|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1179 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1123
... ...
... ... ..... essee has made these cash payments to M/s AVVNL are payments to a corporate entity of the Government of Rajasthan and has found it to be covered under the above mentioned rule. 4. After hearing both the sides, we have also found that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the payee and the genuineness of the payments. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kalyan Prasad 2011 51 DTR 191 Raj has held that when payments collected by Shri Kalyan Prasad Gupta on behalf of the State Government, Rule 6DD(b) comes to the rescue of the assessee against the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. In the given case also, the payments are found to have been made to the Government company and therefore, no such disallowances can be made u/s 40A(3) of theAct. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeals of the revenue. 5. In the result, the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... tural hazards on the complainant's premises. In my view, the construction made by the writ petitioner could not be regularised under any circumstance specially when there is no sanction and further a portion was constructed on the parapet wall of the neighbouring owners. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition being W.P.23601(W) of 2007 is dismissed. So far writ petition being W.P.24843(W) of 2007 is concerned, the same is allowed. In case the person responsible do not demolish the unauthorised construction within fortnight, the Municipal authorities are directed to remove the staircase at their own cost and to recover the cost from the person responsible. There would be no order as to costs. Later Mr. Samanta prays for stay of operation of this order, but prayer is refused. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1121
... ...
... ... ..... y notice has not been sent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that notice is sent to both the registered address of the company as well as the addresses mentioned in the correspondence. Perusal of the reply shows that no substantial reason has been given as to why the debt is being disputed. The company petition no.517 of 2012 and other connected matters have been admitted against the respondent company and advertisement has been directed to be issued. 3. In the circumstances, the company petition is admitted making it returnable on 13 September 2013. To be heard along with company petition no.517 of 2012 and other connected matters. 4. In the connected company petitions mentioned above, it is directed that a composite advertisement be issued. The advertisement in the present petition shall also be a part of the composite advertisement directed to be issued in company petition no.517 of 2012 and other connected matters. The petitioner to take steps accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1120
... ...
... ... ..... decision of Special Bench, freight expenses which have been deducted from export turnover should also be reduced from total turnover. The Revenue has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the ground that the order of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Saksoft Ltd (supra) has not become final as the department has preferred an appeal u/s. 260A of the Act. The ld. DR has not been able to place on record any judgment contrary to the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. Saksoft Ltd (supra). Filing of appeal against the order cannot preclude the assessee from the benefit which has already been granted to the other similarly situated assessees especially when the order has not been stayed by any Higher Court. This ground of appeal of the Revenue is also dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as it is devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 14th August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... term capital gain. 14. In ground No.3, the assessee has challenged the Orders of the revenue authorities in treating the agricultural income shown by the assessee as income from other sources. On perusal of the Orders of the CIT(A), it is clear that she has held the agricultural income to be income from other sources mainly relying upon the reasoning that the land in question is not an agricultural land. However, in view of our finding while deciding ground No.2 and considering the fact that the assessee had regularly been showing income from agriculture in the return filed in the preceding assessment years, we do not find any reason to treat the income shown from agriculture as income from other sources. We, therefore, allow this ground raised by the assessee by holding that the income of ₹ 30,000/- shown by the assessee has to be treated as income from agriculture. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1118
... ...
... ... ..... d and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) as the issue dealt in the proceedings u/s 154 is a debatable issue, which by itself cannot be dealt u/s 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard. 11. The assessee has filed the C.O. with a two days delay before us and the assessee has explained the reasons for filing the C.O with two days delay. After considering the explanation offered by the assessee, we admit the CO for adjudication. 12. As we have upheld the order of the CIT(A) while deciding the revenue appeal and the C.O. filed the assessee is in support of the order of the CIT(A), the C.O. becomes infructuous and, hence, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 13. In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/08/2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... aking addition of ₹ 53,89,699/- by treating short term and long term capital gain shown by the assessee as business income of the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(supra) but the Ld. CIT(A) has totally ignored this fact while giving relief to the assessee. Though learned counsel of the assessee tried to distinguish the facts of assessee’s case with that of Supreme Court decision in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(surpa), we are of the considered opinion that this exercise should be done by him before Ld. CIT(A) as we are inclined to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of Supreme Court decision in the case of Sardar Indra Singh(supra). This ground of revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. 17. In the result revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1116
... ...
