|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1188 - 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.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1187 - ITAT AGRA
Rejection of application for grant of registration u/s 12AA - rejection of application for grant of approval u/s 80G(5)(vi) - Held that - CIT did not act according to law and provisions of section 12AA & 80G of the Act. CIT Agra has not conducted any enquiry into the matter in order to satisfy himself about the genuineness of the activities of the assessee institution or fund;and the order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the impugned order is passed beyond the period of 6 months from the date of filing of application which violated section 12AA of the Act.
The orders of CIT for refusal of registration under section 12AA of the Act and refusal of approval under section 80G of the Act was set aside. - CIT directed to grant registration under section 12AA and renewal of approval under section 80G(5)(vi) - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1186 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and P10 objections. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed seeking to direct consideration of Exts.P1 and P2. 2. It is on receipt of Exts.P1 and P2, respondent has issued Exts.P7 and P8 notices. To those notices, petitioner has filed their objections also, as per Exts.P9 and P10. 3. Therefore, I direct the respondent to pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8 in the light of Exts.P9 and P10 and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. In order to avoid delay in the finalization of the matter, I direct that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 23.11.2012 between 10.00 am and 12.00 noon, when the Officer shall hear the petitioner and pass orders on Exts.P7 and P8 in the manner as directed above. In the meantime, proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 to P6 will be kept in abeyance. 4. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for compliance. Writ petition is dispose of as above.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1185 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... deposited entire amount of Service Tax liability, interest thereof. 3. On perusal of the records and considering the submissions made by ld.Chartered Accountant, we find that the appellant is disputing the leviability of Service Tax on the activities in which they are engaged. Since the appellant has already deposited entire amount of Service Tax liability and interest thereof and contesting the issue on merit, we consider the amount deposited by the appellant as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1184 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... d 30th April 2012, but no cognizance of Form No.8 was taken. 2. We have heard the parties. On the perusal of the appeal folder, we find that the declaration filed by the assessee u/s. 158A(1) in Form No. 8 is on record. It appears that by oversight, the said declaration remained to be considered by the Bench when both the appeals were disposed off. In our opinion, this is the mistake apparent on the face of the record. Ld. D.R. has no objection for recalling said order. We, accordingly, recall the orders in both the A.Ys. i.e. A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 in ITA No.1087 and 1088/PN/2010 respectively dated 30th April 2012. Both the appeals are fixed for hearing on 07 December 2012. No separate notice of the hearing will be issued to the parties as the date of hearing is pronounced in the open Court in presence of both the parties. 3. In the result, both the Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court after conclusion of hearing on 09/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1183 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid application has been listed for further proceedings on 16.01.2013; the learned Company Judge is requested to take-up the matter according to the Court’s earliest convenience and proceed with the application and decide it as expeditiously as possible, and if possible, within three months from today. (3) The parties are directed to approach the learned Single Judge seized of CCP.230/2012, immediately after the decision in C.A.2076/2012. 10. The learned Single Judge hearing the contempt proceeding shall then proceed to make such appropriate order as the circumstances may require, having regard to the order of the learned Company Judge in C.A.2076/2012. 11. All rights and contentions of the parties are expressly reserved. This order shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the submissions made on behalf of either of the parties. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. All the pending applications also stand disposed of. Order dasti to the parties.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1182 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... issue of adjustment of exempt income/loss against the income from other sources is covered against the assessee by the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S.S. Thiagarajan (supra). We would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgment “The provisions of ss.70 and 71 relating to set off of loss from one head against income from another contemplate loss from a source, the income from which is liable to tax. If income from a source is altogether exempt from tax, loss from that source cannot be set off against income from a different source or income under a different head. Since the income is not taxable the loss incurred in such activity also could not be set off against income from other heads of income.” Respectfully following the above decision, Ground No.2 is decided against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands Partly Allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1181 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of profit derived from Banas-11 Dairy Expansion Plant has already been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal in the case of the assesses for Assessment Year 2004- 05, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 5. Since the Revenue has