|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1148 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... tended omission. Therefore, it is open to the department to bring it to the notice of the concerned executive authority (CBDT) about the lacunae/omission in Rule 6F if the department is so advised. 9. With the above observations, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the penalty u/s. 271B is deleted.” 6. In the instant year also, the assessee did not maintain books of accounts. There is also no dispute that the CBDT did not prescribe the list of books of accounts to be maintained by a civil contractor. Thus, the facts prevailing in this year is identical with the facts of the immediately preceding year. Accordingly, consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 in the hands of the assessee, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act for this year also. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 26-07-2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1147 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... g; particularly emphasizing on SPS which never existed and when all other angles otherwise are examined sufficiently and elaborately, this appears to be an attempt pure and simple to review its own order alongwith other materials found in relation to the first issue. Therefore, the notice for re-opening on this count also need not fail. 18. Resultantly, this Special Civil Application stands partly allowed. Notice of reopening, impugned in this petition, on the first ground reflected in the reasons of reopening, is sustained. Whereas, the same is not upheld on the second ground. 19. Interim relief granted in favour of assessee in respect of the second ground stands confirmed. Assessing Officer is permitted to proceed with the re-assessment proceedings on the first ground raised in the reasons recorded, without being in any manner, influenced by any of the observations made in this petition. 20. Special Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1146 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n respect of the second ground stands confirmed. Assessing Officer is permitted to proceed with the re-assessment proceedings on the first ground raised in reasons recorded without being in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in this petition. 15. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” 9. Resultantly, this Special Civil Application stands partly allowed. Notice of reopening, impugned in this petition, on the first ground reflected in the reasons of reopening, is sustained. Whereas, the same is not upheld on the second ground. 10. Interim relief granted in favour of assessee in respect of the second ground stands confirmed. Assessing Officer is permitted to proceed with the re-assessment proceedings on the first ground raised in the reasons recorded, without being in any manner, influenced by any of the observations made in this petition. 11. Special Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1145 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ar Municipal Corporation constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was not notified by the Union Government in terms of Sec.2(14)(iii) (b) of Income Tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the view of the Appellate Tribunal that the expression “any Municipality or Cantonment Board referred to in item (a)” found in Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act is referable to Municipality in which the concerned land is situate, can be said to be tenable in law? The learned Tribunal while rendering the decision has followed the decision of Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Capital Local Area Bank Ltd., reported in 123 TTJ (Asr) 918 (2009). There is no statement in the appeal papers that the aforesaid judgment and order of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal has been challenged or upset. Therefore, we cannot admit the appeal to unsettle the settled issue. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1144 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ost its substratum. Considering the overall circumstances, this is a fit case, where provisional liquidator needs to be appointed. Accordingly the Official Liquidator is appointed as provisional Liquidator under Rule 106 Of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959. 20. The Provisional Liquidator will initiate steps to take possession Of the assets Of the respondent company after giving 15 days notices to the respondent company. 21. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the respondent company will not dispose Of its assets or create any third party right except in usual course Of business. 22. The Official Liquidator will act on an authenticated copy Of this order 23. The Company Petitions in which the affidavits Of service are not filed, the same shall be filed within a period Of two weeks from today, failing which, the Petitions will stand dismissed without further reference 24. The Office is directed to issue notice to the Company under Rule 28 Of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1143 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. V.K. Monga,Adv. For the Respondent Mr.Rajiv Datta, Sr.Adv., Mr.Arijit Prasad, Adv., Ms.Shalini Kumar, Adv., For Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. ORDER Leave granted.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1142 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be done since the sale price was fixed by negotiation. But the petitioner cannot escape from the liability to pay income tax under the head 'capital gains' in the Income Tax Act 1961. Section10(37) (iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 applies only when the transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition in regard to a land being used for agricultural purposes only. 2. The second respondent was therefore right in denying the claim for exemption under Section10(37) of the Income Tax Act,1961 by Ext.P13 order. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1140 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... justified in rejecting the books of accounts. We do not find any merit in the contention of the Revenue that the ld.CIT(A) failed to take note of the observation of the AO based on comparison in finalizing the accounts in preceding year’s electric consumption and on the basis of appropriation. It is settled proposition of law that for rejection of books of accounts, the AO is required to demonstrate specific defects in the books of accounts produced by the assessee and also as to how the books of accounts produced by the assessee is not giving clear picture of the profit earned from the business activity. In the absence of such finding, we are of the view that books of accounts cannot be rejected and the addition cannot be sustained on the basis of such rejection of books of accounts. Therefore, grounds of Revenue’s appeal are hereby rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove
-
2013 (7) TMI 1139 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... The only condition for action is that the Assessing Officer should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Such a belief can be reached in any manner and is not qualified by a pre-condition of faith meaning thereby that after the amendment, power to reopen assessment is much wider. At the same time, such powers are not unbridled. From the facts available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Assessing Officer was under a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, therefore, we find no justification to interfere with the conclusion drawn in the impugned order. The cross objection of the assessee, therefore, having no merit. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in terms indicated hereinabove whereas the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 17.7.2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1138 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... ssee is able to explain that the capital has been introduced by the partners through their own sources. Therefore, the initial burden on the assessee of explaining capital contribution by the partner is discharged. On identical set of facts, we find that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the order of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Prestressed Concrete Industries in ITA No.167/Agra/2011, order dated 11.05.2012. The judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Youth Construction Pvt. Ltd. cited by the ld. Departmental Representative is distinguishable on facts. To maintain consistency, we follow the order of I.T.A.T. Agra Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Prestressed Concrete Industries in ITA No.167/Agra/2011, order dated 11.05.2012 and in the light of the fact, addition of ₹ 9,70,842/- sustained by the CIT(A) is deleted. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1137 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by the parties under Section 54 of the Act as also the cross objections. The parties shall be free to urge all points in support of their respective cause and the High Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by the observations contained in this judgment. 36. Maruti Udyog Limited shall be free to file an appropriate application before the High Court for its impleadment or grant of leave to act as intervener in the appeals filed by the parties. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits. 37. The State Government/HSIIDC shall pay the balance of compensation determined by the High Court, i.e., ₹ 37,40,000 - ₹ 28,15,356 ₹ 9,24,644 per acre to the landowners and/or their legal representatives along with all statutory benefits within a period of four months from today. The payment shall be made to the landowners and/or their legal representatives by following the procedure laid down in the interim orders passed by this Court.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1136 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (stay) Heard the counsel for the parties. Admit. The following substantial question of law is framed - “Whether the majority opinion is right in accepting the appeal and deleting the entire addition and whether the majority opinion is perverse?” Parties are given liberty to file paper books consisting of the documents/papers which were filed before the Tribunal, in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules. List the matter in regular list as per its turn.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1135 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ari delicto potior est conditio possidentis cannot be countenanced in the present case as it was not raised before the company court at any point of time. He further submits that several issues raised on behalf of the respondents in the appeal have not been argued before the company court. In Delhi Financial Corporation v. Rajiv Anand (2004) 11 SCC 625; (2006) 131 Comp Cas 285, the Supreme Court has held that a party who succeeds before a court can support that court's judgment on all available grounds. Therefore, in our opinion this submission of Mr. Mookherjee is without substance. 40. In our opinion, the impugned order of the leaned single judge cannot be said to be erroneous, requiring our interference in the present appeal. 41. The appeal is, therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. 43. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Anindita Roy Saraswati, J. I agree.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1134 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... as not placed any order before us to support his stand. He fairly admitted that the issue otherwise is covered against the assessee in the light of the decision of the ITAT “F” Bench, Mumbai. 4. Under these circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect. In the result, the only ground raised by the assessee for A.Y. 1997-98 and 2000-01 as well as ground No. 2 in the appeal for A.Y. 1998-99 are dismissed. 