|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1102 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... B in the appeal of the assessee and ground no.5 in the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 18. Ground No.2 in the appeal of the assessee relates to disallowance of ₹ 526 towards interest on late payment of TDS. The learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, treating the interest penal in nature. The learned AR on behalf of the assessee did not make any submissions on this ground . In this situation, keeping in view the smallness of the amount, ground no.2 in the appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 19.. Ground No.1 in the appeal of the Revenue 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.6 in the appeal of the Revenue or ground no.4 in the appeal of the assessee, all these grounds are dismissed. 20. No other submission or argument was made before us. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court
-
2012 (12) TMI 1101 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... T.A.T., Agra Bench and in the light of that we direct the CIT to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act and grant approval under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act and for grant of approval under section 80G of the Act. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed 10. In respect of ITA No.417/Agr/2012 in the case of Rudraksh Charitable Trust, since the facts in this case are also identical as discussed above in ITA Nos.365 & 366/Agr/2012, we follow the same and in the light of that the CIT is directed to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act with effect from the date from which the assessee requested for grant of registration under section 12AA of the Act. Thus, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed. 11. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1100 - ITAT JODHPUR
Eligibility to deduction u/ 80IB - subsequent claim - Held that:- Deduction u/s 80IB is available for ten consecutive assessment years and the assessee claimed the deduction first time for the assessment year 2004-05, therefore, the benefit was available to the assessee for the year under consideration when nothing was brought on record to substantiate that there was change in the activities and nature of the work of the assessee for the year under consideration vis-a-vis the preceding year i.e. 2004-05.
Assessing Officer allowed the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act for the assessment year 2004-05 and there is no change in the facts for the assessment year under consideration as well as in the activities of the assessee as compared to the said earlier year, therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the claim of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1099 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... liance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) in which it has been held that penalty which is the result of quasi criminal proceeding will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. The Tribunal noted that there was no deliberate defiance of law on the part of the assessee. In this case, the Tribunal accordingly deleted the penalty. Facts in the present case are identical as penalty has been levied in an identical manner for the same default on 20.10.2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in its order dated 9.5.2012 in ITA Nos.8656 to 8658/M/11 and in ITA Nos.8660 to 8661/M/11, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1098 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ommissioner of Income Tax, 219 ITR 214 it was held that the High Court can even call for supplementary statement of the case. 13. The question as to whether the findings of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6874 of 2000 decided on 9th October, 2001 were subject matter of consideration in WTR No.95 of 1991, which was also pending and was decided on 1.5.2007 between the same parties, when the Supreme Court held on 9th October, 2001, that fraud was played by rectification of the trust deed by altering the object of the trust, this Court had considered the question as to whether the directions of the Apex Court that its observation will not affect the assessment proceedings that have become final and held that the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18.7.1996 dismissing the special leave petition against the order of the Settlement Commission will be binding on the High Court. 14. The questions of law are thus decided in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1097 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not pertaining to the State Trade Tax Act. It is related to the Central Sales Tax. So, the same is not applicable in the cases of each assessee. Further, the Tribunal observed that Notification No. 2947 dated 11.12.1995 issued by the Government of U.P. has specifically granted the exemption from the tax on the purchase of paddy. So, each addition was deleted. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the notification (supra) is in favour of the assessees, where it was mentioned that no tax is leviable on the purchase of paddy. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court was already distinguished in the impugned orders and the same appears reasonable. In view of above, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and the same are hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. In the result, all the revisions filed by the Department have no merits and same are hereby dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1096 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income during the course of search - Held that:- when undisclosed income admitted by the assessee has been offered for tax in the return of income and the tax thereof duly paid, penalty cannot be levied - assessee made disclosure of ₹ 95 lacs in respect of unexplained jewellery, unexplained cash and on-money payment for Akola land during the course of search which has been accepted by the A.O. during the assessment proceeding - that all the tax including interest had been paid by the appellant - thus penalty cannot be levied by AO u/s 271AA - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1095 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on of expenses u/s 57 of the I.T. Act out of “Incidental Expenditure Pending Capitalisation” which are incurred for earning income held to be taxed under other sources. 6 In event, if it is held that the Appellant has not commenced its business, receipts in form of Tender fees, rent of Nigam’s residential building, income on investments/Bank Deposits, other Misc. Receipts and Income on Deposits should be treated as receipts inextricably linked to the project and hence the same ought to have been set-off against project cost.” 22. In terms of the decision of Hon’ble Special Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra) and as we have already dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1466/Ahd/2007, hence, these grounds of assessee’s CO are also dismissed. 23. In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed. 24. In combined result, all the appeals of Revenue and that of assessee’s COs are dismissed as indicated above.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1094 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... earned CIT(Appeals) at 6 of total turnover and restore the income of the assessee to 4 of the total turnover of ₹ 7,52,66,405 viz. at ₹ 28,35,121 for Assessment Year 2007-08 and at ₹ 1,72,010 for Assessment Year 2008- 09 as per the declaration made under section 132(4) of the Act by letter dt.18.3.2009. It is ordered accordingly. 12.0 In the grounds of appeal at S.No.4, the assessee has denied itself liable to be charged interest under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The charging of interest is consequential and mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion in the matter. In view of this, his action in charging the assessee the aforesaid interest is held to be in order. The Assessing Officer is, however, directed to recompute the interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, if any, while giving effect to this order. 