not pointed out as to how the decision of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2009 A.Y. 2006- 07 in assessee’s own case is not applicable on the facts of the year under consideration. In this view of the matter, respectfully, following the order of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate Bench rendered in ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2009 in assessee’s own case relating to the assessment year 2006-2007, we do not find any infirmity into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), consequently, this ground of the Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1180 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed the rival submissions and have perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT(A). We find that the issue of deduction u/s 80 IB (10) of the Act is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the ITAT Ahmedabad Benches in assessee’s own case for immediately preceding assessment year 2004-05 (supra) and also for subsequent assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 (supra). The facts of the case of the assessee for relevant assessment year 2005-06 in appeal before us being similar to the facts of the case of the assessee in immediately preceding year as well as two succeeding years and we, being in agreement with the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case cited supra for preceding assessment year 2004-05 as well as succeeding assessment years 2006-07 and 2007- 08, decide the issue in favour of the assessee and ground No.1 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1179 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference to arbitration of three technical persons who have made the award dated 30.03.2010 - Held that:- Interpretation put forth by the majority view of the arbitral tribunal, which has received the imprimatur of the learned Single Judge, is not a plausible view of the terms of the contract which are crystal clear and brook of no two views. Such a view, we feel would border on absurdity. We are conscious of the fact that it is an arbitral tribunal manned of three technical people. But then there is also a minority view of one technical person, apart from the fact that the DRB of three technical people also opined otherwise, apart from the engineer concerned.
Set aside the award insofar as it has granted Dispute No.4 in favour of the respondent while upholding the award in all other respects. No other issue is pressed before us. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent aforesaid, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld not be granted as a matter of course. However, if some plausible explanation is rendered showing that the assessee though intended to pursue the appeal, was prevented from doing so for good and sufficient reasons, ordinarily the Courts prefer to decide the cause on merits rather than on technical questions. 7. Be that as it may,in the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have taken into account the affidavit of the office boy while was presented by the appellant after the hearing was over. Minor discrepancy in the name i.e. Sanjay or Sanjeev should not be fatal to the main cause. 8. Under the circumstances, question is answered in favour of the appellant. Proceedings are remanded to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue after taking into account the affidavit of the concerned person. 9. Considering the extent of delay, the appellant shall deposit cost of ₹ 5,000/- with the State Legal Service Authority. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1177 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nes which are not working. Inasmuch as the machines which are sealed by the department, and proved to be sealed on physical checking, duty liability cannot be fixed for taking the said machines into consideration. 3. The fact of sealing all the said machines is not disputed by the Revenue. Their only contention is that since the said machines has wheels and can be removed from the factory, and used for manufacturing the final product the same should have been taken into consideration while fixing duty liability. 4. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of both the authorities below. Admittedly, the machines are sealed and Revenues submission is in the arena of assumption and presumption. For using the said machines, the seal has to be broke open which can only be done with the consent and permission of the Revenue. As such, I find no merits in the Revenue s appeal. 5. Accordingly all the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. (Pronounced in the open court )
-
2012 (11) TMI 1176 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e clear and specific directions. By the earlier order dated 9th February, 2012 learned counsel for the applicant herein was asked to obtain specific instruction as it was noticed that the order in original was passed on 18th August, 2011, i.e., within a period of 14 days after the order dated 4th August, 2011 disposing of Writ Petition (C) No. 2448/2012. In the order dated 9th February, 2012 it was also recorded that after 4th August, 2011 no date of hearing was fixed before the adjudication officer. Thus, it was apparent that the order dated 18th August, 2011 had been passed in great haste and hurry, resulting in denial of justice and fair opportunity. The non-applicant was, therefore, justified in stating that it was prevented from raising grounds and pointing out their case. 5. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay and resultantly the said application and the application for review are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1175 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ent of aggregate payment to ‘single party’ is w.e.f. A.Y. 09-10. In the case of appellant there is no single payment or aggregate payment to single person of cash of ₹ 20,000 & above to a person and therefore A.O’s action of invoking section 40A(3) of the Act is not sustainable. He is directed to allow such expenditure and delete the addition. The appellant gets relief of Rs.l,97,000/-.” 11. Since ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of Leader Transport & Co. Vs. ITO 6 ITR (TRIB) 229 AHD and Hon’ble Orissa High Court judgement in the case of M/s Aloo Supply co. 121 ITR 680 holding that each single payment should be above ₹ 20,000/- in cash for the applicability of Section 40A(3) of the Act, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 12. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 23.11.2012