5. This leaves us with ground No. 2 in the appeal for A.Y. 1998-99. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee filed a chart to highlight that the bank has not been able to utilise the loss incurred in the redemption of securities and carry forward for future years for set off and hence the assessee is not interested in pursuing this ground. We, therefore, dismiss this ground as not pressed. 6. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1133 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Superintendent of Post Office was delivered on 22.5.2012 then we have no option but to hold that the notice issued by the office of Respondent No. 1 was delivered to the addressee on 22.5.2012, i.e., one day after the date fixed for hearing. 19. As a corollary to the above findings, it must be held that order dated 12.6.2012 passed by Respondent No. 1 is vitiated due to violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also order dated 12.6.2012 passed by Respondent No. 1 are set aside and the matter is remitted to Respondent No. 1 for fresh disposal of the application filed by Respondent No. 3 for grant of certificate for unilateral execution of conveyance. Respondent No. 1 shall make an endeavour to decide the application of Respondent No. 3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment without being influenced by order dated 12.6.2012.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1132 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... that the higher turnover could not have been achieved without use of the building and equipment should not have been brushed aside by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the completion certificate has not been obtained since the building was not complete in every respect as per the approved plan cannot be a ground to disallow the claim of depreciation especially when the building has been utilised for the purpose of business which is proved by the huge increase in turnover during the year. Under these circumstances and in absence of any contrary material we find no reason why depreciation should be disallowed. In this view of the matter and in view of the detailed discussion by the Ld.CIT(A) allowing the claim of depreciation we find no infirmity in his order. Accordingly, the same is upheld. Grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 5th day of July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1131 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Whether the investment made by the assessee are in terms of the notifications 32/99-CE, 33/99-CE, 8/2004 and 28/2004 r/w Section 72 of the Finance Act, 2011? - HELD THAT:- It is directed that an Investment Appraisal Committee constituted as per the earlier notification shall meet and decide latest by 31st October, 2013 whether the investment made by the assessee are in terms of the notifications referred to in our earlier order - In view of the detailed order passed by us the demand notice is kept in abeyance till the next date.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1130 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ts, AO was directed to decide whether both streams of income are to be considered as income from other sources or they can be considered as business incomes independently or otherwise. In case assessee activity was considered as separate business activity to the extent of earning manufacturing services income, then proportionate disallowance of scientific research expenses claimed u/s. 35(1)(iv) may not arise. Otherwise, the proportionate disallowance is to be restricted from 15th December, 2005 only and not from 1st December, 2005 as assessee was having its own manufacturing activity up to 15.12.2005. With these directions, the issue in ground No. 3 to 6 are restored to the file of Assessing Officer for examination of the facts and contentions afresh and to decide accordingly. Needles to say, assessee should be given due opportunity in the proceedings. 8. In the result, assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1129 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ducts and selling of milk produced by the animals. Copies of receipt and payment, income and expenditure and balance sheet as on 31st of March, 2009 were filed. A perusal of the order of the CIT would show that he could not point out any defect therein. The only objection raised by him is that in respect of different activities i.e. handicraft products and selling of milk produced by the animals, separate accounts should be maintained. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of the CIT in view of the fact that both the activities of the respondent society are charitable in nature as per its bye-laws. Even the Commissioner of Income Tax has not recorded a finding that any of these activities of the respondent assessee is non charitable. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 6 of its order are essentially a question of fact and are not under challenge in this appeal. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed summarily.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1128 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontrary to any such rule, communicates or attempts to communicate with any prisoner, and whoever abets any offence made punishable by this section, shall, on conviction before a Magistrate, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, or to both.” Thus, as per the above provision, whoever, communicates or attempts to communicate with any prisoner is liable for punishment. In the present case, petitioner was entering the jail premises with a mobile phone and its charger which he had hidden in his turban and shoe. The said articles were apparently being carried to enable communication with a prisoner. After presentation of challan, charges have already been framed against the petitioner. In these circumstances, at this stage, no ground for quashing of the FIR in question is made out. Petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to him during trial. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
........
|
