|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 421 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 830 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cate issued by Dr. V.K. Goel. The only thing which happened is that nobody on behalf of the assessee company informed the AO about the inability of Shri Keshav Aggarwal to represent the case on the ground of illness. According to us, this is only a technical omission as the fact of illness of Shri Keshav Aggarwal has not been disputed. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also obtained remand report on the additional evidence. Having done so, we are of the view that the additional evidence should have been admitted. In any case we now admit the evidence in the interest of justice. Since no opinion has been given by any of the lower authorities on the impact of this evidence on assessment, the matter is restored to the file of AO for making fresh assessment as per law. He shall take into account the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), hear the assessee and thereafter frame fresh assessment. In the result the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2012 (4) TMI 827 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rporation of India and others 5. 46 of 2012 M/s R.V. Co. and another v. Food Corporation of India and others 6. 47 of 2012 M/s Walia Goods Carrier and another v. Food Corporation of India and others 7. 131 of 2012 Vinod Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 8. 183 of 2012 Akash Mahajan v. Food Corporation of India and others 9. 215 of 2012 V.K. Transport Company, Gurdaspur v. Food Corporation of India and others 10. 328 of 2012 M/s Suresh Kumar Mahesh Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 11. 354 of 2012 M/s Suresh Kumar Mahesh Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 12. 355 of 2012 Punjab Himachal Goods Transport Co. v. Food Corporation of India and others 13. 361 of 2012 Punjab Himachal Goods Transport Co. v. Food Corporation of India and others 14. 642 of 2012 M/s Garcha Goods Transport Union and others v. Food Corporation of India and another 15. 2586 of 2012 M/s R.S. Labour and Transport Contractor and others v. Food Corporation of India and others
-
2012 (4) TMI 826 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... .2 of the appeal reads as under - 2. That assessment order is against law and facts on the file in as much as Ld. JCIT / Addl. CIT did not provide an opportunity to assessee to be heard before giving directions u/s 144A to Ld. ITO, Ward-2, which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal. In our view, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the plea of the assessee that additions were made as per the directions of the Addl. CIT issued u/s 144A of the Act is not tenable. The CIT(A) has observed that no specific directions were issued by the Addl. CIT, Kurukshetra, Range Kurukshetra to Assessing Officer to frame the assessment in a particular manner. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this ground of appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly as indicated above. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th day of April, 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 825 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t case, that is not the position and in fact that is not even alleged. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also found that the assessee had been able to establish existence of a reasonable cause, even if the finding of the Tribunal that there was no violation is not accepted. In the circumstances, there is no reason to take a different view of the matter. The Tribunal has found that on the facts and in the light of the evidence on record there was no violation of either the provisions of section 269SS or section 269T of the Act. The Tribunal has further found that there was a reasonable cause, assuming that there was any violation by the assessee. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Act. In view of the above, we are of the view that penalty u/s. 271E of the Act cannot be levied in this case and accordingly, we delete the same. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed 6. Order pronounced in open court on 20.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 824 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lopers vs. ITO bearing ITA No.3165/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 order dated 07/06/2011 and in that order also, it was held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2001 is remedial in nature and should not cause undue hardship to the taxpayers. It was concluded that in respect of payment for which TDS was deposited before the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance was to be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. Following these decisions, we are of the view that the issue is directly covered in favour of the assessee. Resultantly, this ground of the assessee is hereby allowed. 4. Before we part with, it is worth to mention that there was a delay in filing of this appeal and through an Affidavit now it is explained the reason for short delay and the same was condoned by us ad the appeal was admitted for adjudication. Rest of the grounds being trifle in nature not contested, hence dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 822 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng, the learned AR submitted that in the similar circumstances in the case of Ms. Shirin Bagga in ITA No.2453/Del/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03, the matter has been restored by the ITAT, Delhi Bench I to the file of Assessing Officer to be decided de novo. It was pleaded by the learned AR that the issue in the appeal may also be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. Ld. DR was also not having any objection to this proposal. 5. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and equity, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided de novo after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall approach the Assessing Officer within two months from the receipt of the order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 4 th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 820 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... um Rehabilitation Projects were not completed in A.Y. 2006-07 and the TDR in question has direct nexus with the two Slum Rehabilitation Projects undertaken by the assessee. The contention of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Chembur Trade Corporation (supra). In this case the assessee has offered the TDR amount in the A.Y. 2008-09 when the projects were completed. We, accordingly, allow the contention of the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. with a direction to verify whether the assessee has offered sale consideration of TDR in question in the A.Y. 2008-09. If the assessee has offered so, then the same should not be taxed in the A.Y. 2006-07. Needless to say the A.O. should give opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 819 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ound of appeal No. 4 taken by the assessee. 4. An inadvertent mistake apparent from record, as such, has crept into our order(supra). 5. Accordingly, our order dated 31.08.2010(supra) is hereby recalled. The appeal shall now be heard on the merits of Ground No. 4, the submissions made by the assessee and the case law cited. To come up for hearing on 5.7.2012, a date announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties. Since the date has been announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties, no fresh notice shall issue. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 818 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... High Court in the case of CIT vs. GP International Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 86, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing that “the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid liability of the assessee cannot be said to have ceased to exist and the provisions of section 41(1) and Explanation to this provision are not applicable, because the assessee is still showing it as a liability in its books and has not written off the same.” In the present case also, the facts are similar and therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of GP International Ltd. (supra), we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. This ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 7 In the result, ITA No.2920/Ahd/2011 is allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.2921/Ahd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the court today on 20-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 817 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ore him are cancelled. 13. So far as ITA No.147/M/2012 and 48/M/2012, there are one more strong reason to cancel all the assessments u/s.143 r.w.s.147. In both these assessment orders the A.O. initiated the proceedings u/s.147 beyond the period of the four years from the end of the respective assessment orders. In both these cases the additions made by the A.O. are ₹ 80,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively. As per the provisions of sec.149(1)(b,) the A.O. has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 beyond the period of four years only if the alleged escapement income is more than ₹ 1 lakh. Hence, otherwise also, in the above two cases, the notices were issued by the A.O. are bad in law and accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. I do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of all these cases. 14. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 27th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ADIT(IT) vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.99/Mum/2009. Vide this order dated 09-11- 2011, the Tribunal has held that consideration for live broadcasting does not fall u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act and hence there is no question of deduction of tax at source. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are mutatis mutandis similar to those considered and decided by the Tribunal in the aforenoted case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The impugned order, being in conformity with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra), does not require any interference. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 17th day of April, 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 815 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... annexed any evidence indicating true state of affairs of his business, along with the return of income. The assessee is showing cash in hand, in the vicinity of 6-7 lakhs, as carry forward from Assessment Year 2002-03 to 2004-05, which was neither used by the assessee nor it was deposited, in the saving bank account. In view of this, explanation filed by the assessee, in respect of such cash in hand, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which are founded merely on the acceptance of the assessee’s self-created version of availability of cash, is not factually and legally tenable. Therefore, the findings given by the Assessing Officer, in the matter are upheld. 28. Ground Nos. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are general, in nature, and, hence, need no separate adjudication. Hence, the same are dismissed. 29. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1355/Chd/2010 is adjudicated, in the terms indicated above. Order Pronounced on 17 .04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 813 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... interest income in return as taxable on fixed deposit with bank however, it was admitted that no outsider had provided the services of the company but the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee whether any outsider is getting services or not from non-members, has to be taxed accordingly after giving full opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the A.O. and give all the evidences as required by the A.O. for his satisfaction. The revenue appeal on allowance of depreciation by the CIT(A) has no bearing as the principle of mutuality has been accepted by this Court. The other grounds of appeal of the assessee like deduction u/s 80 IA, disallowance under head operating expenses and carry forward loss of earlier year has no meaning when principle of mutuality has been held in favour of the appellant. 20. In the result, the appeals are set aside and disposed of for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 809 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... 000/- whereas the non filing of the evidence same was relatable to the reasoning of not locatable in the office. “ 19. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the materials available on record. Both the authorities below have categorically stated that no Certificate / evidence of payment to Red Cross qualifying for 100% deduction was brought on record. At this stage also, the assessee has not submitted any application under Rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962 for production of additional evidence of payment of Rs. 30,000/- to Red Cross qualifying for 100% deduction. In fact, the assessee failed to discharge the burden that lay on it under the Law. In the absence of any supporting evidence, the claim made by the assessee cannot be allowed. Consequently, we reject the ground of the assessee. 20. In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 11th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 807 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o. 2 that the date of issuance of certificate has not been mentioned in paragraph 17 as the certificate has not been issued. He, however, undertakes to issue the aforesaid certificate within a week. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the submissions made by them in paragraphs 16 and 17 of their additional parawise reply and in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction that a certificate of deduction of a sum of Rs.4,42,99.095 shall be issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 within a week on the basis of which the petitioner would be at liberty to take up further proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law, including filing of an application for refund of the excess amount withheld by the respondent No. 2. With the aforesaid directions/liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
-
2012 (4) TMI 806 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsent Terms are taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. The Consent Terms are signed by the Partner of the Plaintiff, Partner of the Defendant and also by the Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Advocate for the Defendant. The undertakings recorded in the Consent Terms are accepted. The suit is disposed of in terms of the Consent Terms.
-
2012 (4) TMI 805 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ny good and justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of the ld.CIT(A). It is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 7. The only other ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is directed against the deletion of Rs. 1,04,85,088/- which was disallowed by invoking the provisions of section 43B of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) deleted this disallowance by observing that interest in question was payable to an institution which is not covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The ld.CIT/DR could not bring any material before us to show that interest in question was payable to an institution which was covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. Moreover, as we have already found that reopening of assessment in the instant case was bad in law, we do not find any force in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20-04-2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 804 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before the passing of the original assessment order. Further, it is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner had suppressed certain material facts, due to which the original assessment order, passed by the respondent is liable to be re-assessed. In such circumstances, in the absence of the failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment year under consideration, the assumption of jurisdiction, by the respondent, under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the expiry of four years, from the end of the relevant assessment year, is illegal and invalid. Accordingly, the proceedings, under section 147 of the Act, which had been initiated by the issuance of the impugned notice, under section 148 of the Act, cannot be sustained. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 803 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by an assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. According to us, the operative words which require interpretation are “income which does not form part of the total income.” Having considered this matter, we are of the view that the provision speaks of positive exclusion of the income from the total income and not theoretical exclusion of the income from the total income by deeming that gross total income is a positive figure. In this case, gross total income results into loss and therefore, the dividend income does not get excluded from the total income, which has to be computed after allowing deductions under chapter VI A from the gross total income. In the light of this discussion, Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded on right lines and therefore we do not find any necessity to interfere with his order. 4.4 Thus ground No. 3 is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 802 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 84 (SC). Therefore, while “attributable to” as used in some other sections of the Act, may cover sources of income beyond the first degree, “derived from” as used in section 80-IB of the Act is not intended to cover sources beyond the first degree. It is keeping this distinction in mind that it must be held that transport subsidy and interest subsidy cannot be said to be “derived from” the industrial undertaking of the assessee. At best, it can only be ancillary to the profits and gains relatable to or “attributable to” the business of the industrial undertaking and not in the category of profits and gains “derived from” its industrial activity.” Respectfully following the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 13. Order pronounced in the open court.
........
|
