|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1010 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1282 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... hold that the above guidelines given in the above circular are to be followed not only while effecting the seizure of the jewellery but also in the assessment proceedings. It is not in dispute that as per the above circular, the assessee should get the benefit of 1100 grams of gold ornaments i.e. 500 grams for assessee and 500 grams for her two daughters and 100 grams for her husband. Thus, the unexplained portion of the jewellery is only 63 grams. Since as per the AO the husband of the assessee viz. Shri Sudharshan P. Amin has already declared a sum of ₹ 80,000/- for acquisition of the jewellery during the assessment year 2006-2007, the AO should allow the credit for the same and if the value of the unexplained jewellery is more than ₹ 80,000/-, the addition would be made only for difference between the value of 63.5 grams and ₹ 80,000/-. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed as above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 8th July, 2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1281 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal is bound to follow the authoritative exposition of law by the Jurisdictional High Court. In the light of the above principle, the reassessment was held to be not sustainable. Applying the same principle to the facts before us, we vacate the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 148. In our view, learned DR’s submission that such reasons were immediately supplied upon request made by the assessee cannot be accepted as sufficient compliance to the requirement of law u/s 149(1)(b) as interpreted by the Jurisdictional High Court. The assessment order, in our view, suffers from lack of validity of the proceedings. The same, as discussed earlier, is vacated. 7. As we have accepted the assessee’s appeal on the jurisdiction issue, we do not feel it necessary to go into the merits of the disputes raised in the grounds of the memorandum of appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 8th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1280 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... sessee as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue only on the basis that the area of the plot on which the project was constructed is below the prescribed limit of 1 acre. In view of the foregoing discussion on the subject, we hold that Ld CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act against of the assessment order on the issue, only because he was nurturing different view which cannot be stated as even the different possible view within the meaning of Section 80 IB (10) of the Act r.w. CBDT Circular No.5 of 2005 dated 15.7.2005. We thus while setting aside revisional order in question, restore the assessment order on the issue with this finding that the A.O has rightly allowed the claimed deduction u/s. 80 IB of the Act in question. The Grounds involving the issue are thus decided in favour of the assessee. The Grounds are accordingly allowed. 7. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1279 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e charged by treating the same as manufacture, has not been considered anywhere in the impugned order. The same activity cannot be treated as taxable service and at the same time, as manufacture. Besides this, we find that nowhere in the order, the Commissioner has given any finding as to under which heading the goods alleged to have been manufactured by the appellant and cleared without payment of duty, are classifiable. Without deciding the classification, the duty demand cannot be confirmed. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication after hearing the appellant. Needless to say, the Commissioner must give a clear finding as to whether the appellant’s activity amounts to manufacture and if so, under which heading their goods would be classifiable. The appeals and the applications stand disposed of as above. (Operative part pronounced in the open court on 11-7-2011)
-
2011 (7) TMI 1278 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... The same continues to be governed by the decision of Hon hIe Apex Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. (Supra) and National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (Supra). Respectfully following the same, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly entertained the ground raised by the assessee for the first time before him. We. therefore, reject the additional ground raised by the revenue." 13.1. In view of the above Tribunal decision we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified to decline the claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the IT Act. Therefore we set aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh as per law after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In the result ground no.3 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 15. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 14.07.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1277 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2009 (6) S.C.C. 142 . The matter shall stand over for one week. In the meantime, we direct Ministry of Environment and Forest MoEF', for short to submit an interim Report indicating what is the requirement of Steel Industry in India as far as iron ore is concerned. Secondly, out of the total requirement of the Steel Industry in the Country, how much is met by the Bellary mines. Lastly, how much of the quantity of iron ore is domestically required and internationally exported? The MoEF will obtain this requisite information from the Ministries of Mines, Steel and Commerce. The Secretary, MoEF, will immediately convene a meeting of the Secretaries of the concerned Ministries and furnish a Report within a week. We further direct CEC to submit a Report on Environment Impact Assessment on account of mining in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts within a period of three weeks. Affidavits filed by parties are taken on record.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1276 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... TIOL- 636-HC-DEL-IT. 16. The ld. DR has, in this concern, relied on the assessment order, whereas the learned counsel for the assessee goes by the impugned order. 17. In “BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd.”(supra), it has been held, agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal, that computer accessories and peripherals form an integral part of the computer system; that in fact, computer accessories and peripherals cannot be used without a computer; and that as such, they are part of the computer system, entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 60 . 18. No decision contrary to “BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd.”(supra), rendered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, has been cited before us. As such, the ld. CIT(A) cannot be said to be at fault in “BSES Rajdhani Powers Ltd.”(supra). 19. That being so, ground No.3 is rejected. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1275 - SUPREME COURT
Arbitration - an order not appealable u/s 50 - jurisdiction of the High Court under the Letters Patent - HELD THAT:- No letters patent appeal will lie against an order which is not appealable u/s 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. We, thus, arrive at the conclusion regarding the exclusion of a letters patent appeal in two different ways; one, so to say, on a micro basis by examining the scheme devised by sections 49 and 50 of the 1996 Act and the radical change that it brings about in the earlier provision of appeal u/s 6 of the 1961 Act and the other on a macro basis by taking into account the nature and character of the 1996 Act as a self-contained and exhaustive code in itself.
