-
2012 (2) TMI 567
... ... ... ... ..... in any illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We have also found that in view of the facts obtained in this case, the proposed detenu cannot be said to be an abscondee. The circumstances emerging in this case therefore, constrain us to uphold the contention that the order of detention was issued either with a wrong purpose or that it was passed on vague grounds. Certainly, the inordinate delay in execution of Ext.P1, in the circumstances explained above, in the absence of proper explanation and good....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 566
... ... ... ... ..... 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was claimed in the proceedings? (2) Whether CESTAT is correct in upholding the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein there is no element of suppression in the facts and circumstances of this case? 2. Mr. R. Ashokan waives service for the respondent.
-
2012 (2) TMI 565
... ... ... ... ..... export order in connivance with the officers.Therefore suspension of the licence was warranted. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. It does not appeal to common sense how a renewed licence made valid on 19/1/2009 can be said to have been suspended. Once the suspension was substituted by renewal soon after three months of the suspension, we do not understand how Revenue acted so carelessly to continue the suspension of licence on record when renewal was ordered. On such reasoning, the suspension order at page 11 ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 563
Addition on account of non-realization of provisions of surcharge - accrual of income - Held that:- The amount of sur-charge not realized by the assessee, does not amount to accrued of receipt taxable as income. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, which we uphold TDS u/s 194J - payment made on account of SLDL & wheeling charges - non deduction of tds - Held that:- Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. ITO [2009 (4) TMI 489 - ITAT JAIPUR-A] wherein also, the issue was exactly the same, i.e., c....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 562
N.P.determination - Held that:- The application of net profit rate of 12% in all the cases of civil contractors is thus unwarranted as the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court itself in different set of facts had applied a net profit rate of 10%. In view thereof, we hold that in the present set of facts and circumstances where the assessee was engaged in petty civil construction work, where even cement and steel was supplied by the University of Kurukshetra, there is no merit in applying net profit rate of 12% to determine the income of the ass....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 561
... ... ... ... ..... r sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed not filed in respect of any case. (5) Every order, instruction or direction which has been issued by the Board fixing monetary limits for filing an appeal or application for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly. 6. It is not in dispute that the Board s instructions or directions issued to other income-tax authorities....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 560
... ... ... ... ..... er dated 31.10.06. While dealing with ITA No. 1415(Del)09 (supra), we have cancelled the reopening of the completed assessment of the assessee. That being so, the assessment order itself does not survive and so, the consequential order dated 3.2.09 passed by the ld. CIT(A) does not survive too. As such, both these appeals also do not survive and are infructuous. The ld. DR has also placed on file written submissions with regard to the merits of the case. The appeals being held to be infructuous, as above, these written sub....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 559
... ... ... ... ..... n (I) Ltd 38 ITD 320 (Del) . o p /o p 4. Before us the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that since the office of the assessee company has been shifted to Chennai, the compliance could not be made. Thus, he submitted that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue denovo. o p /o p 5. The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. o p /o p 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. o p /o p Keeping in view the princ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 558
Addition u/s 69 - Held that:- In view of the scheme of income tax, no income can be taxed twice, as has been done by the revenue. Firstly, taxing the same income of ₹ 64 lacs in the hands of the company, the present appellant assessee as also in the hand of Shri Gurlal Singh Grewal. We fully agree with the contention raised by the assessee in the matter of taxing single item of income tax twice, is not tenable under the scheme of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, having regard to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and above discussion, the impu....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 557
... ... ... ... ..... he facts of the case before us. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Steelcon Industries Pvt.Ltd., cited supra, has misplaced its reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s United Commercial Bank Ltd., and M/s Cocanada Radhaswami Bank Ltd., In view of the same, we are inclined to reject the grounds of appeal nos.5 6 raised by the assessee. Thus, the reference is answered in favour of revenue. o p /o p 8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench, we are in the view that....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 556
