|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 770 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 610 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n dispute that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and the process of manufacturing was complete. The dispute with regard to whether it was done within the distillery or not. But there is no evidence to show that the mixing is done outside the distillery. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant failed to show that the manufacturing process was outside the distillery and in fact in the original assessment it is stated that the toxin was mixed up with Ethyl Alcohol in the tanker and in the process of transportation it has become Denatured Ethyl Alcohol. Hence it is shown that Denatured Ethyl Alcohol is manufactured, as such the said manufactured product is exempted under the Cenvat Scheme, which benefit has been availed by the assessee and said practice was accepted by the authority and the benefit had been extended. We do not find any error in the order of Appellate Tribunal. Hence there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery of interest - time limit - Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - jurisdiction -
-
2012 (4) TMI 608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P. (MD) No. 6366 and 6367 of 2003. 4. Counter affidavit is filed refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. 5. Heard both sides. 6. It is not in dispute that though the respondent Department has filed the writ appeal against the order of this Court dated 14-9-2009 in W.P. (MD) No. 6366 and 6367 of 2003, even as on today, the same is in S.R. stage and the writ appeal is yet to be numbered and there is no stay of the order of this Court referred to above. 7. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned show cause notice is contrary to the order of this Court dated 14-9-2009 in W.P. (MD) No. 6366 and 6367 of 2003. 8. Hence, the impugned show cause notice is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. It is needless to state that if the respondent department is successful in writ appeal, they could very well proceed in accordance with the order of the Division Bench. No. costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 607 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... xamination by the AO it is found that the amounts which were claimed as expenditure and disallowed by the AO invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) had been actually paid during the previous year without deduction of TDS and did not remain payable as on the 31st day of March of the previous year, then no disallowance could be made by the revenue authorities. We therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the issue raised by the assessee before us to the AO for consideration in the light of the decision of the Special Bench referred to above. In view of the above we do not wish to go into the other submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding the justification for the impugned addition made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 25th day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 606 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made on the foundation of estimated high NP rate of 12% as against shown by the assessee at 10% - Held that:- A bare reading to the provisions of section 271(1) (c) of the Act exclude cases like that the present one from its purview. Therefore, there is hardly any need to seek support of judicial verdicts, in such cases. The case laws relied upon by the assessee have been rejected by the CIT(A), in a single stroke, without demonstrating how the same are not applicable to the facts of the assessee’s case. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the Revenue Authorities failed, to bring on record any judicial verdict, to support their conclusion. In view of the above facts, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Harigopal Singh vs CIT (2002 (8) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court) whereby it has been categorically held that penalty cannot be levied when income has been estimated. Having regard to the above legal and factual discussion, the order of CIT(A), upholding the levy of penalty, is set aside. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 605 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance of depreciation claimed as a part of utilization for impugned assessment year by assessee trust - Held that:- We set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that assessee’s claim with regard to depreciation while computing its exemption under Section 11 of the Act, be allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 604 - ITAT MUMBAI
Whether the consideration paid by the assessee to Set Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., for acquiring the non-exclusive rights to distribute SET and SETMAX Channels is in the nature of Royalty taxable @ 15% on gross basis under Article 12 of the India-Singapore Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or is business profits? - Held that:- t Broadcasting Reproduction Right is not covered under the definition of Royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income tax Act as well as Article 12 of the Treaty.Accordingly, the payment is not in the nature of Royalty but in the nature of business income.
No infirmity in the order of ld CIT(A) that consideration paid by the assessee to the non-resident company for acquiring nonexclusive right to distribute TV channels is not in the nature of Royalty but in the nature of business income and hence, it was not subject to withholding tax. Accordingly, we uphold his order by dismissing the grounds taken by the department.