... ... ..... similar facts decided the identical issues in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and pleaded that the claim of the assessee may be allowed. The learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Since we have decided identical issue in ground No.3 of the appeal herein above in Para 13 of this order in favour of the assessee, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the assessee, there raise no question not to follow the same. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee in its favour. 17. The fifth ground of appeal relating to levy of surcharge and interest u/s 234B of the Act being consequential, we hereby direct the AO to take decision in accordance with law. 18. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-08-2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... age/disallowance-advantages attached with the property. Since it is a case of estimation of fair market value, so many factors are there, which affect the estimation/valuation of such property. In the instant case before us, since the valuation arrived at by Stamp Duty Authority was excessive, the Assessing Officer has made a reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A for ascertaining/estimating the fair market value as on the date of transfer. On the basis of such estimation/value arrived at by the DVO, the capital gain on transfer of property is being ascertained. In the instant case, we are concerned with the correctness of estimation arrived at by the DVO in a reference made by the Assessing Officer to the Valuation Officer u/s 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which is purely a question of fact. Now we analyze the advantages and disadvantages attached with the valuation of property in the instant case. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... o understand that the appeal was already disposed of ex-part. In these circumstances, we find that the delay was caused for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Accordingly, in the light of the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the above case, we condone the delay in filing this Restoration Petition before the Tribunal. The delay is condoned and the petition is admitted for hearing and adjudication. 6. Now, coming to the Restoration Petition, we find that the reasons already stated by the assessee support the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the ex-part order of the Tribunal dated 2nd November, 2007 is recalled and the appeal is restored on the rolls of the Tribunal for fresh hearing and disposal. 7. The Registry is directed to fix the date of hearing and issue the notice of hearing. 8. In result, this petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 23rd of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... ically created. It was confined only to deeming UTI a company and deeming the income from units as dividend. There were no specific provisions for deeming the units as shares. Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, upheld the view that units of UTI are not shares of companies. Though the said judgment had been rendered in the context of Explanation to section 73, therefore is also applicable to the present situation which involves the interpretation as to whether units can be considered as shares. In our view in the absence of any specific provision under the Act to deem the unit as shares, it could not be considered as shares of companies and, therefore, the provisions of Article 13 (5) (b) can not be applied in case of units. We agree with the findings of CIT(A) that provisions of Article 13(6) are applicable in case of units as per which the capital gain cannot be taxed in India. The order of CIT(A) is accordingly upheld. 8. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... ktiengesellchaf, Germany. This clearly indicates that M/s. Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellchaf, Germany has accepted the liability to be dealt with the provisions of section 172(7) of the Act. The jurisdictional Assessing Officer may, therefore, verify the position and take such action as may be warranted in law in terms of section 172(7) to ensure that the income of the assessee from the voyages does not escape assessment as per normal provisions of the Act. 6. In view of the foregoing, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed subject to the observations made above. 7. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objections filed by the assessee is in support of the ld CIT(A)'s order, therefore the cross-objections of the assessee becomes infructuous and we dismiss it as infructuous. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1111
... ...
