|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1461 - ITAT CUTTACK
Whether penalty to be imposed in case of delayed filing of TDS Return - Held that:- assessee is a nationalized bank and committed a technical default by not filing e-TDS return in time - sec. 272A(2)(k) has been newly introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2005 and the Branch Manger was not known about these technical formalities - due to unawareness of knowledge, non-availability of parties PAN, pressure of banks accounting works, long absence of Branch Manager due to unhealthy condition return could not be filed on time - penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation as per the decision of Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 - [1969 (8) TMI 31] - Thus assessee has reasonable cause for non-filing the e-TDS return in time - also this is a technical breach of law and there is no loss to the revenue - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (10) TMI 1460 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... T Server. He, therefore, disallowed the excess depreciation by treating such computer peripherals as a normal item of plant and machinery. The ld. CIT (A) overturned the assessment order on this point. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record in the light of precedents cited before us. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Expeditors International (India) (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2008) 118 TTJ (Del) 652 has held that the peripherals such as printers, scanners, and NT Server etc., form an integral part of the computers and are hence eligible for depreciation of 60 as applicable to computers. Other decisions relied on by the ld. AR, including ITO vs. Samiran Majumdar (2006) 98 ITD 119 (Kol), also fortify the same view. The ld. DR could not point out any contrary decision. Respectfully following the precedents, we uphold the impugned order on this issue. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1459 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is held as eligible for claiming expenditure of ₹ 17,78,472/- out of the total expenditure of ₹ 19,84,915/- considering by the Assessing Officer as capital expenditure. Ground Nos. 4,5 and 6 are therefore partly allowed." 24. As can be seen from the nature of expenditure claimed and the finding recorded by the CIT (A), the expenditure were purely in the nature of repair and maintenance of existing assets. Neither any new asset has been brought into existence nor there is any enduring benefit to the assessee. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT (A) was perfectly justified in allowing the expenditure claimed as it is purely revenue in nature. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the CIT (A) in this regard which is accordingly upheld. 25. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed and appeal of the department stands dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1458 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e on the sale of the High Speed Diesel Oil to the retail vendors or the consumers. The Oil Marketing Companies not being the retail vendors or the consumers, sale of the High Speed Diesel Oil to the Oil Marketing Companies is not exigible to VAT. Thus, we are dealing with an article, the incidence of sale of which does not attract liability to pay VAT. In our opinion, the respondents are right in not allowing the Corporation the benefit of set off under the aforesaid second proviso to Section 3(2) of the 1993 Act in respect of sale of the Diesel to the Oil Marketing Companies on the premise that Corporation did not incur liability to pay VAT on such sale. The petition is devoid of any merit. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is dismissed. We clarify that we have not examined any other issue that may arise in respect of the impugned recovery and the notice of demand. Any such dispute may be raised in statutory appeal under the 2005 Act. Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.- I agree.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1457 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Points not decided by the Tribunal - Held that:- In our view, for entertaining the appeal, it will be required to have the findings of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the remedy for the appellant is to approach the Tribunal by way of appropriate application and request the Tribunal to give the findings on all the points which are raised and argued in the appeal. The appellant will approach the Tribunal within four weeks from today with such an application. If such an application is filed, the Tribunal will decide the same within four thereafter. If the application is not filed within the stipulated time, the appellant will not get the benefit of this order.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1456 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... on clearance sale”. It is pertinent to note that the AO did not consider the claim for deduction of “loss on clearance sale” in the assessment order. 14. Since the AO has not considered the revised return of income and further, since it goes to the root of matter, we are of the view that the entire issues urged before us needs fresh examination at the end of the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) on all issues and direct the assessing officer to do the assessment de-nova on the basis of revised return of income filed by the assessee, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Since we have quashed the order of Ld CIT(A) on the preliminary issue and since we have directed the AO to do the assessment de-nova, we do not find it necessary to adjudicate the grounds urged on merits. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 11-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1455 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... oks in order to present a true and fair view of its state of affairs. The parts which have not moved for more than one year and less than two years are written down by 50 and those which have not moved for more than two years are written down fully”. 17.1 After hearing both the sides, we find above ground is identical to ground of appeal No.1 in ITA No.351/PN/2009. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication with certain directions. Following the same ratio this ground by the assessee is also restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the light of the directions given therein. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.351/PN/2009 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA No.368/PN/2009 and ITA No.302/PN/2010 are dismissed and ITA No.1000/PN/2012 by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on 28-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1454 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... year income. 7. Since the order of Assessment Year 2007-08 is already set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, it will be premature to any direction in respect of the setting of the unabsorbed depreciation for Assessment Year 2007-08. Therefore, this issue is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 8. In the ground no.5, the assessee has raised the issue of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As we remanded back the issue raised regarding the transfer pricing adjustment for determining the arms length price for international transaction and to decide the entitlement of the assessee claimed u/s 10A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, this ground is premature. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 9th day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1453 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the sections are to be satisfied which are not satisfied in the case of the assessee. It is not a mistake but the illegality because the mandatory requirement was not fulfilled. 22. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material and decisions relied upon by the parties we are of the view that any party to the appeal can raise a fresh plea subject to the fulfilment of condition that no new facts are to be brought on record for disposing of such new point and an opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT Vs Gilbert and Barker Manufacturing Co., USA (supra). However, in view of our finding on the merits of the case whereby the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, we do not propose to adjudicate this new plea raised by the assessee being academic. 23. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31st day of October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1452 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ange contracts which had not matured during the year on the balance-sheet date. The AO had disallowed the loss as contingent in nature as contract had not matured and also held that it was notional. CIT(A) has allowed the claim following some decisions of Tribunal. We find that the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT. Vs. Woodward Governor India Private Limited (312 ITR 224) in which it has been held that adjustment on account of foreign exchange fluctuation can be made on each balance-sheet date in respect of any forward foreign exchange contract pending actual payment and any loss arising there from has to be allowed as an item of expenditure u/s 37(1). We, therefore, see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in allowing the claim of loss of the assessee. The order of CIT(A) is, therefore, upheld on this issue. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 7-10-2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1451 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... their registration with the trade tax authorities is not relevant for the purposes of seizing the goods in transit. The object of providing the transit declaration form is to ensure that the goods which enters the State of U.P. passes out and are not sold inside the State so that there is no evasion of any trade tax of the State. Once the transit declaration form and all other documents accompanying the same are found to be in order merely for the reason or on the presumption that the consignor or consignee are non-existing, the seizure is not justified. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the tribunal dated 27th September, 2013 and the seizure order dated 4th September, 2013 are set aside with the direction to release seized goods forthwith without insisting or demanding any security. In view of above, the Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.777 of 2013 is allowed and the Sales/Trade Tax Revision No.764 of 2013 filed by the revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1450 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Invoking the provisions of section 179 - Held that:- The statute permits the lifting of the corporate veil section 179 of the Act as one of the modes of the statutes permitting such piercing of the veil provided of course Directors of the Private Company behind the veil are the beneficiaries and who have created such a complex web for their personal interest so as to defraud the Revenue. When the facts are eloquent enough in the instant case, where the petitioners were never concerned with the affairs of the Company until 28.12.2005 and the Company had already become Public Limited Company and by the time they became Directors, they were not even simple shareholders for the entire period till the year 2006, there does not arise any question of applying the ratio of decision of Pravinbhai M. Kheni V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax and others [2012 (12) TMI 494 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] for that matter upholding the action of the respondents of invoking the provisions of section 179 of the Act.
