|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 741 - ITAT PUNE
TPA - determining the Arm’s Length Price - Held that:- Assessee is into providing IT-Enabled services, thus companies dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list of comparable.
-
2013 (4) TMI 740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
petitioner had used both duty paid as well as duty free inputs in the manufacture of exported goods without establishing that only the duty paid inputs were used so not entitled for rebate of duty.
-
2013 (4) TMI 739 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the requirement of pre-deposit, we have taken the appeal itself for final disposal. 7. As discussed above, that the Board Circular No.11/1/2002-TRU dated 01/08/2002 has clarified that Service Tax is not leviable on the activities of the custodian where he auctions abandoned cargo and ST/VAT is paid in respect of that cargo and the same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Mysore Sales International Ltd. (supra) and India Gateway Terminal (P) Ltd. (supra), following the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief (if any)." 7. In view of the above decisions, the impugned order whereby the demands are confirmed on the same ground are set aside and the appeal filed by M/s Gateway Distri Park Ltd are allowed. 8. As we set aside, the demands confirmed vide the adjudication order, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue for imposition of penalty does not survive and hence the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 738 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ed in so far as it was not in the interest of the assessee to be included negligent when he was dependent on the professional services which the professional service is required for documenting the claim or deduction as per law. In this view of the matter we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the contention of the authorities below when no contrary decision has been pointed out by the ld. DR in so far as on the submission of the ld. Counsel the three decisions of the Tribunal are directly on the issue of upholding the claim of deduction even when the return has been filed belatedly on the basis of the facts and circumstances leading to such delay. In this view of the matter we have no hesitation to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to accept the return as filed by the assessee and allow the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act. 8. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 19.04.2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 737 - ITAT CHENNAI
Non Est Return - Claim of deduction u/s 80IA - ITR was filed within prescribed time limit without claim the deduction - Fresh deduction claim in the revised return u/s 139(5) - Deduction not allowed unless return furnished u/s 80AC within the prescribed time limit - CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee.
HELD THAT:- According to Section 139 (1), "Revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier". The Assessee had filed a revised return before expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions section 139(5). - The contention of the Revenue that, the assessee had not made any claim in its original return filed under section 139(1), no deduction is allowable under section 80IA of the Act, in view of the provisions of section 80AC, has no force.
Order of CIT(A) allowing the claim sustained.
Recurring Expenditure - replacement of certain machinery - Revenue Expenditure u/s 35(1)(i) - A.O. treated the cost of replacement of certain machinery in its spinning mill, as capital expenditure. Out of the said amount, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed Rs. 4,23,588/- representing the cost of multi drum filter as revenue expenditure stating that these filters have to be constantly replaced on account of deterioration in filtering capacity. Revenue filed an appeal. HELD THAT: - A.O. is directed to allow the cost of replacement of multi drum filter as revenue expenditure.
Revenue Appeal Dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 736 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the impugned judgment has incorrectly reported the ‘Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of Minerals’. As a consequence, the ratio of impugned judgment, which relies on this Expert Committee Report, shall stand erroneous in the eyes of law?
Whether Section 11(2) and Section 11(4) should be applicable to both virgin and previously held areas?
-
2013 (4) TMI 734 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... omplied with the TDS provisions. Ld. A.R. further submitted that S M Sheladia was engaged for transportation of material and also for hiring of vehicles and thus payments were made to the same party on two different counts. He thus supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). o p /o p 16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that A.O. has not brought any material on record to prove that the expenses is non genuine in nature.. Nothing has been brought on record to controvert the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Further in the nature of activity the assessee is engaged in, vehicles are required for transportation of man and material. In view of these facts, we find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of the revenue is also dismissed. o p /o p 17. In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed. o p /o p 18. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove. o p /o p
-
2013 (4) TMI 733 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
“hulling, cutting/trimming, processing, packaging and marketing of cereals” have been used and not “processing of paddy”. The hulling of the cereal is nothing but hulling of the paddy for manufacture of rice.
exclusion clause can not be treated as a clarificatory clause, or clarification of existing clause.
-
2013 (4) TMI 732 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
“hulling, cutting/trimming, processing, packaging and marketing of cereals” have been used and not “processing of paddy”. The hulling of the cereal is nothing but hulling of the paddy for manufacture of rice.
An exclusion clause can not be treated as a clarificatory clause, or clarification of existing clause.
-
2013 (4) TMI 731 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cash received back on cancellation of the deal - Nature of receipt - addition to assessee income - addition relying on the statement of Vikas Shah made under Section 131[1](a) - Held that:- Sole reliance for such addition on the statement of Vikas Shah was not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that there is nothing to indicate; except the statement that the assessee had entered into a deal in respect of the land and for cancellation of such deal, an amount of ₹ 15.50 lakhs having been paid and there was absolutely no justification for such additions. By extensively examining the statement of Vikas Shah, it was noted that the amount received by the assessee represents payment on account of cancellation of the deal and such amount cannot be considered as assessee’s income. We are in agreement with the view of CIT [A], duly concurred by the Tribunal. Except bare version of Vikas Shah, there was nothing on the record to substantiate the finding of the Assessing Officer, and therefore, both the authorities were justified in deleting the addition made in the hands of the assesseerespondent. - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (4) TMI 730 - SC ORDER
Constitutional validity of levy of service tax on “promotion, marketing, organising or in any other manner assisting in organising game of chance, including lottery.
-
2013 (4) TMI 729 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appeals. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, Dr Singhvi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, requests permission to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner to file the appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Consequently, we accede to this request of Dr Singhvi and direct that the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. To make it clear, the concession made by the respondent with regard to no coercive measures would be operative only if the petitioner files the appeals within four days from today. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) shall dispose of the appeals, if so filed, as early as possible and latest by 31.05.2013. During this period and, five days thereafter, no coercive measures would be taken by the respondents for recovery of the amount demanded. The writ petitions stand withdrawn as above. All the pending applications also stand dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2013 (4) TMI 728 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the colleges affiliated to a university comes within the purview of exclusion of the definition of “Technical Institution” as defined under Section 2(h) of the AICTE Act, 1987?