... ... ..... ated by this Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (supra) and also by the Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 394/10 and 395/10. We further direct that the steps, in tune with the directions given by the Tripura High Court, in its order, dated 09-07-2013, shall be taken by the respondents/authorities concerned so that the claim of the petitioner company, as regards making of investments, is, adequately and fully, decided by the IAC. 21. The whole exercise, as directed above, shall be completed expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copies of this order by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chief Commissioner Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Shillong and The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati, Assam. 22. With the above observations and directions, this writ petitions shall stand disposed of. 23. No order as to costs. 24. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... f claim of deduction by filing revised return or disallowance of an expenditure due to difference of opinion did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We have further noted that learned CIT(A) has placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd. 272 ITR 323 (MP) for the legal proposition that where the assessee had surrendered the disputed items and paid tax thereon then it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. Resultantly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the assessee had made the impugned claim on the certificates which were furnished but not found to be false or incorrect, however, under bona fide impression; then the assessee should not be held guilty of concealment of income. The view taken by the learned CIT(A) is hereby approved. The grounds of both the assessment years of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... uble Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. The Revenue has also raised a question relating to levy of interest under Section 234B and C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This issue is covered against the Revenue in Director of Income Tax Vs. Jacabs Civil Incorporated, (2011) 330 ITR 578. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the decision is pending reconsideration and judgment has been reserved. It is also stated that SLP against the said decision is pending. We are not framing any substantial question of law as far as deletion of interest under Section 234 B and C is concerned. However, in case of a favourable decision, it will be open for the Revenue to press the question at the time of final hearing. Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. However, liberty is granted to the parties to file papers/documents, which were filed before the income-tax authorities/tribunal within 8 weeks. To be shown in the category of Regular Matters as per its turn.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1107
... ...
... ... ..... the light of our observations, in each of the grounds of the appeal taken, we do not find it necessary to get into the decisions and details/merits/ratios as decided in the cited cases, as filed in the paper books. ITA No. 7362/Mum/2005, AY 2001-02 ITA No. 7363/Mum/2005, AY 2002-03 43. Since the issues involved in these two assessment years are identical as that in assessment year 2000-01, in ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005. Following the decisions taken by us in the respective grounds in ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005, we follow the decisions taken in each of the grounds on the grounds of appeal, taken in these two appeals, i.e. assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03. 44. The appeals, as filed in assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are allowed. In the result ITA No. 7361/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2000-01 is allowed ITA No. 7362/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2001-02 is allowed ITA No. 7363/Mum/2005 for assessment year 2002-03 is allowed Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1106
... ...
... ... ..... with the same, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal with the grounds of appeal reproduced elsewhere in this order. 25. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Before us the learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the grounds of appeal and relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the Assessee reiterated the stand of the Assessee as put forth before AO and CIT(A) and relied on the order of the CIT(A). 26. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee by following the order of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd., (supra). We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeals by the Revenue on this issue are also dismissed. 24. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the end of hearing on 08.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1105
... ...
... ... ..... they were treated as revenue expenditures. Thus, reliance of the Assessing Officer on Assessment Year 1998-99 was wrong since the assessee had changed the method and calculated the consumption of tools and equipments on the basis of closing stock of items and the accounting method valued by the assessee also had not been disputed by the Department by bringing any material to the contrary. Moreover, reliance was also placed on judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Metalman Auto (P)Ltd. reported in 11 taxmann.com 51. 10. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly addressed the issue and with the change of method of accounting which was not disputed by the Department, the consumption of the tools and equipments has been rightly treated as revenue expenditure and thus, the Tribunal committed no error. No substantial question of law since arise in any of these appeals, they merit no consideration any further. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... ble in the present case. Our independent appraisal of the evidence on the record has created an impression on our minds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. 19. The learned trial court has noticed that PW-5 had merely asked some passers by to join the investigation who were not even ready to disclose their names and addresses to him. In this regard, we agree with the view taken by the trial court that such efforts cannot be termed as 'genuine and sincere efforts'. 20. It is well settled that leave to appeal is to be granted in exceptional cases where the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse. The court must take into account the presumption of innocence of the accused and the acquittal by trial court adds to the presumption of his innocence. We do not find any reasons for interference in the present case. Accordingly, no grounds are made out and the petition for leave to appeal stands dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1103
... ...
... ... ..... e) Fifthly, failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on record, although it may be an error of judgement. (f) Sixthly, even if on the basis of a wrong conclusion the Tribunal has not allowed a claim of the party it will not be a ground for moving an application under s. 254(2) of the Act. (g) Lastly, in the garb of an application for rectification under s. 254(2) the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and reargue the whole matter as the same is beyond the scope of s. 254(2) of the IT Act." 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the argument of the assessee's counsel. The Tribunal cannot review its own order and the remedy lies elsewhere. We do not find any mistake apparent on record which warrants rectification of Tribunal's order. Accordingly, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, the MA filed by assessees is dismissed.
........
|