-
2012 (4) TMI 603 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... de by the assessee and received by M/s. Swen Television Ltd. have been verified from both the ends. There is no discrepancy found in this matter. The verification has also led to the fact that the payments include service tax and tax deduction at source. M/s. Swen Television Ltd. has offered the receipt for taxation in its return of income. In these circumstances, we are of the view that disallowing the expenditure on grounds of lack of rate card , TRP rating and sample agreement of M/s. Swen Television Ltd. with its client is not justified. Thus, we are in agreement with the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of expenditure incurred for advertising on Jhankar TV through advertisement agent, M/s. Swen Television Ltd. 6. The facts of assessment year 2007-08 are admittedly identical to the facts of asstt. year 2006-07. Therefore, the findings given in that year (supra) are made applicable to this year also. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 602 - ITAT CHENNAI
Foreign exchange fluctuation - Held that:- Loss suffered by an assessee on account of fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet is an item of expenditure under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- It is not in dispute that tax has been deducted at the applicable rates and the same has been remitted before due date of filing of the return. Sufficient compliance has been made after tax is remitted before the due date of filing of return.
Disallowance made under section 14A read with Rule 8D to 5% of dividend income earned - Held that:- CIT(A) after examining the facts of the case and submissions of the parties has rightly held that 5% of the dividend income would be reasonable expenditure to earn the dividend income of ` 2,13,19,656/- thereby restricting disallowance to ₹ 10,65,980/-. In view of our above findings, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of appeal as well.
-
2012 (4) TMI 600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lary service or not in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to hear the appeal on merits without any pre-deposit but subject to the assessee executing a bond and undertaking within a period of four weeks from today to the effect that the assessee would pay the tax and penalty if confirmed by the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of such order of the Tribunal, unless the said order of the Tribunal is stayed by the higher authority. 11. In the result, the impugned order dated 9th September, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal filed by the assessee on merit without any pre-deposit but on executing bond and undertaking as stated hereinabove. The Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein as they are only prima facie observations. 12. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 599 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of U.P. and are not sold within the State. The said object would only be defeated, if the goods on entering or not taken out of the State. The goods upto the stage they reached Kanpur were intact in the vehicle and the time of their exit from U.P. had not expired and in the absence of any material to substantively demonstrate that they were likely to be sold in U.P. it cannot be said that they were likely to be sold within the State in attempt to evade tax. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position as narrated above, I am of the opinion that as the goods in question were duly accompanied by the relevant documents and there was no defect in following the procedure prescribed, no presumption could have arisen to the effect that the goods were meant for sale within the State of U.P. and as such open to seizure. In view of above, the impugned seizure order dated 21.12.2011 is set aside and the goods are directed to be released for. Revision allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 598 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , Ernakulam to dispose of Ext.P6 petition dated 27.2.12 and dispose of the appeal pending before him early and to direct the respondents not to treat the petitioner as an assessee in default till then." 2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Income-tax Department also. 3. I am of opinion that insofar as the petitioner has a remedy by way of filing a stay petition in the appeal pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner should seek that remedy first. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions The petitioner shall file an application for stay before the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2 appeal within one week from today. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the same as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of the application. Till orders are thus passed, coercive recovery of the balance tax as per Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
-