In the result, Civil Appeal No.36 of 2010 is allowed and the division bench order dated May 8, 2007, holding that the letters patent appeal is maintainable, is set aside.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1274 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Scope of Best Judgement Assesment - Power of AO u/s 144(1) and 145(3) - Assessee, arrack contractor were engaged in selling arrack - AO while not accepting the returns, rejected the book results and by adopting best judgement method estimate of gross profit at 40 per cent - HELD THAT:- We sum up the principles to be followed when best judgment assessment is undertaken by a taxing officer as follows: (1) The power to levy assessment on the basis of best judgment is not an arbitrary power. It is an assessment on the basis of best judgment of the officer ; (2) when best judgment assessment is undertaken it cannot be as per the whims and fancies of the Assessing Officer and it should base on some material either produced by the assessee or gathered by the taxing officer. If for any reason the material like books of account produced by the assessee is rejected as unreliable or unsatisfactory, there should be some valid reasons for doing so; and (3) whenever best judgment assessment is made, the court would not call for proof from the officer if there is some nexus between the amount arrived at after some guess work and the facts of the case.
Estimation of Income u/s 145 - CIT(A) held that, though the AO was justified to reject the book results, estimate of gross profit at 40 per cent. of purchase price and disallowances of expenditure is arbitrary and excessive, thereby estimated the gross profit at 1 percent of estimated sales or declared sales, whichever is more, clear of all deductions and allowances, and if the profit so estimated is less than the profit declared should be accepted.
HELD THAT:- We are convinced that the Tribunal estimated the net profit at 1 per cent. Though, we are of the considered opinion that estimation of net profit at 1 per cent. in arrack business is certainly on the lower side and, therefore, it needs to be re-estimated. Given the fact that there is no price fixed by the Government for sale of arrack and it is generally a seller's market, to assume that the gross profit would be at 1 per cent. of the estimated sales, in our considered view, is low. Indeed, in the case of A SANYASI RAO AND ANOTHER VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [1989 (3) TMI 116 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] which was affirmed by Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VERSUS A. SANYASI RAO AND OTHERS [1996 (2) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], it was found that in some cases the profit margin was higher in arrack business. Therefore, estimating the net profit at 2 per cent. of the estimated sales or 16 per cent. of the purchase price (the Tribunal estimated at 8 percent. of the purchase price) would not be unreasonable.
Therefore, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal directing that the net profit be estimated at 2 per cent. of the estimated sales or 16 percent. of the purchase value, whichever is higher.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1273 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... essment years 2004-05 and 05-06 is against deleting the addition made on account of belated deposit of employees contribution. 14. The ld. CIT (A) deleted the disallowance by observing that payments have been made before the due date for filing of the return and on similar facts in case of Rekha Singh decided in ITA No. 570/JP/09 dated 26.2.2010 the Tribunal has allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. 15. This issue has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vinay Cement Ltd., 313 ITR 1 (St.) wherein it is held that if the payments on account of Provident Fund and ESI contribution has been deposited before the due date for filing the return then no disallowance is to be made under section 43B of the Act. Accordingly we confirm the finding of ld. CIT (A) on this issue also for both the years. 16. In the result, appeals of the department and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. 17. The order is pronounced in the open court on 14.07.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1272 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... oncealment of the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 7.4. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that mere erroneous claim in the absence of any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, is no ground for levying penalty, especially when there is nothing on record to show that any material particulars were concealed or furnished inaccurate . In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that levy of penalty is not justified. Consequently, we have no hesitation in upholding the conclusion of the ld. CIT(A) in respect of levy penalty in relation to claim for deduction u/s 80HHC and 80IB on service charges. Therefore, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground Nos.2 and 3 being mere prayer nor any submissions having been made on these grounds, do not require any separate adjudication and are, therefore, dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 29 -07-2011
-
2011 (7) TMI 1271 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1270 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e to be taken into account for recording a finding of undisclosed income and some degree of guess work was also permissible in such a situation, it depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to what was to be a fair estimate of undisclosed income. The Commissioner(Appeals) as well as the Tribunal held that in the circumstances, the estimate of addition, to the extent assessed by the Assessing Officer, was not called for and it was partly liable to be set aside. No substantial question of law arose for consideration.” Taking cue from the same, we are constrained to hold that the jottings itself (wherein only thing admitted is the hand writing) cannot be the sole ground so as to make addition under sec.69C of the Act. Therefore, we accept the assessee’s contention. 19. Consequently, in view of our above discussion, both appeals of the assessee are allowed. 20. Order pronounced in the Open Court after hearing the parties on Friday, the 27th July 2012.