|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1082 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted 2nd November, 2012 is modified to the extent that the respondents are restrained from proceeding with the hearing pursuant to the show cause notice impugned, till expiry of the time to file reply to the show cause notice. 5. Mr. Khaitan points out that the documents are voluminous. The petitioners have only been offered inspection of the documents and not with the copies of the documents. The process of inspection and taking down notes takes time. The time to file reply to the show cause notice shall, thus, stand extended till 15th February, 2013. The petitioners shall be given inspection of the requisite documents every day on day to day basis (except holidays) to enable the petitioners to complete the inspection and file their reply within 15th February, 2013. 6. The application being GA No. 3171 of 2012 is disposed of. 7. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1081 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment -Whether AO not applied the mind and simply acted upon the information given by the ADI(Inv). Held that:- It is not in dispute that the assessee filed return of income on 28.7.1987 in the office of the Income-tax Circle-II Kanpur. The re-assessment proceeding for the Assessment Year 1987-88 was initiated in 1997-98 and in between the period of 10 years the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer might have changed. The figure furnished in the return filed for the Assessment Year 1987-88 were acted upon even though the loans/other amounts said to have been stated in the return has been added.
Tribunal is perfectly justified in quashing the order of reassessment proceedings as the action was mechanical in nature and without ascertaining as to whether the assessee had disclosed the factum of purchase of plot and cost of construction in the original return.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1080 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... the shipping bill that is required to be filed together with the claim for rebate on duty paid on excisable goods exported. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the authorities below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had diled an application for rebate on 17 July 2007 which was beyond the period of one year from 12 february 2006 being the relevant date on which the goods were exported. Where the statue provides a period of limitation, in the present case in section 11B for a claim for rebate, the provision has to be compiled with as a mandatory requirement of law” 12. In view of above position, the rebate claim filed after stipulated time limit of one year being time barred in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is rightly rejected in this case,. Therefore, government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order- in appeal and upholds the said order. 13. The revision application is rejected in terms of above 14. So, ordered.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1079 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ause 36(1)(viia) and Chapter VIA) made as per the provisions of sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The AO has pointed out that the assessee has not created any Provision for bad and doubtful debts as mandated by sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. Hence, he disallowed the above said claim and the same was upheld by the Ld CIT(A). 6. We have carefully gone through sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act. The deduction under that section is allowed in respect of "any provision for bad and doubtful debts made by the assessee". Hence, the condition for allowing any deduction is the "creation of any provision for bad and doubtful debts", which can only be created in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Since the assessee has claimed the sum of ₹ 32,72,731/- without making any provision as stated in sec. 36(1)(viia) of the Act, we are of the view that the tax authorities are justified in disallowing the same. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1078 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... eeking similar information about these visits. While admitting that the official visits of these dignitaries have a strong security angle to it, in this age of transparency, there is a case for placing as much information about these visits as possible in the public domain. We would suggest that the authority responsible in the President Secretariat may decide to upload as much information as possible about the official visits, specially the details of the delegation accompanying the President, in the official website for the information of the general public. Similarly, if it is possible to compile the total expenditure on the visit, an aggregate figure of such expenditure for each visit and, if not possible to compile such details for each visit, at least for the entire year should be uploaded. This would go a long way in satisfying the public curiosity in this regard. 9. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. 10. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1077 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Gross receipts - issue of allowability of depreciation - estimated income of the assessee at 12.5% on contract receipts - deduction u/s. 80IA - TDS on royalty payment u/s. 194J - initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1076 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... ers. He, therefore, was satisfied on facts with the explanation thereon. In the absence of any adverse material, the deletion of addition for such reasoning does not call for any interference. 10. Going by any of the reasons as stated herein before, the conclusion reached by the ld. CIT(A) does not call for any interference and there being no merit in the grounds raised in appeal by the Revenue, the same stand rejected for the assessment year 2001-02. 