|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1209 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1(d) of the Act had been made and also gave the option of payment of redemption fine of ₹ 42,00,000/- besides imposing a penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that an appeal has already been filed during the pendency of the petition. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the appellate authority adjudicates the appeal filed by the petitioner. 8. The grouse of the petitioner that remains, is that heavy demurrage charges are being incurred and therefore, hearing of the appeal by the Commissioner Appeals be expedited. Under the circumstances, while disposing of the writ petition, it is directed that the Commissioner Appeals, Customs & Excise, Chandigarh-I shall dispose of the appeal titled as Best Mega International v. Additional Commissioner against the order dated 17-9-2012, within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ces furnished by the assessee by way of supplementary evidence are indeed comparable to the case of the assessee to corroborate the arm’s length nature of its international transaction in adherence to the principles of arm’s length and then analyse pricing policy of the assessee in the light of the said evidence which was not in the possession of the assessee earlier. It is needless to mention over here that while deciding the issue afresh the A.O. will afford opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. We also set aside the issues raised in ground nos. 7 and 8 of the appeal to the file of the AO for his fresh consideration in view of the above development in this regard pointed out by the ld. AR. after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground nos. 1, 1.1 to 6, 7 and 8 are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. The order is pronounced in the open Court on the day of 22/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pplicant. Let this I.A. be listed on 29.11.2012. To be taken up at 2.00 P.M. Civil Appeal No.10660 of 2010 Learned Additional Solicitor General produced sealed envelopes containing Progress Report dated 29.10.2012 in relation to the following cases 1. CBI Case No.RC DAI 2009 A 0045 (2G Spectrum Case) 2. CBI Case No.RC DAI 2011 A 0022 (Aircel Maxis Case) 3. CBI Case No.RC DAI 2011 A 0024 (Addl.Spectrum Case) The Registry of the Court has also submitted a sealed envelope received from the Central Vigilance Commission. Both the envelopes were opened in the Court. Shri K.K.Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate took us through two parts of the report and gave reply to certain queries. For further consideration of the report and other issues, the case will be taken up on 08.11.2012 at 2.00 P.M. The Court Masters are directed to put both the Reports in separate sealed envelopes. The needful has been done.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... and against the department after observing and holding as under - “20. The next issue for the assessment year 1994-95 is an addition of Rs. 11,87,960/- being interest on amounts receivable from partnership firms. Here also the first Appellate Authority found that there was no diversion of funds for non-business purpose. It was also found by him that interest bearing funds were not diverted for interest free loans and thus no disallowance of interest ought to be made. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not levying this ground, ultimately submitted that the finding of the first Appellate Authority need to be upheld. Thus, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed.” Thus respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we do not find any merits in the ground raised by the department and the same is dismissed. 39. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the department are partly allowed Order pronounced on this 02nd day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1205 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Kumar, Adv., Mr. Amarjeet Singh, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. For Respondent Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1204 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... tive from 1-4-2005. Consequently, any payment of tax deducted at source during previous year relevant to and from A.Y. 2005-06 can be made to the Government on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. If the payments are made as aforesaid, then no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. Admittedly, in the present case the assessee had deposited the tax deducted at source on or before the due date for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and therefore, we hold that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue.” 8. Following the aforesaid precedent, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Resultantly, this Ground of Appeal raised by the Revenue is also dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 20th November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1203 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ons discussed above we set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals). We restore the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in so far as charge of interest is concerned. On the facts of this case there is no question of imposition of any penalty. Hence, that part of the order of the Assistant Commissioner is set aside. 16. In the result the appeals are allowed but with no order as to costs." 6. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is set aside. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay interest. 7. In respect of imposition of penalty under Sec. 11AC of the order we find that prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s SKF India Ltd's case, there are decisions which are in favour of the assessee. Therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty under Sec.11AC of the Central Excise Act. 8. The appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1202 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... either before or after the appointed day, under Section 35A, as it stood immediately before that day.” 8. According to the aforesaid provision, under Clause (a) thereof, any person aggrieved by any of the orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise as an adjudicating authority may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. 9. Undisputedly, in the present case, as an adjudicating authority, the order has been passed by Commissioner of Central Excise. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the revisional authority was in error in rejecting the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to substantiate that revision petition was competent before the revisional authority. 10. Accordingly, in such circumstances, we do not find any error in order passed by the revisional authority. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them in accordance with law.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1201 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Penalty - Classification of services - Business Auxiliary services or Computer network services or intellectual property rights services? - Held that: - it is clear that right from December 2007 onwards the appellant's activities were known to the department and the department was confused under which category the service tax is leviable on the services received by the appellant. It was changed from BAS to Computer network services and finally to intellectual property rights service. In view of this factual position, the question of suppression of any facts by the appellant does not arise at all.
