|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1521
... ...
... ... ..... matters and appeals arising out of the verdicts of the court martial to provide for quicker and less expensive justice to the Members of the said armed forces of the Union. The Preamble of the Act provides for adjudication or trial by the Tribunal of justice and compliance in respect of many a matter. As we find the Tribunal has been conferred powers to deal with the cases in promptitude. Promptitude does not ostracise or drives away the apposite exposition of facts and necessary ratiocination. A seemly depiction of factual score, succinct analysis of facts and law, pertinent and cogent reasoning in support of the view expressed having due regard to the rational methodology, in our considered opinion, are imperative. We have said so as we find that the Tribunal by the impugned order has not adverted to the necessitous facts. We say so despite sustaining the verdict. 66. Ex consequenti, the appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1520
... ...
... ... ..... N. Shah v. Securities and Exchange Board of India was referred by appellant which is dealing with allocation of shares to Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIB) and retail investors from Initial Public Offer by Nissan Copper Ltd. and that QIB's were offered exit, at a premium, through synchronized deals, which trades were also used to artificially create volumes and price increase, where ultimately charges of manipulation of volume/price were not upheld and impugned order quashed and without referring to the details of the trades executed by the appellant and without showing as to how it was acting in tandem with others. This is not the way in which such charges are established. It is not enough to say that the appellant is guilty of the charge. The impugned order must show how the charge has been established. Facts in this referred case appear to be different from present appeal being considered. In view of above, appeal succeeds and impugned order is set aside. No costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1519
... ...
... ... ..... through the schedules of the capital account and balance sheet furnished by the appellant.” The CIT(A), therefore, directed the AO to delete the addition made. In our considered view, the CIT(A) after appreciating the facts and information on record, came to the conclusion that the AO made the addition on account of opening balance of capital account on a wrong premise, hence, directed the AO to delete the same. We were also informed that assessments in Block cases were completed by same AO and all the opening and closing balances were accepted in earlier and later years and made addition in only in this year without any basis. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed, dismissing the grounds raised by the Revenue on this issue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 11th day of October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1518
... ...
... ... ..... nance was liable to be taxed in India. The high Court was not concerned with taxability of interest income as per the treaty. 5.1 In view of the fore-going discussion, we hold that tax payable @ 12.5% under Article 11(2) of FTAA is inclusive of surcharge and education cess. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the claim of the assessee.” 5. We further note that an identical issue has also been considered and decided by the Kolkata Benches of this Tribunal in case of DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation) 52 SOT 447. The Tribunal in case of Sunil V. Motiani Vs ITO has considered the decision of Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in case of DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Vs ADIT (supra). Accordingly, following the orders of this Tribunal we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) qua this issue. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 23rd day of October 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1517
... ...
... ... ..... l was filed. This finding of the Tribunal is consistent with law and does not give any rise to substantial question of law. 4. As regards ground (C), the Tribunal has noted that before the Tribunal, the Assessee had filed a copy of the return of the Proprietor of M/s. Peninsula Minerals & Overseas and of M/s. Natasha Minerals. The Return of income indicated that the contractor had carried out the work for the Assessee. The Department had accepted the return and taxes have been paid on the income of the contractor. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal held that Section 68 was not applicable since the two creditors were not bogus sundry creditors, but were actual contractors to whom payments have been made by the Assessee. This again is a finding of fact which is also borne out from the material on record before the Tribunal. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 5. For these reasons, we decline to entertain the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1516
... ...
... ... ..... the material on record. The payments made in the F.Y. 05-06 as evident from the assessment order of the assessee, which was received back in the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. held that this was the unaccounted income but it cannot be taxed on the basis of receipts. If any payment is made by the assessee from undisclosed income, was relevant to A.Y. 06-07. Therefore, addition in year under consideration cannot be made. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(A). However, it is clarified that A.O. is free to take action in A.Y. 06-07 on the basis of payment made for purchase of alleged unaccounted transaction for purchase of land. The A.O. disallowed the 80IB deduction in case of firm, on same income, there is no material on record to show that the assessee has challenged the disallowance made u/s. 80IB in case of firm, namely, M/s. Shri Hari Associates. 14. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 11.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1515
... ...