In our opinion, the very action of the respondents of invocation of powers under section 179 of the Act qua the petitioners is bad in law and requires quashment, and therefore, impugned notice dated 14.10.2011 and all consequential orders are hereby quashed and set aside.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1449 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed a corporate body providing financial service. Finding the present appellant not engaged in lease finance, bringing the appellant to the fold of tax under Section 65(12)(zm) of the Finance Act, 1994 is unwarranted. We get support to say so, when we read the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. G.E. India Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (12) S.T.R. 609. So also when we read the letter dated 9-7-2001 issued by the TRU of the C.B.E. & C. vide No. BII/I/2000-TRU, it is made clear that a company falling under the definition of ‘body corporate’ should either be a banking company or a financial institution or a non-banking financial company which came under the purview of law. Such essential ingredient is absent in the present case.” 7. In view of the above two decisions of the Tribunal, we find no merit in the contention of the Revenue and the four appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1448 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ever we find that the show cause notice dated 3-5-2011 is itself is hopelessly vague and does not contain clear attributions/allegations of any taxable service allegedly provided by the assessee. Since the show cause notice dated 3-5-2011 is itself unsustainable for vagueness, the same cannot be sustained. As the period covered is from 1-10-2007 to 31-3-2009, a fresh show cause notice would pehaps to be issued, invoking the extended period, for part of the period in issue, if such extended limitation could be legally invoked. 6. We therefore consider it appropriate to quash the show cause notice dated 3-5-2011 (reference No. 49/JC/ST/BPL-II/2011) and the consequent adjudication order dated 29-2-2012 as confirmed by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) No. 197/BPL/2012, dated 3-10-2012. We clarify that the appellate authority is at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice, in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed as above but in the circumstances without any costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1447 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... he same. The above observation would show that even according to Board there could not have been a demand on the sub-broker and in any case there was a letter from the broker that he had paid the service tax and the Assistant Commissioner after asking for verification, has refused to accept his claim on the ground that the verification report received from Mumbai was not satisfactory for him. He could have further made correspondence and got the correct details which he has not done. In case after 1-6-2005 there could not have been a demand against the appellant and in view of the fact that after 1-6-2005 Board itself has taken a view that they were not liable to pay, the extended period of limitation for the earlier period in our opinion may not have been invocable. Under these circumstances the impugned order has no merit and accordingly appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any to the appellant. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in Court on 29-10-2013)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1446 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s in the books of accounts of the appellant, should be subjected to Service Tax and therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities is maintainable and thus appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.” 8. The ratio of the above decisions is fully applicable on the facts of the present case, therefore the impugned order whereby the adjudicating authority held that the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax only on the net commission after deducting subvention amount is not sustainable hence set aside. The respondents were liable to pay Service Tax on the gross amount of commission. In respect of imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, we find as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, as the respondents were under the bona fide belief that tax is to be paid on net amount of commission hence it is not a case for imposition of penalties. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above. (Pronounced in Court on 17-10-2013)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... arately accounted for in the agreement and filed service tax return in respect of the labour component of the service provided. The adjudicating authority however included the cost of the components incorporated as a component of the gross taxable value and assessed the liability to have into repair service and sale tax liability to tax and directed recovery of interest and penalty as well. 5. The issue is covered in favour of the assesse by the decision of this Tribunal vide Final Order No.ST/A/402/12-Cus dated 23.5.2012 in Kailash Transformers wherein it is held that in so far as supplies of material are concerned, such materials are not liable to be included in the gross value received for the taxable service provided, since the Finance Act, 1994 is not a commodity taxation law and that only the service component of a transaction is liable to be taxed. Following the judgment in Kailash Transformers, we allow the appeal after waiving pre-deposit; with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1444 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... is only existing to settle the claims of the workers. 5. Learned AR relies on the order of the Commissioner and prays to put the appellant to terms. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, we feel that there is no existence of two persons as the appellant association/union is a body jointly administered by the workers and their employers to ensure smooth availability of workers to the employer and proper and timely wages with other benefits like PF, ESI etc. to the workers. Further such a body of individuals in the nature of trade union is excluded from the tax net under Section 65(25aa) of the Finance Act, 1994. In this view of the matter, a prima facie case has been made out in favour of the appellant and accordingly, we, in the interest of justice, allow stay of the disputed tax, interest and penalty till the disposal of the appeal. Thus the stay petition stands allowed. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in the Court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1443 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ferent and cannot be equated to each other. Fact remains that credit availed was irregular till it became regular since services were not received by the unit who took the credit. That being the position, stand taken by the Revenue that appellant should pay interest for the period, was reasonable and should have been followed by the appellant. Under these circumstances, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay interest. The learned counsel also agrees that appellant has no objection to this direction. As regards penalty, we find that this was a procedural omission and further appellant could have entertained a belief that since they could transfer the credit they could avail the credit also. Therefore, we consider that payment of interest would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of this case and there is no need for imposition of penalty. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2013 (10) TMI 1442 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... tivity as a manufacturer ends. Thereafter, if the pipes are used by the Head Office as service provider and if the credit of excise duty paid on Ms Pipes is not availed, both the service provider as well as manufacturer cannot be said to have violated the provisions of Central Excise Act. 4. We find considerable force in the arguments advanced by the appellant. As a service provider, Head Office has not taken the credit of excise duty paid on pipes and therefore, they are eligible for composition scheme. We find that duty has been paid on MS Pipes and credit has been taken and utilized. In terms of law, what the appellants have done appears to be correct procedure to be followed. In these circumstances, we consider that there is justification for bona fide belief that Cenvat credit is entitled to the appellant. Therefore, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of disputed dues and stay against recovery during pendency of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
............
|
