|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 865 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 710 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of SEBI was under challenge in assessment year 2005-06 and, therefore, business of the assessee was in existence in the relevant year. The facts in this year are identical. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 2005-06 (supra) we hold that business of the assessee was in existence and expenses have to be allowed. As regards professional expenses for allowing income tax and corporate law matters, it is required to be verified whether the same related to only this year. This limited issue is restored to AO for fresh order after necessary examination and after allowing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. o p /o p 6. The fifth dispute is regarding levy of interest under section 234B. o p /o p This is only consequential. The AO will re-compute the interest at the time of giving effect to his order. o p /o p 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 18.5.2012. o p /o p
-
2012 (5) TMI 709 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lar books of account and the same were audited u/s. 44AB and audit report was filed along with the ROI. However it is seen that the net profit admitted by the appellant is less than 4 . The Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Singhal and Bros. by order no 7253/MUM/2004 for A. Y. 2001-02 dated 24.07007 upheld the estimation of income at 5 of the gross turnover. I find that addition of another ₹ 2,80,000/- would take the net profit almost to 5 . in this circumstances, I confirm the addition of ₹ 2,80,000/- instead of ₹ 4,,74,750/- in the assessment order.” 9.1 We find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has taken a just and proper view in estimating the income at 5 of the turnover. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same is upheld. 10 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th, day of May 2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 708 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be equated to interest - free advances so as to require the same to be decided in terms of Section 36(1) (iii) of the Act. In this regard, the CIT (Appeals) has categorically held that the Punjab Government and FCI are trade debtors and incomes thereof have been offered for taxation in the earlier assessment years. In the face of such a fact situation, we find no justification for the Assessing Officer to make any disallowance out of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of impugned debits. Hence, in this background, where by affirm the order of the CIT(Appeals). Thus, Ground Nos. 3 & 4 raised are dismissed.” 10. The facts of the present year are similar to that of assessment year 2006-07. Respect fully following the order of the Tribunal passed in assessee’s case for assessment year 2006-07 (supra), we do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 11. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 707 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... essee mistakes a claim which is not sustainable in law, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.” 8. In the present case before us, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer may give rise to suspicion sufficient to make the addition for the purpose of assessment but not sufficient enough to justify levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer should show that the plea of the assessee is false or that the assessee has committed some fraud or gross wilful negligence on his part to bring about concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of his income. Penalty cannot be imposed on the ground that the assessee has accepted the addition in quantum appeal for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, penalty levied is hereby deleted in both the years under consideration. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 706 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... tion by holding that the provisions of Section 194C of the act were not attracted on the payment so made to various advertising agencies. This view of the ld. CIT (A) is in conformity with the clarification issued by the CBDT, New Delhi, vide circular No. 452, dated 17.03.1986 and the decision of Hon’ble ITAt Bangalore Bench in the case of Sands Advertising Communictions(P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS) (2010) 37 SOT 179 (Bang.). 10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable to the assessee as the assessee was not required to deduct tax under Section 194C on payments made to advertising agencies. Therefore, the order passed by ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 29,78,272/- does not require any interference on our part and the same is hereby upheld. 11. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (5) TMI 705 - ITAT MUMBAI
Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) - Held that:- It becomes apparent that the rateable value of the property in the instant case be considered for determining the ALV of the property, as has been accepted by the AO himself in the succeeding year. The further contention raised by the assessee that deduction should be allowed towards municipal taxes is not acceptable in view of the reason that such taxes were paid by the tenant and not the assessee. We, therefore, modify the impugned order to this extent.
Determination of ALV - Held that:- For the immediately preceding assessment year 2004-05 we have held that the ALV of the property be taken at ₹ 11,13,700/- without deduction of any municipal taxes which were borne by the tenant and not the assessee. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Denial of deduction towards education cess - Held that:- Education cess is nothing but additional surcharge. Since such surcharge or education cess is part of tax, the same, in our considered opinion, cannot be allowed as deduction. Such amount clearly constitutes part of tax which falls within sec. 40(a)(ii). We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score.