... ... ..... arely covered in favour of the appellants laying down that the period of limitation would apply to the demand of interest. Inasmuch as interest demand has been made in the year 2006 pertaining to the period of 1998-99, we find no justification for confirmation of interest amount. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequently relief. 5. It is seen that during the course of arguments a suggestion was made to transfer the matter to Single Member Bench as only interest issue is involved and the quantum is less than ₹ 50 lakhs. However, we thought it fit to take up the appeal itself as the issue stands decided by the decision of Hon’ble High Court and no elaborate arguments are required to be addressed by either side. Inasmuch as admittedly Division Bench can dispose of an appeal falling within the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench, we had proceeded to decide the appeal itself. 6. Appeal is disposed in the above manner.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1514
... ...
... ... ..... nt agreement and reduction of road acquisition area from this gross plot area for calculation of minimum 1 acre was not justified. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction in respect of housing project “Prem Aangan” which needs no interference from our side. With the above reasoning we uphold the same.” 3.3 Since the Ld.CIT(A) has followed his order for A.Y. 2008-09 which has been upheld by the Tribunal, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding assessment year and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 22nd day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1513
... ...
... ... ..... to act in a quasijudicial capacity, it is imperative to give appellant an adequate opportunity of being heard before deciding the appeal. The aim of the rule of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and denial of principles of audi alteram partem results into such miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the Learned CIT(A) should have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in order to impart substantial justice to the assessee, we reverse the orders of ld CIT(A) and restore the appeals to the file of the AO to decide Ground Nos.1 to 3 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 8. As we have restored Ground Nos.1 to 3, rest of the issues taken in Ground Nos.4 to 8 are also restored to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh. AO is directed to frame denovo assessment as per law 9. In the result, appeals filed by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1512
... ...
... ... ..... received on 01.01.2006, then in all the years, no penalty is leviable for default upto 01.01.2006 and is leviable for the default thereafter. 42. However, in cases where the Annual Information Reports have been filed by the specified persons beyond the abovesaid period of limitation, the specified person would be held to be in default, making it eligible to levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act. The DIT (CIB) is directed to recompute the said levy of penalty under section 271FA of the Act in line with our directions. However, reasonable opportunity of hearing should be afforded in this regard and the specified person shall furnish complete information before his DIT (CIB), with regard to its several claims, in order to finally determine the period of default and the quantum of penalty leviable under section 271FA of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed as stated above. 43. In the result, appeals of the assessees are partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1511
... ...
... ... ..... ircumstances the said action was at that point of time not infringed the settled law then it can be reasonably held that the assessee was prevented by a “reasonable cause” under those circumstances not to act as prescribed or determined by a case law subsequently. Although ignorance of law is not an excuse but side by side it is also not expected that every tax payer should be aware about the latest development of tax law; which are otherwise fast changing. We, therefore, deem it justifiable to hold that in a situation when an assessee was not aware about the latest position of law during the assessment years under consideration; hence, he was prevented by a reasonable cause not to deduct the TDS, therefore, as far as the question of levy of penalty is concerned, entitled for the relief. Assigning this reason, we hereby direct to delete the penalty. Grounds allowed for all the years under appeal. 6. In the result, these appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1510
... ...
... ... ..... al jurisdiction of the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Court have been determined. (2) The principle of law enunciated by the two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani that for deciding the territorial jurisdiction, it is the location of the Court which has passed the impugned order or where the proceedings are pending, which shall be the determinative factor is totally against the provisions and object of the Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the judgement of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin (supra) and para 14 of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow (supra). 55. Thus, in view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani (supra) do not lay down the correct law on the issue. 56. Reference is answered accordingly. The matters are now remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1509
... ...
