|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 852
... ...
... ... ..... . Accordingly, the Tribunal extended the period of compliance by order dt. 3.4.2013. Today, the advocate submits that they have deposited ₹ 7 lakhs only. We find that despite extension of period of compliance of stay order, the appellant has not complied with stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 851
Deduction under Section 80IA (4) - whether income of the assessee from the Industrial Park whether to be assessed under the head Income from Business, without going into admissibility of the claim on merits - Held that:- Apex Court reported in COMMR. OF INC. TAX v. COCANADA RADHASWAMI BANK LTD [1965 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] held that the head under which income is assessed is not relevant for the purpose of claiming exemption under the Act. When the Revenue had accepted the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on Section 80IA that the assessee had complied with Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act, there remains nothing for an enquiry either as to the nature of the receipt or for that matter the facilities developed to be treated as an industrial park to consider the question of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act.
When the character of the receipt is not a question to be gone in the matter of considering the claim of deduction under Section 80IA(4)(iii) of the Act, we do not find that any useful purpose would be served for the Revenue to again insist on a decision on the character of the receipt. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2013 (6) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... ner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III vs. Stanzen Toyotetsu India (P) Ltd. 2011 (23) S.T.R. 444 (Kar.) has held that benefit of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on ‘medical insurance’ and ‘outdoor catering services’ are admissible. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 849
... ...
... ... ..... therein, merely because the income was determined on estimate basis, by rejecting such books of accounts?” We have gone through the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same as the Tribunal has decided the matter relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Indwell Constructions Vs. CIT reported in (232 ITR 776)-AP. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... r of DIT(E) and submitted that these decisions were not cited before the DIT(E) and in the interest of justice this issue should be restored to the file of the DIT(E) for deciding afresh in the light of the legal and factual position of the case. Learned A.R. for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that he has no objection to the submission of the learned D.R. 9. We have considered the rival submissions on this issue. In view of the pleadings of the parties, we are of the view that it shall be in the interest of justice to restore this issue to the file of the DIT(E) with direction to decide the issue de novo in the light of the decisions relied upon by the learned AR for the assessee as detailed above and in the light of the facts of the case of the assessee after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, we direct accordingly. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.6.2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 847
... ...
... ... ..... e Tax (Appeals). The other issue in the appeal is whether the amount paid as cess under the Agricultural Income Tax Act towards business expenditure for tea grown and manufactured is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 30th July, 2004 in Commissioner of Income Tax versus A.F.T. Industries Ltd. reported in 270 ITR 167. Mr. Saraf submitted that a special leave petition has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid order of the Division Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax versus A.F.T. Industries Ltd. (supra) which is pending disposal. A judgment of a Bench of coordinate strength is binding on us. Needless to mention that the judgment of the Division Bench is binding on the learned Tribunal. The judgment has not been set aside. We are of the view that no question of law is involved in this appeal leave alone any substantial question of law. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. Vokalatnama filed in Court today be kept on record.
-
2013 (6) TMI 846
... ...
... ... ..... id decision is confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed qua Question No. (A). So far as Question no. C is concerned, the same is also answered against the Revenue by the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Manan Corporation v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 255 CTR 415 (2013) 214 Taxmann.com 377 (Guj). Nothing has been pointed out whether the said decision is carried further by the Revenue or not. In view of the above, the present Tax Appeal is dismissed qua Question No. (C). So far as Question no. B is concerned, it is reported that with respect to the said question, other Tax Appeals are admitted, being Tax Appeal No. 1306 of 2011 and connected appeals; inclusive of Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2012. In view of the above, present Tax Appeal is admitted qua Question No. (B) only. To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1306 of 2011 and connected appeals; inclusive of Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2012.
-
2013 (6) TMI 845
... ...
... ... ..... y directed to deposit in all a sum of ₹ 5 Crores after deducting a sum of ₹ 34 lakhs, which is already stated to have been recovered by the Department ie., ₹ 4,66,00,000/ on or before 10 th July 2013 the time as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners . On such deposit being made on or before 10th July 2013, the predeposit of balance amount of duty, interest and entire amount of penalty shall stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. However, it is observed that this Court has not expressed anything on merits. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall consider the appeal in accordance with law on merits; without in any way being influenced by the present order, on or before 21 s t October 2013 . If the aforesaid amount of predeposit is not deposited on or before 10th July 2013, the consequence shall follow. With these observations and direction, Special Civil Application stands disposed of. No costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 844
... ...
