|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1233 Records
-
2014 (5) TMI 1096 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - requirement to pay duty on the waste and scrap generated at the job worker’s premises - unjust enrichment - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case [2011 (9) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] the respondents are not required to pay duty on the waste and scrap generated at the job worker’s premises. Therefore, hold that the respondents have paid duty on the scrap generated at the jobworker’s premises wrongly and they are entitled for the refund claim.
Further, find that the Commissioner (Appeals) have examined the issue of unjust enrichment which has been supported by the respondents through the certificate issued by the C.A. and the balance sheet where the amount has been shown as receivable from the department. In these circumstances, hold that the respondents have passed the bar of unjust enrichment. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (5) TMI 1095 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Demand of drawback availed, where export proceeds finally could not realized within stipulated period - Export of leather footwear and finished leather goods under drawback shipping bills - Exporter failed to submit BRCs evidencing realisation of export sale proceeds in respect of shipping bills - Held that:- the Reserve Bank, has granted extension up to 31-3-2014 subject to the condition that no further extension would be granted. Applicant has submitted 13 E-BRCs in respect of shipping bills in question evidencing realisation of export sales proceeds within extended time limit allowed by the RBI and said E-BRCs have been verified by the concerned bank and the same may be accepted. Therefore, there is no case for recovery of already sanctioned drawback claims. The demand of said sanctioned drawback is not legally sustainable and hence required to be dropped. - Revision petition allowed with consequential relief
-
2014 (5) TMI 1094 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Demand of excess drawback on the ground of wrongly classifying the products - Classification of item under drawback schedule Exported fish maws under claim of drawback under drawback schedule Sr. No. 0305 claiming drawback @ 2% which was initially sanctioned to them but department classified it under drawback heading 0511 attracting drawback @ 1% - Held that:- the Fish Maws is a bladder/part of fish which is fit for human consumption as the same is used in Chinese food preparations. The chapter-3 of drawback schedule covers fish and crustaceans, Molluses and other Aquatic Invertebrates whereas chapter-5 covers products of Animal organ not elsewhere specified or included and are unfit for human consumption. Since the fish/fish maws specifically covered in chapter-3, its classification is to be considered in chapter-3 itself. Fish maws is a fish dried product and fit for human consumption and therefore it cannot be classified in Sr. No. 0511.
There is no logic for classifying said item differently during the period prior to and after 1-1-2012. Moreover the drawback schedule entry in Sr. No. 0305 has remained the same before 1-1-2012 and after 1-1-2012 though rate of drawback has changed. As per reference Note 1 of Notification No. 92/2012-Cus. (N.T.), dated 4-10-2012 and earlier Notification No. 68/11-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-9-2011, the duty drawback schedule is aligned with the first schedule to Customs Tariff Act 1975 at the four digit level only. The drawback schedule entry 0305 remained unchanged before and after 1-1-2012 and therefore classification of fish maw in Sr. No. 0511 before 1-1-2012 is not legally sustainable. Fish maws is rightly classifiable under drawback schedule Sr. No. 0305 for the period prior to 1-1-2012 also. Therefore, fish maws is rightly classifiable under drawback schedule heading 0305 during the period prior to 1-1-2012 and after 1-1-2012. The drawback claims initially sanctioned to the applicants were in order and order for recovery of drawback claim @ 1% is not legally sustainable. Therefore the orders sanctioning drawback claim @ 2% is upheld. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2014 (5) TMI 1093 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Fixation of brand rate of DBK on portion of Ethyl Alcohol - Export of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under claim for duty Drawback - Whether IMFL exported is manufactured out of molasses based Ethyl Alcohol or grain based Ethyl Alcohol - Held that:- in present revision applications applicant department has again raised the other same point which were decided vide G.O.I. Revision Order No. 225-241/2011-Cus., dated 4-5-2011. It is not legally permissible for department to raise the same points again. The remand proceeding were required to be conducted strictly in accordance with the remand order. In the remand order, it was directed to decide the brand rate fixation application afresh after conducting the complete verification from relevant statutory records of the manufacturing unit to determine whether IMFL exported was manufactured from molasses based ethyl alcohol or not. The verification conducted has established that IMFL exported is manufactured from molasses based ethyl alcohol. As such, there was no option to raise the other ground already decided in earlier revision proceedings. - Revision application rejected
