open court on 25 .05.2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 1000 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal. Therefore, in the present case also following the decision of the Tribunal confirm the order of the CIT(A), the addition on account of estimated value of work-in-progress is required to be deleted.” 4. Ld.SR-DR on the other hand submitted that if assessee has spent money which has been debited in the profit & loss a/c. and to the extent the assessee does not get receipt from the principle, work-in-progress should be estimated. 5. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, we are of the view that issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Tribunal in the case of Pratik Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) pronounced on 15-01-2010. Respectfully following the above order we dismiss the ground No.1 and 2 of the Revenue’s appeal.” Following the above order of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 27/5/11.
-
2011 (5) TMI 999 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... ntention of the revenue is that but for the search operation the assessee could not have disclosed the income of ₹ 9,25,000. The fact remains that the assessee disclosed the income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act. Once the assessee disclosed the income in response to notice issued u/s 153A all pending proceedings shall stand abated and therefore, the income has to be computed only on the basis of return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. Since, admittedly, the assessee has disclosed undisclosed income of ₹ 9,25,000 in the return of income, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed any part of the income. Therefore, in our opinion, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed. o p /o p 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 27-05-2011. o p /o p
-
2011 (5) TMI 998 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
-
2011 (5) TMI 997 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nd once these are applied to the fabric under process, they lose their identity and cannot be part of the stock in process. The assessee is valuing the stock by following the same method consistently in which there is no illegality. On this basis, addition made on account of suppressed work-in progress is deleted by the Tribunal, ‘D’ Bench vide order dated 3rd April, 2009 in the case of Kanhaiya Processors Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7.1 The similar view has been taken in other cases relied on by the ld. Counsel of the assessee. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the AO was not correct in law in valuing the work-in-progress in respect of various expenses incurred by the assessee relating to fabric while in process for dyeing and printing. We, accordingly, delete the addition of ₹ 4,11,335/-. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 13.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 996 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t or ambiguity in the provisions of the Act and they are plain and clear in language. In view of above, I consider that the matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench for a more authoritative pronouncement. As large number of cases assailing the validity of the seizure orders are being filed everyday the matter is of great importance and urgency which need to be tackled with utmost swiftness. Let the papers of this revision along with connected matters be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court for decision of the question whether the validity of the seizure order passed under the provisions of the U.P. Vat Act, 2008 or an order passed under Section 48(7) of the Act or by the Tribunal under Section 57(4) of the Act in appeal thereto can be challenged in revision under Section 58 of the Act before the High Court in view of the specific bar contained under Section 60(b) of the Act.
-
2011 (5) TMI 995 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fter by way of an afterthought, filed a writ petition challenging that her reinstatement on grade II post was illegal and arbitrary, yet it was necessary for the Division Bench to expressly state whether the appeal arising out of writ petition No.4318/97 was rejected. 14. However, since the learned Judges of the Division Bench have not passed any order in the writ appeal dealing with this plea of the appellant arising out of writ petition No. 4318/97, we leave it open to the appellant to approach the Division Bench by way of a review petition pointing out the error apparent on the face of the record to the effect that her appeal directed against the order in writ petition No.4318/97 has not been dealt with at all and has been dismissed without indicating any reason whatsoever. If a review petition to that effect is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Subject to this liberty, we dismiss this appeal but in the circumstance without any order as to costs.
-
2011 (5) TMI 994 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dated 18.08.2010. We have also indicated above that the detenue in compliance with the said condition had, in fact, appeared before the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI on the several dates referred to above. This fact has not been explained satisfactorily by the respondents. Therefore, in our view, there is a clear delay of 63 days, which has gone unexplained, in executing the detention order. On this ground also, following the decisions of the Supreme Court in A. Mohammad Farook (supra) and other decisions referred to in Saud Nihal Siddique (supra), we feel that the detention order is liable to be quashed. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The detention order No. F 678/12/2010 - CUS/VIII dated 30.08.2010 as well as the confirmation order F.No.673/12/2010-Cus/VIII dated 20.01.2011 are quashed. Respondents are directed to set the detenue at liberty forthwith. The writ petition stands allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs
-
2011 (5) TMI 993 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... es manned by him are in the business of providing accommodation entries. In other words, Assessing Officer has given more weightage to the statement of Shri Mahesh Garg then the documentary evidence. He belied the documentary evidence on the basis of this statement. This statement was not recorded in the assessment proceedings of the assessee. He is not associated with the assessee. His statement was recorded by the Addl. Director of IT (Inv.) He was not subjected to cross-examination by the assessee, therefore, his statement recorded somewhere in 2003 will not be sufficient to discard all the documentary evidence which otherwise fulfill the conditions required by sec. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Learned First Appellate Authority has examined all these facts and deleted the addition. We do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals). 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 992 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... llowable deduction. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, I am of the considered opinion that the expenditure claimed by the appellant was allowable to it for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition made.” 9. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. We find that the A.O. has made the disallowance without attributing any cogent reasoning. Ld.CIT(A) had given a finding that the expenditure was bare minimum and it was necessary for the assesee’s business. The case law relied upon by the ld.CIT(A) is also relevant. As such we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Accordingly we uphold the same. 10. In the result the revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th May, 2011.
............
|