Disallowance u/s.14A - Held that:- We are unable to find any reason for interfering with the impugned order on this issue because the ld. CIT(A) has directed the AO to follow the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ) on some reasonable basis. We uphold the impugned order but clarify that in no case the disallowance to be made by the AO pursuant to the order of ld. CIT(A) should exceed the original disallowance made by him. This ground is, therefore, disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 704 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... as mentioned above. Accordingly, he added the amount of ₹ 1,05,02,075 on account of disallowance of loss claimed by the assessee on account of confiscation of stock. The reasons for initiating penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) r/w Expln. 1 was stated as disallowance of assessee's above claim of loss in the year under consideration. The claim of loss has been allowed by us in ITA No. 1382/Pn/203 which is part of this order itself. Same is not being repeated for sake of brevity. Thus assessee gets relief on quantum which is the basis for penalty in question. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, penalty levied by the AO is not justified. Accordingly, order of CIT(A) deleting penalty gets strength from an order in quantum that the AO was not justified in levying penalty under the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as indicated above.
-
2012 (5) TMI 703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orum. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner may be very well considered by the appellate forum while deciding the appeal in pursuance to order passed by this court. Subject to above, the review petition is dismissed. The petitioner may prefer an appeal in terms of the impugned order within a period of one month.
-
2012 (5) TMI 702 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... account, is ‘Nil’. It is, further, observed by the CIT(A), that assessee had not passed any book entry - only debtor balance, on account of sale, has been reflected. Consequently, having regard to the relevant records, the CIT(A) recorded a finding, that it is not a case of unrecorded investment, but represents only book adjustment. It was, further, observed by the CIT(A), that there being no impact of assets and liabilities on assessee, and M/s Swarna Industries Ltd., the impugned addition was deleted by the CIT(A). We, do not find, any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A), having regard to the factual matrix of the issue in question. Therefore, ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 27. Ground Nos. 1, 3 & 4 are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. Therefore, the same are dismissed. 28. In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No. 264/Chd/2010) is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue (ITA No. 411/Chd/2010) is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 701 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a Ltd (226 CTR 226) wherein it has been held that income of the 10A unit should be removed at the source itself and not after computing the Total income. Hence the income eligible for exemption u/s 10A would not enter into computation as the same has to be deducted at the source level. Therefore the loss of a non 10A unit cannot be set off against the income of the 10A unit. 5. The Special bench of the Chennai Tribunal has come to the same conclusion in the case of Scientific Atlanta Indi technology P Ltd v ACIT (129 TTJ 273 Chennai9 SB). Further when the CIT rendered his decision the decision of the Chennai Special bench was available. This would show that there was more than one view possible and hence the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 (Malabar Industrial Co Ltd v CIT 243 ITR 83 SC). 6. In this view of the matter, we hold that both in the matter of jurisdiction as well as on merits the Assessee succeeds. 7. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... involved is transit loss in the case of goods cleared for export. In this case the goods have been cleared which were stored in the warehouse and thereafter exported, and in terms of Section 35, sub-section (1) proviso (A), where the loss occurs in transit from the factory to warehouse, no appeal shall lie to appellate Tribunal, against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944. I find that the issue involved is covered by the proviso and therefore, both the appeals are not maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the appeals are rejected as not maintainable. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (5) TMI 699 - ITAT HYDERABAD
N.P. estimation - Held that:- Estimation of net profit above 5% of the purchases made by the assessee is to be adopted, we direct the AO to estimate net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. The order of the CIT(A), to this extent, is modified accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 698 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e, which will warrant an inference that ₹ 2/- being collected for the sinking fund for replacement of asset is a revenue receipt. 6.1 Thus, we find that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that ₹ 2 sq.ft. received by the assessee is also a revenue receipt and is a part of total maintenance receipt. Accordingly, we hold that ₹ 3549091/- collected during the year being sinking fund contribution is a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed as revenue receipt. The expenditure of ₹ 40,88,455/- incurred for replacement of Air conditioners of the building owners has to be adjusted from the sinking fund and the same cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. Thus, we hold that an amount of ₹ 35,49091/- received towards sinking fund for replacement of assets is a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/5/2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 697 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... clauses, the proviso did not apply. The ginning and pressing was part of the integral process of marketing. It was an activity incidental or ancillary to the marketing of the produce of its members. In the present case, the members of the society had decided to convert green leaves into black tea powder and sell in the market in auction. In our considered opinion, clause (v) of section 80P(2)(a) of the Act has no application to the assessee’s case. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the present case in hand and in view of the above cited decisions of various courts, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has rightly decided the issue and we find no infirmity in the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax. Hence the grounds raised by the Revenue in all the appeals are dismissed 14. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 25th of May, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 696 - SUPREME COURT
Detention of appellant vessel - Held that:- Having regard to the above, we dispose of the present Appeal by the following order :-
(1) Subject to the compliances by the appellants as noted below, the Government of Kerala and its authorities shall allow the first appellant vessel to commence her voyage :-
(a) The Master of the first appellant vessel, the Managing Director of the owner of the first appellant vessel and the Managing Director of the shipping agent, namely, James Mackintosh & Co. Pvt. Ltd shall furnish their undertakings to the satisfaction of the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court that six crew members, namely, Vitelli Umberto (Master), Noviello Carlo (Master SN), James Mandley Samson (Chief Officer), Sahil Gupta (2nd Officer), Fulbaria (Seaman) and Tirumala Rao (Ordinary Sea Man), on receipt of summons/notice from any court or by Investigating Officer or lawful authority shall present themselves within five weeks from the date of the receipt of such summons/notice and shall produce the first appellant vessel, if required by any court or the Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority, within seven weeks from the receipt of such summons/notice.