-
2014 (5) TMI 1092 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rejection of drawback claimed under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provision of Re-export of Imported Goods Rules, 1995 - Import of tyres and fitted them in trucks which were finally exported - Original Authority held that the goods exported were not same as imported goods and not exported as such and therefore, not eligible for drawback claim - Held that:- applicant has already availed rebate of duty paid on exported goods. At the same time they have also availed Cenvat credit. Applicant is stated to him availed drawback of Customs Portion also. Since the drawback claim is not admissible to them when rebate is already claimed, they have attempted to make out a case for drawback claim under Section 74 of Customs Act. So, the goods exported are Tipper Trailer and the imported inputs are used on this manufacture of Tipper Trailer. As such it is not a case of re-export of imported goods. The lower authorities have rightly rejected the claim of applicant. Revision application rejected
-
2014 (5) TMI 1091 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of non bona fide baggage and commercial in nature - Imported in violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 - As per provision of Baggage Rules 1998, the applicant is entitled to get full free allowance which has been denied - Appellant contended that one electronic keyboard PA50SD Brand Korg is overvalued and requested to assess its value as per invoice issued at Singapore mentioning the value as Singapore dollars 784 = INR 35,035 - Held that:- the documentary evidence submitted by applicant is quite convincing and therefore its value is accepted as ₹ 35,050/-. One key board cannot be treated as commercial in nature. So, said item may be allowed in baggage free allowance as per his entitlement under baggage rules by charging duty on value in excess of free allowance.
Revision application under Section 129DD of Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of non bona fide baggage and commercial in nature - Imported in violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, Foreign Trade Policy 2009-14 - As per provision of Baggage Rules 1998, the applicant is entitled to get full free allowance which has been denied - Appellant contended that black label whisky was overvalued @ 6000/- per litre bottle whereas its value is only ₹ 1,000/- per bottle - Held that:- this contention of applicant merits acceptance and therefore the black label whisky one litre bottle is to be valued @ ₹ 2,085/-. Since applicant passenger is eligible to import two litre of whisky duty free in terms the baggage rules, the two litre whisky is allowed to be cleared duty free as per his entitlement in terms of Baggage Rules. The value of 4 bottles works out to ₹ 2,085 x 4 = 8,340/- and duty may be charged accordingly. - Revision application disposed of
-
2014 (5) TMI 1090 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Examination report called for examining the claim of CENVAT credit - Held that:- There was no confrontation of the contents of such report for rebuttal by the appellant in case of discrepancy.
Stay application is disposed of and the appeal is remanded to the ld. adjudicating authority to confront the examination report stated to be dated 12.12.2013 fixing the date of hearing within three months of receipt of this order and granting fair opportunity for hearing the appeal, ld. Authority shall pass appropriate order.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1089 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Extension of time - Compliance of pre-deposit order - no reason have been made out for extension of time, as there is no positive affirmative action on the part of the appellant as regards the compliance of the pre-deposit order. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance. - Decided against the appellant
-
2014 (5) TMI 1088 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - whether the cheques in question were issued as advance for supply of goods which were never supplied or they were issued towards payment of the goods which were purchased by the firm and were duly supplied to it.- Held that:- The accused has not been able to rebut the statutory presumption raised under Sections 138(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the cheques in question were issued for consideration, i.e. towards price of the goods purchased by the accused firm from the appellant/complainant Company.
As held in M.S. Narayana Menon case [2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT ] an accused need not enter into witness box and examine other witnesses in support of his defence and that the standard of proof required from an accused is preponderance of probability, which can be drawn not only from the material on record but also by reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies. However, in the facts & circumstances of the case the accused before this Court has not been able to discharge the onus placed on him from the material brought on record by the complainant nor has he been able to show existence of circumstances from which it may be inferred that the cheques in question were without consideration.
