|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1239 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1204 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... set off against income under any head. The amount of depreciation allowance not so set off (the "third unadjusted depreciation allowance") shall be carried forward to the following year. The "third unadjusted depreciation allowance" shall be deemed depreciation under section 32(1), that is depreciation for the current year in the following year(s) to be set off against income under any head, like current depreciation, in perpetuity.” 14 From the above it is clear that unabsorbed depreciation for the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 which could not have been set off earlier, cannot be allowed to be set off now. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to only allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation which is outside the block of Assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02. 15 In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 17.12.2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1203 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lly challenged by the Revenue to establish the transaction to be sham. Therefore, we consider the payment made on account of goodwill is genuine and reasonable since it is arrived based on a reasonable valuation and computation.” 5.2 In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 9. Considering the above discussions and in view of the fact that the learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned AR by any cogent material evidence, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation on good will amounting to ₹ 90,21,444/- and his order requires no interference by us. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal. 10. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14-12-2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1202 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ay the amount. The Company had sought extension of 75 days time in August 2012 and that period has also now expired. In view of this position on record, case for admission of the company petition is made out. Primafacie it appears that the Company is unable to pay its debts. There is no dispute raised by the Respondent Company, let alone any bonafide dispute. Accordingly the company petition is admitted. 9. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of ₹ 10,000/- towards the advertisement within three weeks from today. Upon depositing the amount the company petition shall be advertised in English newspaper “Free Press Journal” and the regional newspaper “Navashakti”. 10. Since this order is passed in the absence of the Respondent, the order of admission and consequential directions are kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. 11. Place the petition for direction on 15th January 2013 when returnable date for the petition will be fixed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1201 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the interim order dated 12.08.2011) has also rightly been rejected on the basis of the same reasoning as contained in the order passed in the earlier two I.As and, consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The Supreme Court in Wander Ltd. and another Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990(Supp) SCC 727 has observed that the appellate court should not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. 20. Accordingly, we dismiss the present appeal with costs quantified at ₹ 15,000/- to be paid to the respondent within four weeks. C.M. No. 19829/2012 (for stay) In view of the aforesaid, no orders are called for in the present application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1200 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll maintainable. 39 The CLB returning a finding apposite has committed an illegality which is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The order dated 16.3.2011 is set aside; the member register of the companies be rectified in the name of the petitioner group and the petitioners i.e. Dev Raj and Lalitya Kumari be substituted in lieu of Jagat Singh. 40 As noted Supra, the appeals filed by the respondent group are infructuous; they have supported the order of the CLB, their prayer in the appeal that the shares register be rectified in their favour as necessarily to be dismissed as even as per their own statement, they do not have any document to support their submission that they are entitled to the rectification of the member register qua these shares of Jagat Singh in their favour. 41 Accordingly CA (SB) Nos. 25/2011, 49/2011 and 50/2011 are allowed. 42 Co. Appeal (SB) Nos. 27/2011, 75/2011 & 76/2011 are dismissed. 43 Costs are quantified at ₹ 25,000/-.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1199 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... tions. The market conditions does not mean geographical condition alone but also includes the size of the market, demand and other relevant factors influencing the market conditions as a whole. 13. For the assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 the Revenue has raised additional ground of export incentive provided to the assessee under section 80HHC. The D.R. has fairly conceded that now this issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT., reported as 342 ITR 49(SC). Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 14. Resultantly, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.2207/Mds/2007 is allowed for statistical purposes and ITA Nos.2212 & 2213/Mds/2007 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, 21st day of December, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1198 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... cisions of the co-ordinate Bench, we are of the considered view that the AO was not justified in holding that the Assessee is liable for deduction of TDS on payment of transmission charges paid by Assessee In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and of Assessee is allowed. ITA Nos. 3382/Ahd/2009,3383/Ahd/2009 (By Assessee), 141, 143 & 144/Ahd/2010 (By Revenue) 10. Both the parties have submitted that the facts and issues are in the present appeals similar to that of appeal in ITA No.3381/Ahd/2009 and ITA No.142/Ahd/2012(supra) and, therefore, they have same submissions in the present appeals also. 11. In view of above facts, the findings and decision given in the above appeal therefore applies to ground in appeal in present appeal also. This ground has already been decided in favour of the Assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 in ITA No.3381/Ahd/2009(supra). Thus, for similar reasons and observations, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and of Assessee are allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1197 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... rofits under section 115JB of the Act. The learned A.R. for the assessee placed reliance on the undermentioned decisions i) CIT Vs. Bhari Information Technology System 340 ITR 593(SC) ii) Al-Kabeer Exports Limited Vs. CIT SLP 32274/2010 iii) CIT Vs. CPS Textiles P. Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 590 (Mad) 55. The learned D.R. for the Revenue fairly admitted that the issue stands covered against the assessee by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Vs. CIT 327 ITR 305 (SC) . In view of the admission of the learned D.R. for the Revenue and the reliance placed by the learned A.R. for the assessee on larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Bhari Information Technology Systems P. Ltd. 340 ITR 593(SC) , we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground no.7 raised by the Revenue. 56. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28th day of December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1196 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ice, the agreement assessee entered with TNEB for selling its surplus power which was only a standby arrangement, could not be considered as a yardstick. But, nevertheless, such rates will be excessive if it is higher than the rates charged by TNEB to regular high tension customers. Since these facts are not forthcoming from the orders of the authorities below, we are of the opinion that the matter requires a fresh look by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and remit the issue regarding excessive pricing of electricity sold by assessee to its sister concern, back to the file of the A.O. for consideration afresh, in accordance with law. 10. In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. To summarize the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and C.O. of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 20th of December, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1195 - ITAT MUMBAI
Dispute regarding nature of income from the settlement of forward contract? - Hedging - Activity from outside India to be treated as Business activity or investment activity - HELD THAT:- Gains arising from early settlement of forward foreign exchange contract has to be treated as capital gain. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and appeals were allowed.
The Assessee's contention of purchase and sale of foreign currency to be treated as Business income and not chargeable to tax as having no permanent establishment in India was rejected on the ground that the assessee being a Non-Resident Company invested in equity shares of Citicorp Finance India Ltd. by bringing capital in foreign currency and to protect its investments from the attraction of FEMA, 1999 where overseas investors were hedging their capital investment and thus assessee entered into Forward Contract rolled over periodically. Since no contrary decision has been brought to the department's notice, it has followed the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, and held that the income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Assessee are treated as partly allowed.
Decision in the case of CITICORP INVESTMENT BANK (SINGAPORE) LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -1(2), MUMBAI [2012 (9) TMI 44 - ITAT MUMBAI] followed.
In the result, Assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1194 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Addition on Account of 'On Money' Receipts - Assessee had canvassed that not the entire 'on money' received but only the profit element could be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Assessee had suggested addition of 10% - HELD THAT:-The additions are limited to 15% of the 'on money' receipts.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1193 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... However, the Tribunal, considering the passage of time, proceeded to dismiss the appeal only on the ground that there was delay in presenting the appeal and no condonation was sought. 4. Having perused the order of the Tribunal and having heard Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the appellant, of course, subject to certain strict conditions, is required to be granted one last opportunity of filing application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal. 5. Under the circumstances, order of the Tribunal is reversed. Proceedings are placed back before the Tribunal to permit the appellant to file application for condonation of delay. This shall, however, be subject to following conditions that the appellant - 1) shall deposit sum of ₹ 5000/- with the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority latest by 31.12.2012; 2) shall file appropriate application for condonation of delay before the Tribunal also latest by the said date. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... no interest would be payable on such credit by the Government under the proviso to s. 115JAA(2) and that the assessee would be liable to pay interest under ss. 234B and 234C on the shortfall in the payment of advance tax despite existence of the MAT credit standing to the account of the assessee. Thus, despite the MAT credit standing to the account of the assessee, the liability of the assessee gets increased instead of it getting reduced. 9. Considering the scheme of bringing about clarification, it can be said that the amendment in the tax statute was for the purpose of removal of the ambiguity which needs to be held as retrospective in nature. Tribunal was therefore, right in following Madras High Court in setting aside orders of both the AO and the CIT(A) which has been confirmed in the apex Court. Issue having been squarely covered by the apex Court, no entertainment of the question proposed is necessary. Resultantly, the tax appeal is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1191 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1.2012 it appears that the date of hearing has been fixed on 22.11.2012. 5. Mr.Kanmani Annamalai, learned Government Advocate states that if the authority has not decided the issue so far, they will consider the request of the petitioner on merits and whatever materials available will be furnished to the petitioner so as to avoid allegation of violation of principles of natural justice. 6. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the petitioner's case, the respondent authority is directed to furnish material documents which they may rely upon for the purpose of revision of assessment and thereafter proceed further in the matter taking note of the objections in the reply/objection dated 2.11.2012 and the further objection dated 20.11.2012 if it has been filed in time. If the authority has already decided the issue one way or the other it is open to the petitioner to work out his remedy as per law. 7. Both the Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1190 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... bit note received from the parent company. Neither before the AO nor before the FAA appellant had produced any evidence establishing the facts that the said expenditure was directly incurred for the purposes of the business carried on by the assessee. It was claimed that assessee was sharing the expenditure with the parent- company. The basis for sharing the expenditure in question was never produced before any of the authorities. As per the settled principles of taxation, the burden for claiming deduction is on assessee. We find that in the case under consideration, initial onus was not discharged by the appellant company with regard to the expenditure claimed. We find that cases relied upon by the AR are not applicable to the facts of the case under consideration. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA needs no interference from our side. Ground No.5 is decided against the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1189 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ooks of account and rejection of method of accounting applied by the assessee to draw annual financial statement and total income for all these years is not justified at all. When once rejection of books is found to be not proper and book results is applied, the book results has to be accepted by the A.O. The A.O. has to compute income of the assessee relying on the books of account and taking income on the basis of POCM. Accordingly, no addition on the impugned basis can be made or sustained in all these years. We order accordingly. Our above conclusion takes care of other grounds of appeal, even raised by the revenue. When the correctness of books of account is upheld, any further addition made after rejection of books of account, would not survive. All five appeals of the revenue will become academic now. 18. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Court on 12th December, 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1188 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ovide such 'head of expenditure', being part of the High Court budget of the respective High Courts for reimbursement of medical bills of the former Judges. In other words, the payment would be directly made by the High Court to the former Judges and it, in turn, would be reimbursed by the State Government. h) All the former Judges of the High Courts would be entitled to receive medical facilities from the hospitals so empanelled by the Central or the State Governments, as the case may be. i) Till appropriate rules are framed by the appropriate authority, these directions shall remain in force and shall be abided by the executive. 42. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. However, there shall be no orders as to costs. ORDER 43. Since there has been a difference of opinion between us in these Civil Appeals, the Registry will place these Civil Appeals before My Lord the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger Bench to hear and decide these Civil Appeals.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1187 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the requirements of Rule 46A need not be followed. On the other hand, whenever the assessee who is in appeal before him invokes Rule 46A, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to comply with the requirements of the Rule strictly.” 13. In view of the above decision, since assessee had produced additional evidence it was incumbent upon ld. CIT(A) to provide due opportunity to AO after he had admitted the additional evidence. Moreover, the grievance of the assessee was also that since only 11 working days were allowed before the assessment order was passed, no proper opportunity was provided by the AO. Under such circumstances, we restore the matter to the file of AO to examine the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 14. In view of the above discussion, the department’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.12.2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1186 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... &O transactions and change of client code was done to rectify mistake taken place due to wrong punching of codes no action was called for against the broker and as well as the appellant. Since the loss has been incurred in the normal course of the F&O transactions and such transactions are in the knowledge of NSE, therefore the loss incurred on derivative trading transactions has to be allowed and such loss has allowed set off against the income from short term capital gain. The F&O transactions have been treated as business transactions if they have been carried out on recognized stock exchange. These transactions have been carried out on NSE which is recognized for such transactions. Hence loss on such transactions is a business loss and same has to be allowed set off.” 9. We uphold this finding and dismiss ground nos. 3 and 4 of the Revenue. 10. In the result the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th December,2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1185 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e to have been utilized for business purposes. Further, even if there were to be a finding as to some part thereof having been expended for non-business purposes, the funds being fungible, as soon as fresh funds are ploughed back or infused by the assessee in its business, the same (unless dedicated for a particular purpose under the terms of their raising) or the funds generated by the business operations, would to that extent substitute the borrowed funds qua the non-business purpose. In other words, there can be no continuing presumption as to utilization for a non-business purpose, and the facts of each year have to be considered separately. The assessee returning income, prior to financial expenses and depreciation, at ₹ 13.42 crores, the Revenue’s case is wholly without merit. We decide accordingly. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th December, 2012
........
|