11. For parity of reasons and facts being identical, the deletion of addition of ₹ 27,60,979/- for assessment year 2002-03, ₹ 13,33,223/- for assessment year 2003-04, ₹ 47,27,918/- for assessment year 2004-05 and ₹ 22,74,980/- for assessment year 2005-06 is also found justified. The same therefore does not call for any interference. The grounds raised in appeals by Revenue being devoid of any merits, the five appeals by the Revenue stand dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on 14.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1075 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property had acquired it. The property in question was undisputedly devolved on the assessee through inheritance. The assessee along with his brother have inherited the property on the demise of their father, who died on 23.12.98. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the benefit of “Cost Inflation Index” as on 1.4.1981. In this regard, the Respected Coordinate Bench ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Suresh Verma 135 ITD 102 (Delhi) have also held that where the assessee became owner of the property by inheritance and the property was acquired by the father prior to 1.4.1981, then fair market value of the property in the hands of the assessee had to be taken as in the hands of his father as on 1.4.1981. Respectfully following these precedents, we hereby approve the view taken by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1074 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ring the course of search and the A.O. made the addition as if the case is under general scrutiny by making addition applying a profit rate. The A.O. did not make any addition on the basis of material found at the time of search, if any. We failed to understand how this presumption under section 292C of the Act is applicable to the case under consideration when the A.O. did not make any addition on account of any incriminating material, money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles. However, even if the provision of section 292C is applicable as the same is rebuttable and in the case under consideration the assessee has rebutted the same by various evidences, explanation and submission made before the Revenue Authorities. 43. In the light of the facts and above discussions, we do not find any substance in the ground of Revenue. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 44. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1073 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Entitlement of interim order - pre-deposit - Held that: - the amount was deposited within time or after delay of one or two days. That would not be so fatal to cancel the contract of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the interim order - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1072 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revision u/s 263 - Held that:- No question of law arises. The Commissioner after recording cogent reasons found that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He was therefore, on facts of the case entitled to exercise revisional powers under section 263. While doing so, he remanded the proceedings before the Assessing Officer for full inquiry and fresh consideration. He had not given any specific directions to consider the issue in particular manner. Tribunal further clarified this issue in the impugned order as can be seen from the noted portion of the order itself.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1071 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... rists or with regard to their stay and accommodation. Therefore, services rendered by him also cannot be said to be technical services u/s 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act. If the said services cannot be termed as technical services, then the payment made to the agent can only be considered as his business income which can be taxed in India only if he has a PE in India. As there is no PE in India for Mr. Hussain Shiham, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the EON Technology Pvt. Ltd. (cited Supra), this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. The decisions relied upon by the learned DR are not applicable to the facts of the case before us. In view of the same, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 15. The levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C is consequential in nature and hence AO is directed to give consequential relief. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Dec, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1070 - ITAT CHENNAI
Applicability exemption u/s 11 - can depreciation be claimed as application of income - Held that the assessee is eligible for exemption and cannot be assessed as an AOP - when different views are available then views favourable to the assessee should be adopted - the claim of depreciation on fixed assets utilized for the charitable purpose has to allowed while arriving at the income available for application to charitable and religious purposes since the income of the assessee should be computed on the basis of commercial principle - [ DIT vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 2012 (4) TMI 289 (Del.)] - Decided in favor of assesse
-