13. In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 & 2008-09 are allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1093 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e penalty imposed on him is to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. The learned consultant has submitted that, inter alia, his client received an amount of ₹ 3,000/- per transaction totaling to ₹ 6 lakhs. This itself would prima facie indicate a deliberate involvement of Shri Vijay Anand in the fraudulent transactions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to direct Shri Vijay Anand to predeposit an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on him. In respect of the joint and several liability fastened on him, there shall be waiver and stay. In the result, Shri Vijay Anand shall deposit ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within four weeks and report compliance to DR/AR on 16.1.2013. DR/AR to report to the Bench on 30.1.2013. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of penalty as well as the balance amount of the drawback amount. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1092 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Assessing Officer for his comments. In the remand report of the Assessing Officer to the CIT(A), he has only commented on the genuineness of the payment. The CIT(A) has also not examined whether tax has to be deducted with reference to commission payments. In such a situation, the issue whether TDS has to be deducted under section 194H of the Act and whether such commission is disallowable by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act does not arise out of the order of the first appellate authority. Since the issue of TDS does not arise out of CIT(A)’’s order, the same cannot be considered by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal’s power is limited to the subject matter of appeal before it. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.104/Bang/2011 dated 20/12/2011 which warrants our interference under section 254(2) of the Act. 11. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the department is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessee assessed u/s 44BB Or under section 44DA - Held that:- The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2011 in both the sections, cannot have the effect of altering or effacing the fundamental nature of both the provisions or their respective spheres of operation or to take away the separate identity of Section 44BB. We do not, therefore, see how these amendments can assist the Revenue's contention in the present case, put forward by the learned Senior Standing Counsel. We, therefore, agree with the AAR that in the present case the profits shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 44BB of the Act and not section 44DA.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1090 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... /s 254 of the I.T. Act. Following this ratio, we are satisfied that when the appellate authority including the ld. CIT(A), entertains a new claim as such, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd supra does not impinge his power to entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than by filing revised return before the assessing authority. The ld. CIT(A), therefore, cannot be said to have committed any error in entertaining the claim for deduction made before him as such.” 4. In the other cases also, the facts are identical except for the figure of receipts income and expenditure. 5. We have found that the issues involved in all these appeals stand squarely covered by the Jodhpur Bench decision supra rendered in ITA No. 385/JU/2009. 6. Accordingly, by respectfully following the above Tribunal order, we allow all these appeals. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 04th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1089 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition of unexplained investment - Delivery of possession of land - Held that - Assessee had given the possession of land in February-2009 to the purchaser and the purchaser could enjoy the fruits of property only after that date - the seller may retain the deed pending payment of price and in that case there is no transfer until the price is paid and the deed is delivered - Hence the assessee has rightly treated the transfer of land in AY 2009-10 and therefore the AO was not right in taxing the income on sale of land in AY 2008-09 - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 1088 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udgment of the High Court; and the AICTE and the concerned University shall ensure that the academic courses of these students are completed within the balance period of the academic year in all respects. For this purpose, if extra classes are required to be held, the concerned institute, the University and the AICTE are directed to ensure holding of such extra classes. (vi) If the appellate authority decides the matter prior to 30th April of the concerned year and grants approval to a college, then alone such institution will be permitted to be included in the list of colleges to which admissions are to be made and not otherwise. In other words, even if the appellate authority grants approval after 30th April, it will not be operative for the current academic year. All colleges which have been granted approval/affiliation by 10th or 30th April, as the case may be, shall alone be included in the brochure/advertisement/website for the purpose of admission and none thereafter.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1087 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t created will be eligible for grant of depreciation. This view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking (supra). The Hon’ble High Court has also upheld that in case in the earlier year the expenditure incurred is more than the income then such excess expenditure or deficit has to be considered as application of income in the subsequent year for the purpose of considering the application of income. The ld. DR has pointed out that the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (supra) has been considered and not followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. But being the Jurisdictional High Court the judgment, the Tribunal is bound by the said judgment and accordingly we allow both the grounds in favour of the assessee and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. o p /o p 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (12) TMI 1086 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Deduction under section 80IC - Held that:- CIT(A) was right in allowing deduction under section 80IC of the Act @ 100% of the profits and gains from manufacturing, including sale of ‘Raddi’.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1085 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Remission or cessation of the trade liability standing - addition u/s 41 - Held that:- It is based on factual matrix of the matter and the liability in the end of the year if not proved can certainly be added u/s 41(1) of the Act but it is still left open for the assessing authority to examine and opportunity is available before the assessing authority to produce the creditor and if unable to give the exact address, it will be open for the assessing authority to add back the same as per law. We do not find any substantial question of law arises in the facts & circumstances of the case which may require any consideration.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1084 - SUPREME COURT
Whether non-compliance of Section 42, non-involvement of any independent witness at any stage of the investigation and the presence of PW5 at the spot being so very doubtful, thus, compel this Court to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt?
-
2012 (12) TMI 1083 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... goods illegally on the basis of forged documents from ICD, Tughlakabad, and then selling them in the open market. This need to be probed into by the investigating agency and for this purpose, a free hand deserves to be given to them. I, therefore, feel that merely because certain observations have been passed by this Court in Monika Singh’s case (supra), they do not ipso facto apply to the present case. 12. Keeping in view the enormity and the gravity of the offence in the instant case, I feel it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and grant him anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 13. I also feel that since there is no specific prayer in the petition that the petitioner should be interrogated in the presence of a counsel, it will be totally inappropriate to pass any such order in an anticipatory bail application. The said oral prayer is also rejected.
............
|
