|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1238 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1162
... ...
... ... ..... decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA.No.1496/Mum/2009 and ITA.No.949/Mum/ 2009 pertaining to assessment year 2005-2006 and submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed Revenue’s appeal holding that section 2 (22) (e) is applicable in the case of deemed dividend only in the hands of shareholder. In the case under consideration the assessee-company is not share holder of NFSPL. Therefore, in the light of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Universal Medicare 190 Taxmann 144 (Bom.) held that deemed dividend under section 2 (22) (e) cannot be taken in the hands of the assessee. As no distinguishable facts has been brought on record by the D.R. we have no hesitation to follow the findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA. No. 1496/Mum/2009 and ITA.No.949/Mum/ 2009 (supra). Ground No.2 is accordingly dismissed. 30. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12-12-2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1161
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. UDHE GmbH (supra) and in the case of CSC Technology, Singapore Pte. Ltd. vs. ADIT (supra) and respectfully following the said judicial pronouncements, we hold that the amounts payable by BAH India to the three overseas group entities in Germany, Singapore and U.K. could not be brought to tax in India during the year under consideration as fees for technical services as per the relevant provisions of the DTAAs since the same had not been paid to the said entities. Ground No. 7 of ITA No. 4502, 4506 and 4508/Mum/2003 is accordingly allowed. 19. Ground Nos.7, 8 and 9 raised in ITA No. 4503/Mum/2011 are not pressed by the learned counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 20. In the result, assessee’s appeals being ITA Nos. 4502, 4503, 4504, 4506 and 4508/Mum/2003 are partly allowed and ITA No. 4507/Mum/2003 is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 21st day of Dec., 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1160
... ...
... ... ..... 2011 has held that when there was an agreement between the assessee and the company for sale of property belonging to the assessee, it cannot be said that the agreement was not genuine only for the reason that it was not registered, particularly when the AO did not bring any material on record to substantiate that the said agreement was not a genuine agreement. It was further held that where advance received by the assessee from the company in which he or she is a substantial shareholder was for a transaction relating to sale of property, the deeming provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not applicable. As the facts and circumstances in the present case are also similar, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Smt. T. Vaishnavi Tekumalla (supra), we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(Appeals). 9. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 26th day of December 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1159
... ...
... ... ..... ppeals) cannot be faulted. 11. Coming to addition of 19,63,956/- made for assessment year 2003-04, which was deleted by the CIT(Appeals), and on which Revenue is on appeal before us, such amounts had admittedly come from pre-closure of lease contract. Assessee having considered leased assets as its own, the amounts received on pre-closure were adjusted against the block of assets on which depreciation was claimed. Therefore, depreciation was allowed to it was only after reduction of such amounts. This being the case, considering such amounts as part of its lease rentals, would have resulted in a double addition. Ld. CIT(Appeals) had rightly deleted such disallowance. 12. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the assessee, nor in the appeal filed by the Revenue. 13. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 20th of December, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1158
... ...
... ... ..... ed for by the assessee'. In this case also, similar situation has occurred. The only difference is that the CIT has registered the Institution but w.e.f. 1st April, 2005, ignoring the date of registration given in the Form No. 10A. The ratio of the above Tribunal order of the Special Bench the application is 'deemed allowed' as applied for by the assessee. Since the assessee had applied to get registration from the date of its inception, it is wrong and illegal to allow the same w.e.f. 1st April, 2005 under this deeming provision. This registration has to be treated to have been granted with effect from the date of its inception i.e. 9th Nov., 1985. Accordingly, we direct the CIT to grant registration to the appellant w.e.f. 9th Nov., 1985, which already deemed to have been granted. In view of our above finding, the other appeal would be of academic interest only. 12. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19.12 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1157
... ...
... ... ..... ents have been filed, as is evident from the Paper Book, filed by the assessee. 5. Ld. 'DR' did not controvert such assertions, made by the appellant in respect of payment of the impugned amount. However, he placed reliance on the order of the CIT(Appeals). 6. We have carefully perused and considered the rival submissions, facts of the case and the relevant records and found that the case of the assessee is covered under the provisions of section 273B of the Act, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and conduct of the appellant in making the impugned payment and nonexistence of such default in subsequent years. In view of this, the assessee succeeds in his ground of appeal and, hence, the findings of the CIT(Appeals) in the matter, cannot be upheld. Hence, the impugned order of penalty, passed by the CIT(Appeals) is set aside. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th Dec.,2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1156
... ...