2012 (4) TMI 597 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e basis of record available. Hence we reject this ground. 24. Consequently, ITA No.5728/M/2007 filed by the revenue also stands dismissed. ITA NO. 4347/M/2008 (AY 2003-04) ITA NO.4136/M/2009 (AY 2004-05) 25. Both the learned representatives have made a fair statement that ground nos. 2 & 3 in ITA No.4347/M/2008 as well as ground nos. 3 & 4 in ITA No.4136/M/2009 are general in nature. Ground No.1 in ITA No. 4347/M/2008 and Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in ITA No. 4136/M/2009 relate to the very same issue i.e., amortized expenditure u/s 35D of the Act. They have also stated that the finding on this very issue in ITA No. 5728/M/2007 (Ground No.1) would also cover the issue involved in these appeals. Since, in above said appeal i.e., in ITA No. 5728/M/2007 we have decided the ground sec. 35D in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, therefore, the instant appeals filed by the revenue are also dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 596 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... l and the learned AR. Considering the nature of service and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd. reported in 2010 (20) STR 577 (Bom.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the assessee is entitled to take input service credit on the services availed by the assessee in the course of their business of manufacturing. We hold that the appellant is entitled for input service credit on the services mentioned hereinabove in their business of manufacturing. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal after waiving pre-deposit. The stay application and the appeal stand disposed of accordingly. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (4) TMI 595 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ting material available against the assessee, which were found during the course of search to show that the assessee earned undisclosed income during the block period. Since the entire seized material was considered on substantive basis in the case of the person searched, therefore, the AO would not have any occasion to have satisfied himself to initiate proceedings u/s. 158BD against the assessee firm. Since, it is a departmental appeal and no material is produced before us to contradict the findings of the ld. CIT(A) through any material, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The decision cited by the ld. DR would be distinguishable on the facts of the case because in that case, requisite satisfaction had been recorded by the AO. In the result, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 594 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Jurisdiction to frame assessment u/s 158BC - Held that:- The Director of Income-tax (Inv.) Chandigarh, issued Warrant of Authorization, dated 22.05.2002, u/s 132(1) of the Act in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur of M/s Lada Liquors Ltd., H.No. 694, Sector 8, Chandigarh. The said authorization was executed on 23.05.2002.
The AO framed Block Assessment order u/s 158BC of the Act, on 22.08.2005, in the status of 'individual' determining undisclosed income at ₹ 9,02,13,220/- for the block period commencing from 1.4.1996 to 23.5.2005.
Another block assessment order was framed by the AO u/s 158BC on 22.8.2005 of the Act in the status of 'Individual', determining the undisclosed income of the same block period at ₹ 8,57,15,730/-. As no Warrant of Authorization u/s 132(1) of the Act was issued, in the name of Smt.Mohinder Kaur, L/H of Late Shri Taranjit Singh W/o Shri Taranjit Singh, block assessment cannot be framed u/s 158BC of the Act in such status. Hence, the impugned block assessment order is bad in law and without jurisdiction.
Revenue has also failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating the factum of recording of satisfaction within the meaning of Section 158BD r.w. Section 158BC of the Act.
In view of the above discussions, the impugned Block Assessment order, which is under challenge, in the C.O. in question, has been passed without jurisdiction.
-
2012 (4) TMI 593 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er, upon the evidence before it, the Tribunal has noted that the uses of the final product are distinct in respect of various industries. On this basis the Tribunal has entered two fold findings. Firstly, the raw material and end products have a different commercial connotation and use. A new and distinct product emerges during the course of the manufacturing process. Secondly, even if two views were possible, the CIT ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under section 263. The first conclusion of the Tribunal is based on the material on record and consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court which has been adverted to in the decision of the Tribunal. In any event, the impugned order of the Tribunal could also be sustained on the second finding, since recourse to the provisions of section 263 was not warranted. 5. For all these reasons, the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 592 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... management system which has been assessed as confirming to ISO 9001-2000 standards. I do not understand what led the AO to conclude that the certification brought any enduring advantage or creation of any capital asset. Validity of such a certificate for only 3 years shows that it does not bring any enduring advantage. The addition made of ₹ 29,500/- is, therefore, disallowed.” 28. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the revenue has raised Gr.No.6 before the Tribunal. We have heard the submission of the learned DR who relied on the order of the AO. We are of the view that the reasons given by the AO for treating the expenditure as capital cannot be sustained. The expenses results in immediate benefit to the Assessee and cannot be regarded as capital expenditure. We therefore uphold order of CIT(A) and dismiss Gr.No.6 raised by the Revenue. 29. In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 591 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stant Commissioner, Central Excise, dated 31-3-2005 is barred by time or not. 3. Admittedly the same is barred by time. Accordingly we do not see any error committed by CESTAT. In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 590 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... luded for levy of Service Tax. 3. This question is already covered by the Board Circular. The Tribunal relying on the Board Circular only has allowed the appeal. Therefore we do not see any question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
............
|