Whether the AICTE has got the control and supervision upon the affiliated colleges of the respective universities of the member colleges of the appellant in C.A.No.1145/2004 and the appellants in connected appeals?
Whether the MCA course be construed as technical education in terms of definition under section 2(g) of the AICTE Act?
Whether the Regulation 8(c) and 8(iv) by way of amendment in the year 2000 inserting the words ‘MBA and MCA’ before Architecture and Hotel Management courses is applicable to the concerned colleges of the appellants?
Whether non placement of the amended Regulations before Houses of the Parliament as required under Section 24 of the AICTE Act is vitiated in law?
Whether the law laid down by this Court in Bharathidasan University’s case [2001 (9) TMI 1126 - Supreme Court Of India], applicable to the fact situation of the concerned colleges of the appellants?
-
2013 (4) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Business Exhibition Service - service performed abroad - whether the tax is attracted on business exhibition services performed abroad? - Held that: - the business exhibition service falling under sub-clause (zzo) would be covered under Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 attracts only if it is performed in India. Further, where such taxable service is partly performed in India, it shall be deemed to be performed in India and the value of such taxable service shall be deemed to be performed in India and the value of such taxable service shall be determined under Section 67 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
The Business Exhibition Service is entirely performed outside India, and not partly performed in India, therefore it would not be covered under taxable service - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (4) TMI 726 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ed the order of the T ribunal in holding that the grants sanctioned by the Government to the asse ssee under rehabilitation programme could not be termed as assessee’s income, and the Hon’ble High Court has held that no substantial question of law for determination of the High Court, and the appeal of the department was dismissed. Respectfully following the decision o f the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State disaster Management Authority (supra), we hold that the amount received by the assessee, being in the nature of “grant” and since has been distributed to the beneficiaries in the succeeding month itself, no case for assessing the grant- in-aid received by the assessee, as income could be made out by the Revenue, and accordingly, the grounds of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is all owed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned here in above.
-
2013 (4) TMI 725 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clearance to SEZ Developers - whether the clearance are to be treated as export or not and whether the appellants are liable to pay 10% of the price of goods cleared at nil rate of duty? - Held that: - the similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein the supplies from DTA Units to Developers in SEZ for the period prior 31-12-2008 and after 10-2-2006, the clearance made to SEZ Developers are to be treated as export of dutiable goods and entitled to benefit as such - the supplies to SEZ Developers shall be treated as export of dutiable goods and the appellants are entitled for benefit as such - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (4) TMI 724 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rejection of book results - estimating income from iron and steel business and textile business by applying higher GP rate of 10% and 20% respectively - Held that:- It is observed that while applying GP rate of 10% in respect of business of dealing in iron and steel, the reliance was placed by the A.O. on the comparative GP rates shown in the range of 5 to 10%. However, as admitted by the A.O. in the remand report forwarded to the ld. CIT(A), there were no specific comparable cases available on record to show such GP rates and the range of 5 to 10% was stated to be gathered by him from the information collected from the market. Having regard to all these facts of the case, we are of the view that it would be fair and reasonable to adopt a GP rate of 5% in respect of business of the assessee of trading in iron and steel products. We therefore modify the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to recompute the income of the assessee by applying GP rate of 15 & 5 % in respect of textile business and iron and steel business respectively. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of godown rent - Held that:- As no evidence whatsoever has been filed by the assessee to show that any godown was actually used for the purpose of the business or any rent for godown was actually paid. We therefore find no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of godown rent - Decided against assessee.
Disallowance of telephone expenses, staff welfare expenses and motor car expenses including depreciation - Held that:- Assessee has not raised any material contention on this issue except stating that the disallowance of 20% of the total expenses made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is on the higher side and the same may be restricted at certain reasonable level. It is, however, observed that a similar disallowance of 20% was made by the A.O. out of conveyance, traveling and telephone expenses claimed by the assessee in the immediately preceding year i.e. 2006-07 for personal and unverifiable element involved therein and nothing has been brought on record before us to show that the same was challenged by the assessee.
We therefore find no justifiable reason to hold that the similar disallowance of 20% made for the year under consideration is excessive or unreasonable and upholding the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the said disallowance - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (4) TMI 723 - SC ORDER
Credit on low Sulphur heavy stock (LSHS) used in the manufacture of steam which in turn was used for the manufacture of the final product, namely, fertilizer which was fully exempt from payment of excise duty.
-
2013 (4) TMI 722 - SC ORDER
Demand of education cess - whether the appellants are liable to pay Education Cess again on the amount which has been worked out by calculating the customs duty payable on the goods in respect of clearances made by 100% EOU to domestic tariff area.
-
2013 (4) TMI 721 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10 was passed and having regard to the fact that the deceased assessee did not respond to the notice dated 15th February, 2008 nor ever bothered to attend any of the three sittings fixed by the assessing officer, in the interest of-justice, it shall be appropriate to permit the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice of assessment upon the appellant herein, who shall be deemed to be representing the whole estate of the deceased. In the event, such a notice is issued within three months from today, it shall be deemed as if the notice has been issued on 14th March, 2009. Appellant shall not be entitled to raise a contention pertaining to limitation in respect of the period between 15th February, 2008 to 13th March, 2009, inasmuch as, notice dated 15th February, 2008 was not responded by the deceased assessee. It is made clear that, in response to the notice to be issued in terms of this order, it shall be open to the appellant to take such plea as he may deem fit and proper.
............
|
