|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 918 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... ch the same is liable to be quashed being passed after the statutory time limit and ultimately, the departmental representative stated before the Tribunal that the matter may be decided in the light of the facts on record of the case. While dismissing the appeal of the Revenue, the Tribunal has given a catogoric finding that no evidence has been adduced by the Department to show that the impugned order dated 26.03.2004 passed by the Assessing Officer was indeed passed before the statutory time limit”. 6.1. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the assessment is barred by limitation and this issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed and the assessment is quashed. Therefore, we need not to go into the issues of appeal since we have already adjudicated the limitation issue holding that the assessment is barred by limitation. 7. In the result , the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29t h day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 887
... ...
... ... ..... a the present petitioners is quashed. However, it is clarified that the complaint shall proceed against the Company and against other Directors especially Santilal Mehta who being Director of the company had issued the cheque. Needless to say that the Company or Santilala Meheta if they have any other arguments in their favour, they can take recourse to the lawful remedy available to them. 13. At this stage, counsel for the complainant has stated that since the proceedings are pending since long, the Trial Court be directed to conclude the trial within a specified time. 14. The prayer made by the counsel for the complainant is accepted. Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. 15. With the above observations, the instant revision petition along with the applications being CRAN 2028 of 2012 and CRAN 652 of 2012 stand disposed of. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
-
2012 (6) TMI 886
... ...
... ... ..... d directly abroad it cannot be held to have been received by or on behalf of the agent in India. Such payments were therefore held to be not taxable in India. Further, CBDT, vide Circular No. 786 dated 07-02-2000 has also directed that no tax is required to be deducted in respect of payment of commission to Non-residents. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A).” 4. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal as it is not the case of the Department that the assessee has filed no evidence with regard to payment made tot he non-resident agents/parties and in view of the CBDT's Circulars of the year 1996 and 2000, no tax was required to be paid nor any TDS was required to be deducted. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. This Tax Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence and the limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. However, we are of the view that if the delay is condoned, at best, the appeal would be decided on merit after hearing the parties. Providing adequate opportunity of hearing is the basic right of the litigants, therefore, without going into much deliberation and the cases relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we condone the delay and restore this file to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit and in accordance with law, after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, to substantiate its claim. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 13th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 884
... ...
... ... ..... such evidence at this stage. The CIT(A) should have remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper examination of all such material on the basis of which relief is given and which is not, without good reasons, produced before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of the justice, therefore, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in the light of the material so produced. The assessee is also at liberty to provide such other material, and give such explanation as he may deem fit. It is, however, limited to the issue in Revenue’s appeal. 10. With these directions, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes for the limited purpose. 11 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes for limited purpose, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the Open Court on the day of hearing itself i.e. 25.06.2013.
-
2012 (6) TMI 883
... ...
... ... ..... only a payment to Life Insurance Corporation of India is exempt and not the payment to General Insurance Company. In view of the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) and this ground of appeal is rejected. 15. As regards ground No.5, the learned DR raised objection that assessee has not raised this ground before the CIT(A) on this issue and, therefore, it cannot be entertained at this stage. The learned counsel for the assessee has also agreed that the assessee has not raised this ground before the CIT(A). In view of the same, ground No.5 is rejected as not maintainable. 16. As regards the additional grounds raised by the assessee relating to charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act, we find that they are consequential in nature and, therefore, the AO is directed to give consequential relief to the assessee. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... ed counsel for the parties submit that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties present suit may be decreed in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 17.5.2012, marked as Exhibit C-1. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and also perused the application and the Deed of Settlement, marked as Exhibit C-1. The terms of settlement are lawful. Accordingly present application is allowed. As prayed, suit stands decreed in terms of Deed of Settlement dated 17.5.2012, marked as Exhibit C-1, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. 7. Having regard to the fact that that the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement before framing of issues, court fee shall be refunded to the plaintiff in terms of Section 16A of the Court Fee Act, as prayed. 8. Application stands disposed of. I.A.16835/2011 (O 37 R 3) and I.A.6313/2012 (Leave to defend) 9. Applications stand disposed of in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
-
2012 (6) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... nufacturer is to file a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in support of their claim regarding reversal of credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The Appellant submitted that they had already applied to the Commissioner of Central Excise in view of the retrospective amending provisions. In these circumstances, the impugned Orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to concerned Commissioners of Central Excise to decide the issue of reversal in view of the retrospective amending provisions. The Appeals are disposed of, as indicated above.” It is clear from the above that the issue involved in the present case is similar to the aforesaid order dated 8.11.2010. In these circumstances, we remand the case to the ld. Commissioner to decide the case afresh on the same line. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to the appellants. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (6) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... d in 2011-TII-27-ITAT-DEL-NRI as under - "We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the record We find is undisputed that the assessee is NRI and he has received income from foreign company for the services rendered outside India. Just merely because he has instructed the salary to be transferred to his FCNR a/c maintained with HSBC bank, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi can not bring the amount to taxation under Indian Income Tax Act. This view is clearly supported by the tribunal's decision as above. Hence, respectfully following the precedent as above, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and also ITAT decisions, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the revenue’s appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 28th day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 879
... ...
... ... ..... navision Limited (2004) 267 ITR 600 (Mad) was also considered. And finally concluded that under the scheme of the excise duty, the assessee incurs liability to pay excise duty only upon both the events taking place, namely manufacture of excisable goods and removal of excisable goods; excise duty is not therefore includible in the valuation of closing stock. We find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, this common issue in the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed.” Since the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in ACIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Limited (2010) 233 CTR 265 (Guj.), therefore, in our opinion, no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in these two tax appeals for the consideration of this Court. Both the Tax Appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 878
... ...