... ... ..... s. Eskay KNIT (India) Ltd.. In view of the above, the issue being concluded in favour of the respondentassessee by the decision of this Court, we see no reason to entertain Question (d). 5) As regards Question (e), we are informed by the Counsel for the parties that Income Tax Appeal (L) Nos.1195 of 2012 and 1196 of 2012 in the matter of CIT v/s. Union Bank of India has already been admitted on 22 January 2013 by this Court on a similar question of law. Hence, in view of the above the appeal is admitted in respect of question (e) only. Appeal admitted on the following substantial question of law e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ITAT is right in holding that the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act are not applicable in the case of the respondent and that the tax levied u/s. 115JB of the Act on the assessee should be deleted? To be heard along with Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1195 of 2012 and Income Tax Appeal (L) No.1196 of 2012.
-
2013 (6) TMI 843
... ...
... ... ..... low the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing an order afresh on this aspect as per law. Thus, on this Ground, assessee succeeds for statistical purposes. 26. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.568/PN/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed. 27. In so far as appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.907/PN/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 is concerned, it was a common point between the parties that the issue involved is similar to that considered in the assessment year 2005-06. Since the issue involved is identical to that considered in assessment year 2005-06 therefore our decision in the appeals for assessment year 2005-06 shall apply mutatis-mutandis in this appeal also. Accordingly, ITA No.907//PN/2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 is also hereby dismissed. 28. Resultantly, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 842
... ...
... ... ..... ed with the activities of the assessee and is rightly held to be revenue in nature. The departmental appeal fails and is dismissed. In the result, ITA No. 05/Agra/2013 is dismissed. 5. In ITA No. 04/Agra/2013, the revenue similarly challenged deletion of same addition in the proceedings u/s. 154 of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) found that since he has deleted similar addition in the main appeal against the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) on dated 20.03.2006, therefore, similar deduction is allowed u/s. 154 as well and the appeal of the assessee has been allowed. 6. Since we have also dismissed the departmental appeal on the same issue in regular appeal No. 05/Agra/2013, therefore, similar appeal arising out of rectification order u/s. 154 would not be maintainable. The departmental appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a result, the department appeal in ITA No. 04/Agra/2013 is dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (6) TMI 841
... ...
... ... ..... without any notice. The writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to respond to the Annexure-III series notices by submitting their objection to the same. In the event of submitting such objection within 30 days from today, the respondents i.e. Coal India Ltd. shall consider the same taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law, preferably within two months thereafter. Till then the debit notes shall remain suspended so far as the petitioners are concerned. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (6) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... ne, 2013 shall be adjourned. ii) The petitioner is granted time to file the reply as final opportunity to the show cause notice on or before 11th June, 2013. iii) The matter would be heard on or before 18th June, 2013 but not earlier 14th June, 2013. iv) The final decision would be passed by the Officer concerned on 26th June, 2013. In view of the above agreed terms, the present petition is disposed of.Dasti
-
2013 (6) TMI 839
... ...
... ... ..... at in view of the fact that there was no activity in the R-1-company, even the assets had been sold as early as in September 2007. R-4 had even applied for cancellation of sales tax registration, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case that at this stage no supplies/credits were justified. However, even the respondents have pointed out that some credit has gone even to one concern of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, it is essential that before giving any direction for bringing back the alleged siphoning off/diversion of funds of the R-1-company, the newly constituted Board, as per status quo ante may decide upon appointing a chartered accountant to first ascertain the siphoned off/diverted amounts and on ascertaining of the same R-1-company is required to get these back to its own account. Company Petition No. 80 of 2011 is disposed off in the above terms. All interim orders stand vacated. All company applications stand disposed off. No order as to cost.
-
2013 (6) TMI 838
Application u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, - An objection was raised on behalf of the Appellant on the ground that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was insufficiently stamped and that in consequence, the document could not be acted upon unless the stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable thereon was adjudicated upon - HELD THAT:- The document came before the Court in the course of the proceedings under Section 9. A consideration of the issue could not have been deferred to the arbitration proceedings having regard to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Article 5(ga) of the Schedule relates to the stamp duty payable on an agreement or MOU where it relates to giving authority or power to a promoter or a developer by whatever name called for construction on, development of or sale or transfer of any immovable property. Prima facie, the document would require stamping and has been insufficiently stamped having regard to the provisions of Article 5(ga) of the Schedule to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
In the circumstances, Court pass the following order :
(i) The MOU is impounded. An authenticated copy of the MOU shall be forwarded by the Prothonotary and Senior Master to the Collector of Stamps, Mumbai Suburban District, for adjudication of the stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable on the document under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958;
(ii) The Collector of Stamps, Mumbai Suburban District shall expedite the determination in terms of clause (i) above and complete the exercise within a period of four weeks of the receipt of a duly authenticated copy of the document together with an authenticated copy of this order from the Prothonotary & Senior Master;
(iii) Pending further orders shall remain stayed;
-
2013 (6) TMI 837
... ...