(b) The second appellant shall execute a bond in the sum of Rupees Three Crores before the Registrar General of the Kerala High Court for production of the first appellant vessel and securing the presence of the above six crew members as and when called upon by any court or the Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority.
(2) The assurance given by the Republic of Italy that if the presence of the four Marines, namely, Voglino Renato (Seargeant), Andronico Massimo (1st Corporal), Fontano Antonio (3rd Corporal) and Conte Alessandro (Corporal), is required by any court or lawful authority or Investigating Officer, the Republic of Italy shall ensure their presence before such court or lawful authority or Investigating Officer is accepted. Such assurance shall, however, not affect the right of the above four Marines to challenge such summons/notice issued by any court or Investigating Officer or any other lawful authority before a competent court in India.
-
2012 (5) TMI 695 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... re, respectfully following the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, dated 16.12.2011, the present appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed. 8. As regards the other issue raised by the ld. counsel for the assessee regarding challenging the vires of the levy of Wealth Tax on agricultural land, as stood contemplated under section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction/power to adjudicate regarding vires of levy of Wealth Tax on agricultural land, as stated by the assessee in ground No.3. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case explained above, we are of the view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the ld. first appellate authority on the issues in dispute raised by the assessees in the present appeals. Therefore, the present appeals are dismissed. 10. In the result, all the fifteen appeals of the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 694 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lete the addition of ₹ 1,43,325/-. On the second issue of notional income in respect of property located at Mahalaxmi Market, Navi Mumbai. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the CIT vs. Rabindranath Bhol (Ori) (1995) 211 ITR 299, in which on identical facts, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has held that the income from the house property owned by the assessee’s partner and used in the business carried out in the partnership firm in which the assessee is a partner would qualify for the exemption provided u/s.22(2). We find that the facts of the present appeal are identical with the facts in as much as in the present appeal also the property of the assessee is being used by the firm in which the as assessee is also a partner. Respectfully, following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the addition of ₹ 1,68,000/- is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 693 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... losed bank accounts while assigning the peak credit the proper method is to make a consolidated fund flow statement by taking into account of all the undisclosed bank accounts and after setting off contra entries, if any, and then the peak credit of these consolidated bank transactions should be taken as undisclosed income of assessee. The assessee also has taken in his grounds the same. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have accepted the consolidated peak of all the bank accounts taken together as undisclosed income of assessee instead of aggregate of the separate peak of the individual bank accounts. We accept the contention of assessee and therefore we set aside the orders of ld.CIT(A) to the file of AO to arrive the peak credit of the consolidated bank accounts to be taken together and after making adjustments of the contra entries. 6. In the result the appeal of the revenue as well as assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT
Whether chargesheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings?
-
2012 (5) TMI 691 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deduction was claimed u/s 80-I - Held that:- There is an apparent mistake in the impugned Tribunal order because the same appears to be not in line with the subsequent judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court in the present case, rendered in the case of Gujarat Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (2012 (3) TMI 267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). In our considered opinion, the tribunal order on this aspect should be recalled and the matter should be decided afresh after hearing both the sides.
............
|