... ... ..... d to compare the like nature of expenditure and if found excessive then only entitled to invoke the provision of the said Section. Since no comparable instance was cited from the side of the Revenue and this primary onus was not discharged, therefore totality of the circumstances thus warrants to reverse such an approach of the Revenue Department. We hereby accept the contentions of the appellant and by relying upon the aforesaid decision, this ground of the assessee is allowed.” 11. Considering the totality of facts, and after considering and respectfully following the aforesaid decision of co-ordinate Bench, we are of the view that in the present case, no case has been made out for disallowance u/s. 40 A(2)(b) and therefore no disallowance can be made. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT (A). Thus this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 28 - 12 - 2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1155
Determination of annual letting value (ALV) of the property u/s 23(1) - whether it can be determined as per municipal valuation or not? - Held that:- Annual letting value of the property in question should be determined as per the municipal valuation/rateable value adopted by the municipal authorities. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to adopt the municipal valuation/rateable value adopted by the municipal authorities.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1154
... ...
... ... ..... the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 13. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents, we find that the levy of penalty in this case is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14/12/2012.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1153
... ...
... ... ..... s no infirmity in the findings of the learned CIT (A) and, thus, we are inclined to sustain the same in toto. It is ordered accordingly. 8.3.3. Before parting, we would like to reiterate that the case laws relied on by the learned D R have been kept in view while arriving at the above conclusion. 8.4. As clarified above, the reasons recorded by us in the case of the assessee - M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited - for both the assessment years under consideration are applicable in the case of M/s. Mukund Limited also as the issues raised by the Revenue were identical in the case of M/s. Mukund Limited to that of the present assessee M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited . 9. In the result (i) The Revenue’s appeals for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the case of M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited are dismissed; and (ii) The Revenue’s appeals for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 in the case of M/s. Mukund Limited are dismissed; The order pronounced on the 18th day of December, 2012 at Bangalore.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1151
Addition made u/s 36(1)(ii) - Held that:- This was not a case where the amounts were to be added back under Section 36(1)(ii).
-
2012 (12) TMI 1150
Interest received on income-tax refund - Fees for technical services - DTAA between India and Denmark - Held that:- This issue has been decided by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hapag Lloyd Container Linie GmbH v. ADIT (IT) [2010 (12) TMI 282 - ITAT, MUMBAI] by holding interest on income tax refund falling under Article 11 of the DTAA between India and Germany (similar to Article 12 of India and Denmark DTAA under consideration) liable to tax. It has been held in that order that such interest cannot be considered as business income covered under Article 8 of DTAA between India and Germany (similar to Article 9(4) of DTAA between India and Denmark under consideration). In view of the afore-noted order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal, we uphold the impugned order on this issue.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... able to do so but to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice to the appellants. 153. Thus in my view, the company law board was right and justified in vacating and/or modifying its earlier order dated 21st May, 2012 and not restraining the 1st respondent from implementing the resolution passed in the EOGM held on 22nd May, 2012. No interference is thus warranted by this Court under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956. I, therefore, pass the following order - (a) Company Appeal (L) No. 41 of 2012 is dismissed. (b) There shall be no order as to costs. (c) In view of the dismissal of the Company Appeal (L) No. 41 of 2012, all pending Company Applications filed in the present appeal also disposed of accordingly. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the appellants seek continuation of ad-interim order dated 30th August, 2012. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes continuation of the ad-interim order. Application for continuation of stay is rejected.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1148
Validity of notice u/s 143(2) - availability of Assessee to receive the notice - Held that:- We find that admittedly the notice for the assessment year 2005-2006 was issued on 16.10.2006 u/s 143(2) and was served upon the petitioner on 2.11.2006. The proviso to Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act specifically provides that no notice shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which return has been furnished. The Parliament by en-acting the aforesaid proviso specifically, intended that the notice had to be served within a specified period and mere issue of a notice would not be sufficient. The notice had to be served upon the assessee within the period of 12 months from the end of the month on the day return has been filed.
