|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 847 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... sment orders in the case of this very respondent/assessee. The said appeals being ITA Nos. 900-905/2008 and 689/2011 have already been dismissed by this Court. Following that orders, these appeals are also dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ned only the previous underassessment is set aside and not the original assessment proceedings particularly if it has acquired finality. In the reassessment proceedings it is not open to an assessee to seek a review of the concluded item, unconnected with escapement of income. 13. Hence in our opinion when excise duty amounting to Rs.. 12,96,995/- which is unconnected with the escapement of income has been concluded finally against the assessee in the reassessment proceedings, it is not open to the assessee to raise a fresh claim de hors the issue in reassessment. It is obvious that the reassessment proceedings are always intended to put the Revenue in the beneficial position so as to charge any income which escaped taxation at an earlier stage. Such proceedings cannot be used by the assessee for making a fresh claim and thus putting it in an advantageous position. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of May, 2011
-
2011 (5) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... all exercised the option and if so, at what point of time and whether it should be done only by filing a revised return - and therefore had not examined the approved valuer’s report on the fair market value as on 1-4- 1981. The CIT(A) has also not done so. We therefore accept the plea of the learned CIT-DR and restore the question of the fair market value of the land as on 1-4-1981 to the Assessing Officer for being examined and decided on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The grounds are thus allowed in part. 13. In the assessment year 2003-04, all the grounds relate to only one issue, viz., the fair market value of the land as on 1-4- 1981. The facts are similar to the assessment year 2002-03. In line with our decision for that year, which we adopt for this year also, the issue is restored to the Assessing Officer with the same directions. 14. Thus both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 4th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1111
... ...
... ... ..... ruction / renovation / renewal or re-construction with borrowed capital. The said provision is applicable while determining the cost of improvement of any capital assets. However, in the instant case before us, the issue raised is in connection with the cost of acquisition of the property wherein the principle amount payable to the prescribed authority was paid in installments, against which interest was charged by the said authority for the delay in payment of the cost of the asset(s). Such interest paid by the assessee is to be included as part of the cost of acquisition of the assets from year to year and is entitled to the benefit of indexation while computing the indexed cost of acquisition of the capital asset which was sold during the year. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and accordingly dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 13th day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... or directions as contemplated in section 153(3) of the Act. Rather, it is a just case to invoke section 153(2A) of the Act with respect to the issue on limitation. 13. Further perusing the facts, we find that the - (a) date of Tribunal Order is - 31st July, 2006, (b) date of receipt of the order by the CIT is - 6/10/2006 ( As verified from the Registry.) (c) date of the assessment order pursuant to ITAT order 15.12.2009. (d) date before which the AO has to pass the order as per section 153(2A) - 31/03/2008 It is apparent from the above that the order passed by the ld. AO is much beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s.153 (2A) of the Act, and therefore the order of ld. AO is barred by limitation. Since we have decided the issue against the Revenue on limitation, we do not find it necessary to look into the merits of the case. It is ordered accordingly. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... l. 8. Now coming to Ground No. 2 in the Departmental appeal disputing ₹ 9,522/- claimed by the assessee on account of subscription and donation, we have heard the ld. representatives of the parties and have perused the orders of authorities below. It is a fact that the assessee has to contribute Puja subscriptions and donations at the time of festivals for keeping the persons of the locality happy to enable the assessee to run his business smoothly. In this regard, we find support from the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Bata India Limited 201 ITR 884 . Respectfully following the said order of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court (supra), we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(Appeals). Hence, Ground No. 2 of the appeal taken by the Department is rejected. 9. In the result, the appeals of the Department as well as of the assessee, both are dismissed. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.05. 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... Madras High Court in the case of Brilliant Tutorials (P) Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the assessee for deduction of the expenditure in the year of its incurring. In the case of Amar Raja Batteries Ltd., the Tribunal, after considering the case of India Discount Company, 75 ITR 191, pointed out that the issue in this behalf is clear, i.e. it has to be decided on the basis of law. The expenditure is also in revenue field and, therefore, the whole of the expenditure is to be allowed in the year of its incurring. In view of the aforesaid judgments and the order, we hold that the expenditure is revenue in nature and, therefore, it has to be allowed in full in this year.” 8. Learned counsel for the revenue was unable to point out any irregularity or illegality in the aforesaid finding recorded by the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. The appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Act . Since the ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee merely on technical considerations without going in to merits of the claim , we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue raised by the assessee in ground no.1 in their appeal, to his file for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law, after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while redeciding the appeal, the learned CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act. With these directions, ground no. 1 in the appeal is disposed of. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of the residuary ground no.2 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed, but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 20 -05-2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... lved. Let the appropriate authority under the Industrial Disputes Act take further steps in this matter expeditiously so that the controversy could be resolved at an early stage. I however make it clear that the forum constituted under the said Act shall examine the question of maintainability of the dispute on its own merit. I have refrained from addressing the said issue on merit for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of this judgment. ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J. LATER Prayer is made for stay of operation of the judgement and order. Mr. Roy opposes grant of any stay on operation of this judgment. However, considering the fact that the interim order was subsisting in this matter for a reasonably long period of time, there shall be a stay of operation of this judgement and order for a period of three weeks that is uptil 13th June, 2011. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... a, Additional District Judge, as the High Court deems fit. Let a copy of this order be sent forthwith to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for appropriate orders on the CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS.140-144/2011 administrative side against Archana Sinha. We are informed at 12.30 p.m. today that the possession of the property in dispute has now been delivered to the landlord. In view of this, the contempt notice against the contemnors is discharged. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned counsel for the landlord/petitioner stated that the tenant has not paid electricity and other dues which the tenant was liable to pay. For this separate proceedings may be filed by the landlord, which will be decided by the competent court expeditiously. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts to be placed before their respective Hon'ble the Chief Justices for information and appropriate orders. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... ssue and we do not find any error in his order. Apart from that we are of the opinion that there is no ambiguity in the charge which assessees were required to explain. From the assessment stage it was very clear that assessees have to explain why they have introduced their unexplained money in the garb of bogus gift and tried to avoid the payment of tax. There is no confusion on this aspect. We could understand arguments of Ld. Counsel for the assessee, if on account of some confusion a prejudice has been caused to the assessee for explaining their position. In fact they do not have any explanation. In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in these appeals. They are dismissed.” 7. No perversity or illegality could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the findings recorded by the Tribunal holding the gift to be bogus. 8. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... tive has submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without confronting the same to the Assessing Officer while granting relief to the assessee. Therefore, the issues should be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication of the issues after verifying and considering the additional evidences filed before the CIT(A). The Learned Authorized Representative has also agreed to the above submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the CIT(A) in all the appeals under consideration and restore the matters back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration on all the issues. Thus, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, the appeals of the Revenue and the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in the Court at the close of the hearing in the presence of the parties on 05/05/2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to pay interest u/s 244A to the assessee as per law. This ground by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 5. Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to grant interest on delayed refund of interest to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. Int. Tax Appeal No. 05/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2000-01) 6. After hearing both the sides, we find that the grounds raised by the assessee are identical to the grounds raised in Int. Tax Appeal No. 04/M/2010 for A.Y. 1999-2000. We have already decided the same and the grounds raised by the assessee have been allowed. Following the same ratio, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 13.05.2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1101
... ...
... ... ..... the decision of the Board was communicated to the stock exchanges and disseminated on their websites. The company has also settled the dispute with the Board on payment of settlement amount of ₹ 15 lacs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty under section 15HB of the Act is reduced to ₹ 25 lacs. We order accordingly. In the result, we uphold the finding of the adjudicating officer that the appellant had violated the provisions of the code of conduct framed under the Regulations and is liable to penalty under section 15HB of the Act. However, the amount of penalty is reduced to ₹ 25 lacs. There will be no order as to costs. Justice N.K. Sodhi, Presiding Officer. - I have gone through the order prepared by the learned Member and I agree that the appellant is guilty of violating the code of conduct as alleged and that the penalty be reduced to ₹ 25 lacs. I also agree.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... er questions because in this Appeal we are only concerned with the question of constitutional validity of the Act. 5. Application for permission to intervene filed by Bochasanwasi Shri Aksharpurushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha is allowed. 6. It appears that an interim order was passed by this Court on 11.05.2010 permitting the Competent Authority to dispose of certain properties. We modify that order by directing that the said Order will not apply to the properties which the applicant in the application for permission to intervene, that is, Bochasanwasi Shri Aksharpurushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, claims to be its own. We are informed that the aforesaid applicant has filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Special Court and we direct that the said application may be disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law. 7. With these observations, the Appeal is allowed. 8. Since we have allowed the Appeal, no orders need be passed on any pending application(s).
-
2011 (5) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... Enforcement and Anr. (in Civil Appeal No.8601 of 2010 arising out of SLP No.1053 of 2008) has passed the order dated 05.10.2010 directing the ED to complete the proceedings pending before it as expeditiously as possible. It was also directed that every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the complaint finally at the earliest and no unreasonable request for adjournment shall be entertained by the Adjudicating Authority. We are further informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court, the ED has issued notices to all the concerns and proceedings before him have already been commenced. As per the provisions contained in the Foreign Exchange Management Act, the Adjudicating Authority is supposed to finish and pass the adjudication order within one year. In view of the above, the apprehension of the Department has now been assuaged. It is, therefore, not necessary to modify the directions. This application stands disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1097
... ...
... ... ..... Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C.) No. 8442/2010.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... CIT V/S ANKITECH PVT LTD.) In view of the said judgment, the assessment cannot be in the hands of the assessee herein under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act but it has to be in the hands of the shareholder of the company. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1095
... ...
... ... ..... was factually or legally incorrect. Ld AR for the assessee, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Ld CIT(A). 15. We have heard the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed that the loss occurred during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08. It has also not been disputed that the insurance claim received on such loss was also disclosed as income by the assessee during the relevant assessment year. The revenue has neither contended that the loss claimed is of capital nature or that further amount was received by the assessee on final settlement of the loss from the insurance company which was not reflected by the assessee as income during the assessment year 2007-08. In this view of the matter we find no infirmity in the order of Ld CIT(A) and confirm the same. Thus, this ground taken by the revenue is rejected. 16. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part. 17. Order pronounced in the open court on the day of 13th May, 2011.
-
2011 (5) TMI 1094
... ...
... ... ..... sheet/complaint did not disclose the commission of the offence under Section 509 IPC. The discharge order was passed at the stage of Section 251 CrPC and the concerned Magistrate has not resorted to Section 258 CrPC. Thus, the submission of the petitioner in this regard is devoid of merit. 17. It is pertinent to note that petitioner admittedly has filed a suit for mandatory injunction to clear the window and ventilator in the Civil Court. The complaint appears to have been filed by the petitioner/complainant with the mala fide intention to pressurize them to settle the civil dispute. This conduct of the petitioner/complainant is gross abuse of process of law. Therefore also, the petition is likely to be dismissed. 18. In view of the discussions above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which may call for interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction underSection 482 CrPC. 19. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
........
|