... ... ..... rded to be the income. It is not the case of the revenue that the provisions of Sec. 68 are applicable to this sum of ₹ 4.99 crores. This is a settled law in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT, 57 ITR 532 in which it was held that when a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the Department to prove that it is within the taxing provision. Where, however, receipt is of the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act lies upon the Assessee. Since there is no evidence on record that the amount has been received by the Assessee towards rendering of services, therefore, in our opinion, the Assessee is bound to succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition of ₹ 4.99 crores. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/10/2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1508
... ...
... ... ..... 21.9.2006, viz., from the date of filing of the suit. However, while passing the impugned order, the High Court has used the language that the case stood transferred from the Mehsana court to the court at Surat and, therefore, interest has to be paid from the date of initiation of the suit at Mehsana i.e. from 1986 and in view thereof, allowed the claim. 19. We are of the considered view that once the plaint was presented before the Civil Court at Surat, it was a fresh suit and cannot be considered to be continuation of the suit instituted at Mehsana. The Plaintiff/Respondent cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own mistake instituting the suit before a wrong court. The judgment and order impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 20. In view of the above, appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree impugned are set aside. The judgments and orders of the Trial/Executing Court as well as of the Appellate Court are restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1507
... ...
... ... ..... f the Government of Punjab in the Department of Revenue and Rehabilitation, same reads as follows In exercise of the power conferred by Clause (f) of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act No. 4 of 1882) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to specify Gobindgarh in the district Fatehgarh Sahib and Mohali in District Roop Nagar in the State of Punjab as Towns for the purpose of the aforesaid section of the said Act. 23. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court in the impugned judgment. As the same goes to the root of the matter, we have no option than to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for its fresh consideration in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above. 24. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1506
... ...
... ... ..... pital gains from the sale of bonus shares the said gains have been set off against brought forwarded loss. The facts on record also show that even after this set off there were substantial loss which were carried forward. These facts on record show that the mistake of the assessee was a bona fide mistake and there is no loss to the revenue whatsoever. Considering all these facts in totality, in our view no penalty is leviable. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty of ₹ 2,48,705/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Zoom communication 327 ITR 510 and the assessee has relied upon two decision of the Hon‘ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay. Since we have deleted the penalty on the peculiar facts of the case, there was no necessity to discuss these judicial decisions. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1505
Harmonious construction of section 43B and section 40A(7)(b) of the Act - Deduction of contribution to gratuity fund - deduction on the basis of payment / deposit in cash - approved gratuity fund or not - HELD THAT:- Kerala High Court has held that, section 40A(7), clause (b) sub-clause (i) thereof is a special provision to claim for deduction based on a provision made for payment towards an approved gratuity fund. Referring to various decisions of Supreme Court stated that there is no clear inconsistency between the two provisions. Section 40A(7) is in negative terms and section 43B is in positive terms, the effect of both provisions is that to claim deduction in respect of payment to a gratuity fund there must be actual payment and that deduction cannot be allowed on the basis of any provision. The only exception to the above rule is with regard to the provision for payment to an approved gratuity fund. It cannot be interpreted that the later provision in section 43B by introducing the non-obstante clause would abrogate the special provision with regard to the provision made for payment to an approved gratuity fund contained in section 40A(7)(b)(i). This is all the more so since no patent conflict or inconsistency can be spelt out. Both the provisions can co-exist. A harmonious construction of the aforesaid two provisions would clearly indicate that the Legislature never intended to take away the benefit conferred under clause (b) of section 40A(7) by the provisions of section 43B(b) of the Act.