In the present case service on the authorized representative on 19.10.2006 cannot be treated to be a valid service in the eyes of law. The service has to be upon the assessee which in the present case was served on 2.11.2006. The principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. Hotel Blue Moon(2010 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) would be fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the notice dated 16.10.2006 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which has been served on the petitioner on 2.11.2006 was clearly barred by limitation.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1147
... ...
... ... ..... erative banks into the taxation structure was mainly to bring in par with commercial banks. Since the assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, the provisions of section 80P(4) will not have application in the assessee’s case and therefore, it is entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Hence, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for”. 9.3 Since the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case considered by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Bangalore Commercial Transport Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. (supra), we follow the coordinate bench order of the Tribunal and hold that the CIT(A) is justified in directing the Assessing Officer to grant deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of December, 2012
-
2012 (12) TMI 1146
... ...
... ... ..... r dated January 27, 2009 has not denied these transactions. We are also not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that either the penalty is excessive or that the adjudicating officer has not taken into account the factors for adjudging the quantum of penalty as stated in Section 15J of the Act. We have read paragraphs 22 and 23 of the impugned order which deal with penalty. Section 15HA of the Act provides that if any person indulges in fraudulent and unfair trade practices relating to securities, he shall be liable to a penalty of 25 crore or three times the amounts of profit made out of such practices, whichever is higher. The adjudicating officer has imposed a penalty of 8 lacs only. We do not find it disproportionate to the allegation established against the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned order passed by the adjudicating officer. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1145
... ...
... ... ..... eference to the order of the whole time member (WTM/RKA/IVD/ID-4/39/2012 dated September 25, 2012) in which some entities have been debarred for a period upto four years in the transactions in the impugned scrips. 11. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that there is merit in the argument of the appellant’s learned counsel. In the impugned order it is stated by the whole time member himself that the contribution of the appellant to the total artificial volume created in the scrips appears to be relatively less. He has taken into account contribution to the artificial volume in absolute terms and the overall manipulative strategy of the appellant. Considering these factors we are of the view that restraint from market operations for a period of 18 months is excessive. Having regard to the facts of the case, we reduce the period of restraint to three months from the date of the impugned order. Appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1144
... ...
... ... ..... appellant is excessive. Learned senior counsel for the Board justified the quantum saying that the same falls within the parameters as laid down under Section 15J of the Act. Admittedly, no action has been initiated by the Board against the counter parties of the appellant who provided finance to the appellant for entering into the trades in question. In a way culpability of the counter parties of the appellant who provided the finance is more as compared to the culpability of the appellant. Further we have also taken note of the fact that two other entities namely Kamal Kumar Duggar & Co. and BMD Estate (P) Ltd. have been let off with a penalty of ₹ 5 lacs and ₹ 3 lacs each. Taking into consideration all these facts, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to ₹ 3 lacs. We order accordingly. In the result, while upholding the findings of the adjudicating officer, we reduce the penalty to ₹ 3 lacs. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1143
... ...
... ... ..... o by the terms of the Notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act dated 8-7-1999. It would have been a different matter if any appropriate order had been passed withdrawing the benefit of exemption. Without having recourse to such a course of action, the benefit of Notification dated 8-7-1999 cannot be withheld on the ground that the petitioners did not set up pharmaceutical unit or did not have permanent registration which were not stipulated as conditions for exemption by any relevant law. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee also do not lay down that conditions beyond those laid down in exemption Notification or any other law can be insisted upon. 13. Accordingly, we allow this petition, set aside the impugned show cause notice and direct that a fresh decision be taken in the matter in accordance with law, after due opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... ated 06-02-2012 for 1 crores, and 398936 dated 06-02-2012 for 50 lakhs drawn in favor of the petitioner on IOB bank towards full and final settlement of the claims of the petitioner. Which the petitioner have agreed and accepted. Therefore, in View of the above the present petition may kindly permitted to be withdrawn and disposed off accordingly in the best interest of justice. In terms of the memo, the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
........
|