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1269 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... comprehension that a public sector Corporation like the Nigam should collect the amount of service tax from its customers and should not deposit the same consecutively for three years. The Nigam was in default for a sum of ₹ 5, 66,29,510.00. For the said deficit the Nigam is also liable to pay interest and the penalty. Making payment later is no excuse for short payment made earlier. Considering the total demand including the amount of penalty and interest, direction to pay a sum of ₹ 2.00 crores cannot be said to be unreasonable. Such order certainly will not warrant interference by this Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Rastogi has also urged that the payment of ₹ 2,22,62,624/- made by the Nigam has not been considered by the Tribunal. We are unable to agree with the submission. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has categorically referred to ₹ 2,22,62,624/- paid by the Nigam on 17th April 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, petition is dismissed in limine.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1268 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of goods - ducts manufactured out of GI sheets - classified under CTH 73.08 or otherwise? - Held that: - the goods in question that ducts fall for classification under Chapter Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees - reliance placed in assessee's own case Commissioner Versus E.T.A. Engg [2006 (4) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT] - the goods are excisable falling for classification under Chapter 73.08 and exempt from payment of duty.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1267 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... way of a speaking order and in accordance with the law. The matter stands restored to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions as above. 8. Ground No. 1 in the both the appeals is thus allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. 3. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in a group case of the assessee’s group of cases. There are no distinguishing features in the facts of the said case vis-à-vis the facts of this case before us. 4. In this view of the matter, and following our decision in B K Textile’s case (supra), we remit the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for recomputing the disallowance, if necessary, in the light of our observations in the said case which have been extracted above and which will apply mutatis mutandi here as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 29th day of July, 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1266 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee the evidence regarding the transaction have been filed. In our view this submission is without any basis. In the paper book filed before us all the evidence filed before AO have been placed. The details clearly shows that assessee had produced all the evidence before the AO like contract note, bills for purchase and sale, bank statements showing receipt of sale proceeds, DMat account etc. Even broker had confirmed the transaction in his statement. In such circumstances the only basis on which the AO has made the addition is the decision taken in the case of Ravindra kumar Toshniwal (supra). We are of the view that in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Ravindra kumar Toshniwal, there is no merit in the stand taken by the revenue in this appeal. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal by the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July 2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1265 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n further appeal was taken for the first time before us through oral arguments. Reasons for not carrying the issue in previous years in appeal may be several including in a given case, smallness of amount involved. Only on this ground therefore, we are not inclined to terminate the Revenue's appeals. It is well known that in Revenue matters question of consistency is normally insisted upon by the Courts however, equally it is well settled that in tax matters, there is no res judicata and each assessment year would give rise to a new cause of action.(Refer to decision of Supreme Court in case of C.K. Gangadharan and another v. Commissioner of Incometax reported in (2008) 304 ITR 61(SC). 15. In the result, it is held that assessee would be entitled to normal rate of depreciation and not higher rate of depreciation at 40 . Question is accordingly answered in favour of Revenue. To the extent above, Tribunal's order stand reversed. Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1264 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... t income has escaped tax. Therefore, he reopened this assessment year also. The Tribunal has upheld estimation of profit at 6.50 in those assessment years. Learned CIT(A) in the present year followed the order of his predecessor as well as of ITAT. However, he upheld the estimation of profit at 8 to the total turn over. This rate of gross profit applied in the present year is higher than the subsequent years decided by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration the order of learned 4 2407-2011-RM CIT(A) in the light of Tribunal's order in assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 coupled with the stand of Assessing Officer in the assessment order, we are of the view that there is no disparity on facts. The learned CIT(A) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective. His order does not call for any interference. Therefore, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 4. In result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This order was pronounced in open court on 15.07.2011.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1263 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ave heard both the sides. The ld. CIT(A), in his impugned order, has mentioned that the A.R. has clearly accepted the inability of the assessee to furnish any detail or evidence of agricultural income earned during the year. He has only relied upon the disclosure made in the earlier years including the certificate from the cooperative marketing society. It is pertinent to note that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold his landholding and hence it was not possible for the assessee to submit any evidence in support of agricultural income allegedly earned during the year under consideration. Hence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is fair and reasonable. Therefore, we decline to interfere. This ground of the cross objection raised by the assessee, Shri Natvarlal C. Bhandari is rejected. 24. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by two different assessees are dismissed. The Order pronounced in the Court on 08.07.2011
............
|