... ... ..... ore the learned Company Judge of the Delhi High Court, an offer was made on behalf of the respondent for a settlement of dues payable by the petitioner to the respondent at ₹ 7,52,66,667/-. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that that offer is no longer available. An amount of ₹ 7,60,00,000/- by way of two demand drafts has been handed over by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the counsel for the respondent in Court today. We make it clear that the respondent will accept the amount without prejudice to all its rights and contentions. In view of the said payment of ₹ 7,60,00,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent, the order of the learned Company Judge directing the Official Liquidator to take charge of the petitioner Company including all its assets and the publication of the winding up order as affirmed in the Company Appeal, shall remain stayed. Respondent is granted six weeks' time to file reply. List thereafter.
-
2013 (6) TMI 836
... ...
... ... ..... e Official Liquidator attached to the Company Court within outer limit of four weeks from today. (4) The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall intimate the Sub-Registrar, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District of the order passed by this Court setting aside the sale to enable him to make necessary entries in the Register regarding cancellation of sale. (5) The Debt Recovery Tribunal through its recovery officer is at liberty to sell or auction the property in accordance with the provisions of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Rules and regulations made thereunder governing the sale of immovable property only after associating the official liquidator attached to the Company Court. (6) The amount paid by the second respondent to the first respondent for purchasing the property above referred to shall be refunded by the first respondent. (7) The second respondent would be at liberty to participate in the said auction or sale as the case may be. (8) No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 835
... ...
... ... ..... . Thus, the assessee has not invested ₹ 50 lacs in one financial year in eligible bonds u/s 54EC. The assessee has invested these two amounts in different Assessment Years. The AO has allowed the claim u/s 54EC of the Income Tax Act for total amount of ₹ 90 lacs. We find that the ITAT in Aspi Ginwala, Shree Ram Engg. & Mfg. Industries 2012 20 Taxman 75 (Ahd.) (supra) has held that it is permissible to grant deduction for amount invested in two financial years so long as the amount invested in one year does not exceed ₹ 50 lacs. We find from this decision that the AO has taken the view which is one of the views permissible in case two views are capable of being taken. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the AO has taken one of the permissible views and it cannot be treated as erroneous. Therefore, CIT(A) is not justified in his action. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/6/2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 834
Revision by Commissioner u/s 263 - Assessing officer to record the reasons for decisions - Deduction of interest expenses u/s 36(1)(iii) - For the earlier period, Assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Administrative Commissioner of redoing the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08. He referred his own case for the assessment year 2008-09, where the Tribunal had an occasion to examine the issue and found that a similar interest paid was allowable u/s 36(1), thus the order of the assessing officer should not be erroneous. - HELD THAT:- The assessment order does not contain any reasoning. It is well settled principles of law that administrative orders shall speak for themselves.
Each assessment year is separate and independent. Therefore, merely because this Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 it does not mean that the assessing officer need not pass a speaking order.
In view of the Decisions in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS SUNIL KUMAR GOEL. [2005 (1) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and M/S FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER [2013 (6) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Apex Court, it is obligatory on the part of the assessing officer to record reasons in the assessment order. Recording of reason would not only enable the revisional / appellate authorities to discharge their function effectively but also repose confidence in the system.
The appeal of Assessee thus was rejected.
-
2013 (6) TMI 833
... ...
... ... ..... nance (P) Ltd. Vs CIT 231 ITR 308 (SC). 5. A perusal of these two questions and the replies filed by the assessee clearly show that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO has not questioned the claim of depreciation on property time sharing unit. Therefore, in our considerate view, the CIT has rightly invoked the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act as the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by not questioning the claim of depreciation on property time sharing unit. While upholding the order of the CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, we modify the direction issued by the CIT. We, therefore, direct the AO to verify whether the property time sharing unit actually falls under the category of intangible assets after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. To this extent, directions of the CIT are modified. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on
........
|