-
2012 (11) TMI 1174 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Whether expenditure is revenue or capital in nature - current repairs - replacement of broken A.C. Sheets and replacement of factory wall plaster etc. - Held that:- All the expenses were made after a period of 3-4 years but were in the nature of current repairs and were chargeable as revenue expenditure. Also the expenditure so incurred was essentially for repair of building/machinery and by incurring these expenditure neither capacity nor building was extended nor the machinery did undergo any change. Thus the findings recorded do not suffer from any legal infirmity - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1173 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o take a final decision on the applications of the petitioners for being granted EODC. In the facts of the case, it is provided that if respondent No.1 is prima facie not inclined to grant such certificate, he shall briefly indicate his tentative reasons thereof, communicate the same to the petitioners permitting them to make representations thereupon. Subject to the petitioners co-operating with expeditious disposal of such an issue, the respondent No.1 shall take a final decision within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. To avoid any possibility of failure of communication, it is provided that the petitioners shall personally or through their representatives appear before respondent No.1 on 8th November, 2012 between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m. This preliminary date is fixed only for convenience and it will be open for the respondent No.1 to re-schedule this date for any future hearings. 25. With above directions, the petitions are disposed of.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1172 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue after observing and holding as under - o p /o p “9. So far as, question (C) is concerned, both the respondent- assessee and appellant-revenue agree that the issue is covered in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this court in ITA (Lodging) No. 1237 of 2011 in CIT v. Black & Veatch Consulting Pvt. Ltd. dated 09.04.2012. Therefore, question (c) is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the respondent assessee and against the appellant revenue.” o p /o p 19. Thus, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the ground raised by the assessee stands allowed. o p /o p 20. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p 21. To sum up, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th November 2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1171 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ere journal entries to that effect. If ultimately, it is found that no cash loan was actually received by the assessee in the course of the transaction and there were only journal entries to that effect. then no penalty can be levied under S.271D of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall accordingly redecide the issue of applicability of the penal provisions of S.271D of the Act to the facts of the present case, in accordance with law, keeping in view our aforesaid direction, and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. o p /o p 10. Since the cross-objection of the assessee merely support the order of the CIT(A), the same does not call for any independent adjudication. o p /o p The same is thus rendered redundant, and it is accordingly dismissed as such. o p /o p 11. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, and the assessee’s cross objection is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the Court on 9.11.2012 o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1170 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... 000/- by AO or enhancement made by the ld. CIT(A)to the extent of ₹ 2,37,06,226/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law, keeping in view of the fact that neither the AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the books of accounts maintained by assessee nor disputed that the assessee is showing sundry debtors as well as sundry creditors as on 31.03.2005 which were substantially reduced as on 31.03.2006. Under these circumstances, the addition made by AO and enhancement made by ld. CIT(A) are liable to be dismissed. Since we have expressed our opinion in regarding the addition as well as the enhancement made by ld. CIT(A), we consider that the arguments put forth by the ld. Counsel for assessee as regarding the writing off bad debts as well as the powers of ld. CIT(A) for enhancement are academic in nature. As such we delete the addition made by AO and enhancement made by ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 9.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1169 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... tion by the father/wife of the assessee to the tune of ₹ 24,000/- has to be accounted for before working out the addition on this issue. As such out of total addition of ₹ 88,000/- an amount of ₹ 64,000/- is confirmed.” 45(ii) Having regard to the fact-situation of the issue and findings of the lower authority, as also the relevant records, we don’t find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(Appeals) and accordingly, the same are upheld and this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 46. Ground No. 4 raised by the appellant is not pressed by the appellant and accordingly this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. 47. Ground Nos. 5 to 7 are general in nature and do not require separate adjudication. Accordingly, Ground Nos. 5 to 7 are dismissed. 48. In the result, appeal No. 818/Chd/2012 is partly allowed. 49. Resultantly, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th Nov.,2012.
............
|