Mere omission to furnish information does not amount to suppression of fact - extended period not invocable.
The matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to consider afresh the classification of the intellectual property rights received by the appellant under a particular category of IPR and the law which is applicable to such intellectual property in India - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1200 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nd to decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We direct accordingly. ITA No.3289/Ahd/2011 (Penalty appeal) 14. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is regarding validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. We have heard both the parties. In view of our decision setting aside the issue of addition on account of un-proved creditors under Section 68 to the file of the AO for de novo decision, we hold that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be sustained and is accordingly cancelled. However, the AO shall be at liberty to re-initiate the penalty proceedings, if so required, as per the law at the time of assessment to be framed by the AO in accordance with decision of the Tribunal. We direct accordingly. 16. In the result, ITA No.405/Ahd/2009 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.3289/Ahd/2011 is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1199 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nableness. In the circumstances of the case, though considering the amount of commission payments claimed, certain amount of disallowance is certainly warranted, we find that the ad-hoc disallowance made by the assessing officer is on a higher side. Considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that sustenance of ad-hoc disallowance to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly modify the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and sustain ad-hoc disallowance made by the assessing officer only to the extent of ₹ 5 lakhs. Assessee's grounds on this issue are partly allowed." 11. In view of the above order of the Tribunal, the CIT is justified in sustaining the disallowance at ₹ 1,84,145. This ground is dismissed. 12. In the result, ITA No. 692/Hyd/2011 - Allowed. ITA No. 499/Hyd/2011 - Dismissed ITA No. 1420/Hyd/2011- Partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1198 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... indings of fact arrived at by the authorities below are based on proper appreciation of the facts and the material available on record and surrounding circumstances. The doubtful nature of the transaction and the manner in which the sums were found credited in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee have been duly taken into consideration by the authorities below. The transactions though apparent were held to be not real ones. May be the money came by way of bank cheques and was paid through the process of banking transaction but that itself is of no consequence." 7. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision has been applied by this court in the case of Smt. Kamla Agrawal (Supra). Respectfully following the decision of this Court in case of Smt. Kamla Agrawal (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that so far as the order passed by the Tribunal on the gift is concerned , it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1197 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has no connection with these demand drafts/pay orders and no income is assessable in the hands of the assessee on this count. Now, the only issue to be decided by us is whether the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to teat 5 of the amount of demand draft/pay orders as commission income of the assessee is reasonable or not. In our considered opinion, 5 commission in this type of activity is very much on higher side and we are of the considered opinion that 1 commission income will meet the ends of justice and accordingly, we direct the A.O. to restrict the addition in the hands of the assessee to the extent of 1 of the amount of demand drafts/pay orders in each of the four years as against 5 commission as directed by Ld. CIT(A). This ground is partly allowed in all the four years. 10. In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly allowed in terms indicated above. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1196 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0, wherein, the Tribunal followed the decision of ITAT Special Bench in the case of M/s. IndusInd Bank Ltd vs. ACIT passed on 14.3.2012, holding that in the case of finance lease depreciation is not admissible to the lessor who is simply a nominal and symbolic owner of the asset, whereas the real owner who bears all the risks and rewards incidental to the ownership is the lessee. It has thus been held that it is only the lessee who is the actual and real owner of the asset in case of a finance lease, who is eventually entitled to depreciation and not the lessor. Copy of the decision of ITAT dt.9.5.2012 is placed on record. In view of above, respectfully following the decision of co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case (supra), we reject the ground of appeal taken by assessee by upholding the orders of ld CIT(A) for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. In the result, both appeals filed by assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 12th November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1195 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... that the salary for all the employees increased in the current assessment year, except for one employee, namely, Sowmya. It is not clear whether she has left the service of the assessee company during the current assessment year which had resulted in reduction in her salary. The total salary outgoing for the current assessment year is lower than the assessment year 2006-07 only on account that many of the employees had left the services during the current assessment year and the assessee company had not filled the vacancies immediately. In the light of the above reasoning, we are of the view that disallowance of remuneration paid to the directors on the facts of this case is not justified and accordingly, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire salary paid to the directors. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th day of November, 2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1194 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts have no relevance to the controversy in hand. The propositions of law laid down therein are beyond question but these propositions have no application to the facts of the present case. 23. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order of the High Court dated April 1, 2003 and the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated April 6, 1999 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. The execution petition filed by the respondents seeking execution of the award and decree dated April 28, 1989 stands dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005 24. In view of judgment passed in Civil Appeal 5115/2005 above, this Civil Appeal is also allowed in the same terms. The parties shall bear their own costs. Civil Appeal No. 5096 of 2005 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5097-5098 25. In view of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal 5115 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005 today, these Civil Appeals do not survive and stand disposed of as such.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1193 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... f the facts of the case, considering the submissions of the assessee and the citations referred to by the as before him, has rightly deleted the penalty and we find no justification to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty in the matter in the absence of any material produced by the learned DR to controvert the same. We confirm his findings. There is no merit in the ground of appeal of the Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed.” Since the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has taken a view in similar facts and circumstances respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in the case of M/s Lucky Star International (supra) in ITA No.1041/Ahd/2010 we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. In this view of this matter, appeal of assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1192 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as deduction. For this purpose we place reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sri Mangayarkarasi Rasi Mills (P.) Ltd. 2009 315 ITR 114. We also rely on the judgment of jurisdictional of High Court in the case of CIT v. Sarvaraya Textiles 2011 332 ITR 553 (AP) wherein it was held that expenditure incurred by the assessee in replacement of fixed assets did not amount to current repairs. Accordingly on merit also this issue is decided against the assessee. 38. Regarding the second issue that is prior period expenses, as demonstrated by the CIT in his order in para 4.2 and para 4.2.1, there is no doubt that this expenditure is prior period expenditure and not relating to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee being following mercantile system of accounting cannot claim this expenditure for the assessment year under consideration. Accordingly this ground is also decided against the assessee. 39. In the result, assessee appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1190 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ttar Pradesh and, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction. The submission is wholly misconceived. Paragraph 41 of the judgment refers to a part of the cause of action arising under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Hon'ble the Supreme Court has applied principles of part of the cause of action to have arisen in a particular State. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that paragraph 17 of the said judgment squarely applied in the facts of the present case and, therefore, as the said authority is situate at Panchkula within the State of Haryana, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. The jurisdiction, if any, lies with the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is not necessary for us to go into the question of the appeal being barred by limitation as the preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction has been sustained. The preliminary objection is sustained and the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1189 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ning the dividend income. In the case of dealer in shares and securities the primary object and intention for acquisition of the shares is to earn profit on trading of shares. The income on sale and purchase of the shares of a dealer is chargeable to tax. Therefore, if the said activity of purchase and sale also incidentally yields some dividend income on the shares held by him as stock in trade such dividend income is not intended at the time of purchase of such shares and accordingly there is no live connection between the expenditure incurred and dividend income. 13. Considering the factual positioning in the present case in light of the decisions of High Court and Tribunal, we are of the view that no disallowance of interest is called for in the present case. We therefore direct the deletion of the disallowance made by the A.O. Thus the ground of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 11- 2012.
............
|