... ... ..... t the expenditure incurred by the assessee is recurring in nature and hence the same may be allowed. I also heard the Ld. D.R. 13. Assessee has filed copy of the statement of accounts, more particularly the P & L Account (page 58 of the compilation). I find that assessee has claimed expenditure towards business promotion expenditure, conveyance, labour charges, maintenance expenses, professional tax, etc. The AO has already allowed the audit fees and bank charges accepting that some expenditure is required even no business activity. I find that except the business promotion expenses of ₹ 8,646/- the other expenses are minimum required for maintaining the business premises. I, therefore, direct the AO to allow the expenditure claimed by the assessee except business promotion expenditure of ₹ 8,646/-. In the result, ground No. 3 is partly allowed. 14. In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 877
Rejection of books of accounts - section 145 applicability - Held that:- No dispute to the fact that the assessee was not maintaining stock register. The vouchers, most of them which are self made. Wages registers were not produced. Therefore, submissions of the assessee, Mr. P.N. Arora are that whatever details required by the AO have been produced before the AO and no defect in the same has been pointed out, can not help the assessee, since the facts remained that the assessee has not maintained stock register. The assessee has not produced wages register and have maintained the payment vouchers which are without any receipts and are self made vouchers. In such facts and circumstances of the case, the results declared by the assessee are not reliable and the books of account cannot be said to be complete and correct and correct income cannot be deduced from such books of account. No infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly invoked the provisions of section 145(3)
-
2012 (6) TMI 876
... ...
... ... ..... rning to the facts of the present case, nothing has been brought on record except surplus generated during financial years 2006-07 to 2008-09 that the assessee was ever engaged in the activities other than educational or the objects of the society. Since it has been repeatedly held by various High Courts and different Benches of the Tribunal that mere generation of surplus/profit in a particular year cannot be a ground for denial of registration under section 12AA of the Act and also grant of approval for exemption under section 80G of the Act, denial of registration under section 12A of the Act and refusal of grant of approval under section 80G(5) of the Act by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax is not proper and we therefore set aside the orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax and direct him to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act and approval under section 80G(5) of the Act to the assessee-society. 18. In the result, appeals of the assessee stand allowed
-
2012 (6) TMI 875
... ...
... ... ..... n. 5. We have perused the rejection order, submission made by ld. A.R. for the assessee, arguments of both the sides and gone through the details of the expenses. It appears from the details that partly expenses are for special sect of the Jain community but some of the heads of the expenditure shows that they provide education to the poor and including the expenditure on treatment of animals and birds and also providing food for the poor. Therefore, DIT (Exm.) is directed to verify these items whether these were incurred for other community or public at large and decide the matter accordingly. If the expenditure under above heads are found to incur on public at large then it is a case of religious as well as charitable Trust which has mixed object. Accordingly, grant registration u/s 12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the IT Act. 6. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (6) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... gal 2 ITA No.4144/Mum/2011 M/s.Stratcap Securities (India) Private Limited. issue, we are of the considered opinion that the same is liable to be decided at the very first instance. 3. As the learned CIT(A) has not decided this aspect of the matter and further there is no such discussion in the penalty order by the A.O. as well, we are of the considered opinion that it will be in the interest of justice if the matter is restored to the file of A.O. for deciding the question of limitation as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In other words, if the assessee succeeds in satisfying the A.O. that the penalty order passed by him was time barred, the order would itself be a nullity. If however the order is found to have been passed within the stipulated time then the Assessing Officer will decide the question of penalty afresh. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 06th day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... n New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India(1995) 1 SCC 478 with this Court again emphasising the need to allow for certain flexibility in administrative decision-making, observing that the decision can be challenged only on the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, i.e., unless the decision is so unreasonable that no sensible person would have arrived at such a decision, it should not be upset. In Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 405 this Court once again observed that if a reasonable procedure has been followed, the decision should not be challenged except on the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness.” In view of above law and facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. The appellant will be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
-
2012 (6) TMI 872
... ...
... ... ..... of principles of natural justice. This Tribunal has been consistently holding that the best way to prove circular/synchronised trades is to have a look at the order/trade logs. In the absence of copies of order/trade logs, the appellant has been denied a chance of proper defence. We have no hesitation in holding that the appeal must succeed even on the ground that while holding enquiry against the appellant, the Board has not followed the principles of natural justice by not providing it with copies of the order/trade logs and denying it copy of submissions made by Ms. Indumati Goda and an opportunity to cross-examine her. For the reasons stated above we are of the considered view that the whole time member of the Board has failed to bring home the charge against the appellant of violating regulation 4 of the FUTP regulations and the code of conduct under the stockbrokers regulations. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 869
Additions u/s 153A/153B - In the light of the order passed u/s 263 dated 29.03.2011, the original assessments made under section 153A and 153B stand cancelled - Held that:- Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case we are of the view that the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai deserves to be set aside. As declared in the open court, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and direct him to reconsider the matter both on technical aspect as well as on merits of the additions so as to protect the interests of the assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... transactions of August 28, 2009 also. In short, the order cannot be sustained for the reasons that there is no finding recorded by the adjudicating officer that the information with regard to bagging of award from the Government of Arunachal Pradesh was a price sensitive information; the contracts relating to Arunachal Pradesh government were only to the tune of ₹ 79 crore and not ₹ 172 crores and the tradings of the appellants on August 28, 2009 have also been taken into account which were after the date of publication of the information and were also not a subject matter of the show-cause notice. Since we are holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the bagging of contracts by the company from the Arunachal Pradesh Government was not price sensitive information, the charge against appellant in Appeal no. 218 of 2011 also fails. In view of the foregoing discussions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 867
... ...
... ... ..... n. The learned Official Liquidator has informed the Court that he has no objection if the application stands allowed. In view thereof, the Company Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 2. Company Application is accordingly disposed of.
........
|