... ... ... ... ..... that on the basis of above submissions of the assessee, the order of the Tribunal dated 13.01.2011 sic. 05.01.2011 may kindly be recalled. On the other hand, the ld. D.R. did not controvert the submissions of the ld. A.R. o p /o p 4. Rival submissions were considered. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution following the decision of the ITAT in the case of Multiplan India Ltd. (supra). Keeping in view of the totality of the facts, we are of the view that....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 555
Nature of payment - payments were made to six non-resident entities - purely on account of services or nature of royalty - Held that:- As transactions in respect of which the impugned payments were made was purely on account of services and there is no transfer of right to use the goods. In the result, it is held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the payment as royalty and invoking the provisions of sec. 195. See CIT Vs. Godavari Devi Saraf [Smt] [1977 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY High Court ]
-
2012 (2) TMI 554
... ... ... ... ..... a in respect of products manufactured by it under various brands of a foreign company were allowable in entirety even though it might have benefited the non-resident company who owned the said brands. Keeping in view both these decisions of the Tribunal and taking into consideration the facts of the case as discussed above, we hold that the disallowance of 10 made by the AO out of advertisement and sales promotion expenses on the ground that the same resulted in the benefit to the parent company was not sustainable and the....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 553
... ... ... ... ..... nt view of the matter. Secondly, the Revenue s objection is technical in nature inasmuch it concedes that the income is otherwise not chargeable to tax under the regular provisions of the Act. The provisions of Chapter XII-B of the Act do not, in our view, operate to extend the scope of total income per section 5 on which the charge to tax u/s. 4 is attracted, but is only toward providing an alternative basis for computing the same. Reference by the ld. CIT(A) to the Circular No. 550 by the Board in this regard is in our v....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 552
... ... ... ... ..... r. Now, the assessee cannot take up that issue before us in the proceedings u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The scope and ambit of application of section 254(2) is very limited. It is restricted to rectification of mistakes apparent from the record. But to review or recall the order is not permissible u/s. 254(2) if necessitating rehearing and re-adjudication of entire subject matter of appeal and the dispute after being put for rehearing no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 551
Treat the data base as plant and allow depreciation on it - excessive or unreasonable claim - Held that:- There is no material whatsoever to establish or even indicate that the price of ₹ 12 crores paid for the Acquired Business Database is excessive or unreasonable and only the basis of Assessing Officer's coming to the conclusion about his subjective judgment. When in Assessment year: 2002-03 valuation of Acquired Business Database has been examined by TPO while concluding that the database price adjustment for the said year and no....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 550
TDS u/s 195 - Held that:- The assesseee was not liable to deduct tax from the amount representing reimbursement of the salary paid by IDS to Dr. Sundararajan while remitting the same to IDS u/s 195 of the IT Act.
-
2012 (2) TMI 549
Order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - Secondment of Employee - Held that:- Host company shall take all reasonable actions necessary to ensure that the Employee is in compliance with all applicable local laws, regulations or other requirements applicable to immigration and the services. The Employee will report to, and be under the direction and control of, Host Company and comply with Host Company’s policies and procedures applicable to the services, including without limitation, reasonable directives of Host Company concerning job safety and ....... + More
-
2012 (2) TMI 548
Addition of bogus purchases and payments - Held that:- The present assessee who has been maintaining cash book, purchase register, sales register, stock register, ledger account etc., and also his case comes under the purview of the provisions of section 44AB Act. We are of the firm view that if the disallowance is restricted/sustained to the extent of 12.5% on account of the bogus purchases, it would meet the ends of justice. It is, therefore, ordered accordingly. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 547
... ... ... ... ..... perty on 30.12.2002 and not from the date of possession of the property i.e. 2.1.1991 and the fact that the assessee has taken the possession of the property on 2.1.1991 was not controverted by the Revenue even at this stage. Since the property was sold on 3.1.2003 i.e. beyond 36 months, the income is chargeable under the head capital gains as long term capital gains and not as short term capital gain. The decision relied on by the ld.DR in Dr.V.V.Mody (supra) is prior to the amendment and the decision in CIT V/s Podar Cem....... + More
............