2012 (12) TMI 1069 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ITA No.543/Hyd/2006 and appeal of the Revenue being 641/Hyd/2006- arising out of original assessment for the assessment year 2000-01, are partly allowed. (b) Assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner passed under S.263 of the Act, being ITA No.526A/Hyd/2005, for assessment year 2000-01, is allowed. (c) Consequent to the decision at (b) above, assessee’s appeal, ITA No.508/Hyd/2007, arising out of the proceedings initiated in pursuance of directions of the Commissioner under S.263 of the Act, for assessment year 2000-01, being infructuous, is dismissed. (d) Out of the cross-appeals arising out of block assessment, appeal of the assessee as well as the Revenue, being IT(SS)A Nos.44 and 45/Hyd/2009, are dismissed. (e) Assessee’s appeal ITA No.226/Hyd/2007 for assessment year 2003-04 is partly allowed., (f) Assessee’s appeal ITA No.1407/Hyd/2010 for assessment year 2004-05, is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th October 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1068 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... are doubtful whether the Tribunal is empowered to give any such direction. The accumulation of income, as submitted by Ld D.R, is governed by the provisions of Explanation 2 to sec. 11(1) and also by sec. 11(2) of the Act. In the above cited case, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court has not modified the above said provisions. Instead, it has given concession to the assessee, which in our view, is applicable to that particular assessee only. The ITAT, being a creature of statute, in our view, cannot arm itself with any such power, which is vested with the High Court. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not entitled to give any such relief as given by the High Court, since the Tribunal has to act within the authority of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we decline to give any such direction as given by the Hon’ble High Court. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 07-12-2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1067 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ., after verification with the banking authorities, allowed the credit of tax payment of ₹ 1,30,00,000/- and the refund of this amount was granted. However, while granting this refund the interest u/s 244A till the date of refund was not granted. In appeal ld. CIT(A) has directed to grant the interest u/s 244A on the refund issued till the date of issue of refund order. We find no infirmity in the order passed by ld. CIT(A) directing the A.O. to grant interest till the date of issue of refund order. Therefore, the order passed by him is hereby upheld. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. C.O. No.157/Ahd/2012 8. The C.O. filed by the assessee is in support of ld. CIT(A)’s order. In view of our decision in Revenue’s appeal, the C.O. has become infructuous and therefore the same is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as the C.O. of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 14.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1066 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... satisfaction can be reached and should be recorded on verification of the claim. We have perused the balance-sheet of the assessee as on 31st March, 2008 (Page 38 of the Paper Book) and profit & loss account for the year ending on 31st March, 2008 (Page 39) wherein total expenditure itself have been claimed at ₹ 2,85,795/- which are in respect to administrative expenses, finance expenses, depreciation and preliminarily expenses. The AO has not made any noting regarding correctness or incorrectness of the account. It was also claimed by the assessee that neither any loan was taken nor any interest was paid. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of facts we find merit in the submission of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. This order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 11th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1065 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ition also. In view of the above decision, we are unable to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and the same is set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer is restored." 7. Respectfully following the above order of the Tribunal, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee offered the income for taxation, and if the assessee offered the income for taxation for the assessment year under consideration, credit to the TDS is to be given accordingly to the assessee." 12. As seen from the above orders of the Tribunal it is a debatable issue. An issue when it is debatable, it cannot be dealt with by the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. Being so, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer is precluded from taking the issue in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Assessing Officer is annulled. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1064 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... certificate of KDMC dated 31/3/2008 is clear that Building No.9 to 14 were completed and occupation certificate was given. AO’s stand that project was only partly completed cannot therefore, be sustained. The deduction under section 80IB(10) was claimed only in respect of the project Vidhi Complex which comprise of building No.11 to 14. As far as this project is concerned, there could be no doubt that the construction was completed on 31/3/2008”. 9. Since assessee was involved in construction of only buildings 1 to 6 for which separate approval was obtained and also occupancy certificate was obtained which indicate that the project was separate and was completed within the time limit prescribed under section 80IB(10), we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A). Accordingly the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1063 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... guments sake, even if the assessee does not maintain the books of account, normally the net profit is calculated at 8 . However, in the present appeal, an ad-hoc disallowance of 15 of the aggregate purchases was made. The learned CIT(A), keeping in view the past history of the assessee and other material, restricted the disallowance to 3 . Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, assertion made by the learned respective counsels and the material available on record, the whole disallowance is based on estimation. To put an end to the litigation, the disallowance is restricted to 6 in place of 3 made by the learned CIT(A) and 15 adopted by the learned Assessing Officer. We are making it clear as each year is independent, therefore, our view is based upon the peculiar facts of this case only, therefore, this ground of the Revenue is allowed in part. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 7th December, 2012.
............
|