The A.O. is directed to allow the assessee's claim of provision for gratuity after verifying whether the provision made by the assessee is to an approved gratuity fund or not. In case the said gratuity is approved then the provision is to be allowed. In the event the said gratuity fund is not an approved one, then as per the proviso’s to section 43B of the Act, deduction is to be allowed to the extent of actual payments towards gratuity up to the due date for filing the return of income u/s.139(1)
Decision in the case COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS COMMON WEALTH TRUST (P.) LTD [2004 (4) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT] followed.
Deduction u/s 80IA - calculating the deduction - the carry forward of losses of other eligible units to be considered or not - HELD THAT:- For the purpose of computation of gross total income, the losses of other units are to be taken into account. However for the purposes of calculating the deduction of an eligible unit / undertaking u/s.80-IA of the Act, the loss sustained in another unit / undertaking cannot be taken into account and it is only the profit that shall be taken into account as if it was the only source of income of that unit.
Following the decision in the case of Synco Industries Ltd [2008 (3) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT], held that, the assessee has to compute the claim of deduction of each eligible unit / undertaking, as if it is the only source of income from such eligible undertaking and without any setting off of unadjusted brought forward losses of other eligible undertakings. We find from the record that the computation of the eligible deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act by the assessee is in accordance with the procedure laid down and is therefore entitled to claim and be allowed deduction u/s.80-IA.
Applicability of provisions of section 115JB of the Act - HELD THAT:- the provisions of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee which is an electric company in the business of generation of power. In this view of the matter, the additional grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the non-applicability of the provisions of section 115JB of the Act is allowed.
Decision in the case SYNDICATE BANK VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, UDUPI [2015 (4) TMI 727 - ITAT BANGALORE] followed.
In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1504
... ...
... ... ..... . had raised a plea that they could not have taken part in the second tender since their production capacity was only 25 metric tonnes a month as per the certificate issued on November 29, 1995 by National Small Industries Corporation Limited (A Government of India Enterprises). Though, we had not accepted that plea, it will have to be considered that their production capacity is also not comparable to the production capacity and the size of the other two appellants. We would, therefore, chose to reduce their penalty to the 1/10th of the penalty awarded by the CCI. Their penalty would therefore come to ₹ 15.70/- lakhs. In the result, therefore, the finding by the CCI in respect of breach of the provisions of Competition Act is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. However, the penalties would be modified to the extent we have ordered in the earlier paragraphs. All the three appeals are disposed of on these lines. Pronounced in open Court on 29th day of October, 2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1503
... ...
... ... ..... xing the entire profit of ₹ 2,16,56,000/- and not 93.75% thereof in the hands of M/s Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. on substantive basis for the reasons given earlier in this order. 15. Miscellaneous Application bearing MA No.06/Rjt/2012 filed by the Revenue in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the view taken by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel has since been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. The order of this Tribunal in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel has thus merged in the order of the Hon’ble High Court. It is therefore not amenable to rectification u/s 254(2). 16. In view of the foregoing, Miscellaneous Application No.06/Rjt/2012 filed by the Revenue in the case of Shri Mansukhlal N Patel is dismissed while the Miscellaneous Application No.11/Rjt/2012 in the case of M/s Ambica Realities Pvt. Ltd. is allowed to the extent indicated earlier in this Order. Order pronounced on 04.10.2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1502
... ...
... ... ..... t and based on the aforesaid quantification, the Assessee has also deposited the FBT into Government Treasury and not in an Escrow account with the scheduled bank. We further find that the Assessing Officer has considered the Assessee to be covered in the dcategory-1 of the Assessees who were covered by the provisions of FBT in terms of the decision of Hon.Gujarat High Court (supra). Before us, the learned A.R. could not controvert the findings of Assessing Officer and CIT(A) by bringing any contrary material on record. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus this ground of the Assessee is dismissed.” 6. Respectfully following the coordinate “C” Bench decision in case of Gujarat Energy Transmission Ltd., we confirm the action of Ld. CIT(A), accordingly we dismiss both the appeals of the assessee. 7. In results, assessee’s appeals are dismissed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 11.10.2013
........
|