the firm was not arrayed as an accused and only Mr. Sumit Seth was the sole person prosecuted by the complainant/appellant Company. In fact the averment made in the complaint is that Mr. Sumit Seth was the Proprietor of M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate. Admittedly M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate is a partnership firm and Mr. Sumit Seth is its partner and not its proprietor. Despite his being a partner of the firm Mr. Sumit Seth cannot be convicted in the aforesaid complaint because the firm was not made an accused along with Mr. Sumit Seth. A firm is a Company within the meaning of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, the partner of a firm is only vicariously liable where an offence under Section 138 of the Act is committed by the firm, provided he was the person in charge of and responsible to the firm for conduct of its business at the relevant time. Unless the firm is prosecuted and convicted, a partner cannot be convicted with the aid of Section 141 of the Act. Thus appeal against Shri Sumit Sethi is dismissed. and M/s. Tarun Engineering Syndicate is convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused firm is fined of ₹ 16.00 lakh ₹ 16.00 lakh, ₹ 19.00 lakh and ₹ 16.00 lakh respectively in the complaints
-
2014 (5) TMI 1087 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Sales Tax Subsidy received from Government of Gujarat - revenue receipt OR capital receipt - Held that:- The issue raised before us is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in assessee's own case and following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that the sales tax subsidy received by the assessee is assessable in the hands of the assessee as revenue receipt. - Decided against assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1086 - ITAT AMRITSAR
Penalty under section 221(1) - non deposit tax under section 140A - Held that:- As per Explanation 221(1), the assessee shall not cease to be liable to any penalty merely by reason of the fact that before the levy of penalty he has paid to the tax. In fact, in the present case, the penalty u/s 221(1) of the Act was levied on 30.12.2009 on which date, the assessee was enjoying the money by investing the same in his sister concern in which he is stated to have incurred losses and by placing balance sheet of such company cannot help the assessee to prove good and sufficient cause and such action of investing money in the said concern M/s. Nijjar Agro Foods appears to be quite intentional for avoiding preferred liability of Income-tax. Therefore, there cannot be any good and sufficient cause established before any of the authorities below or even before us for not levying penalty. No infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has actually confirmed the levy of penalty under section 221(1)of the Act - Decided against assessee
Rectification of mistake - reversal of returned income claiming exempt LTC gain which has been erroneously shown - Held that:- We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that the AO is quite justified in rejecting the assessee’s rectification application because the mistake sought to be amended is not a prima facie mistake. Secondly, the assessee is submitting corroborating evidence with the rectification application which requires investigations and verification and as such the same is outside the purview of provisions of section 154 of the Act. However, the correct course would have been by seeking remedy by moving revision application u/s 264 before the CIT_II, Amritsar soliciting for revision of order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act or by filing revised return.- Decided against assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1085 - ITAT PUNE
Reference to DVO - Held that:- Assessing Officer has no power to make the reference to the DVO for the A.Y. 2007-08 by invoking u/s. 55A of the Income-tax Act for determining fair market value as on 01-04-1981 on the opinion that FMV must be less than as declared by the assessee. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (5) TMI 1084 - ITAT CHENNAI
Entitlement to benefit to the assessee- societies available u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) - Held that:- This issue has been considered in M/s. SL(SPL) 151, Karkudalpatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer [2014 (5) TMI 556 - ITAT CHENNAI ] as afer perusing the relevant provisions of State Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, governing similar assessees, the Tribunal found that definition of ‘members’ includes ‘associate members’, as well. The Tribunal found that such nominal members also enjoy statutory recognition as per the State Cooperative Societies Act. The Tribunal further observed that the objections of the Revenue that ‘members’ defined in sub-clause (i) of section 80P(2) should only include voting members, would amount to a classification within classification which is beyond the purview of taxing statute; unless provided specifically by the legislature.
Therefore, we find that the issue raised in these appeals stands adjudicated by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this point and direct the assessing authority to grant the benefit to the assessee- societies available u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i). - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1083 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Interest accrued to the assessee - @18% p.a. as claimed by the assessees in the suits filed for recovery of advances - Held that:- As assessees have stated before the CIT(A) that the amounts advanced are from out of the share application monies and temporary advances. It is so stated on the basis of entries in the Balance Sheet and the Profit & Loss Accounts of the respective assessees filed along with their returns of income. In the absence of any contract between the assessee companies and M/s. SCSL for charging of interest on the advances, the assessees are not entitled to receive any interest income on such advances. Therefore, merely because the assessee is following mercantile is system of accounting, it cannot be said that the interest has accrued to the assessees .Further, merely because the assessees have claimed interest at the rate of18% per annum in the suits filed for recovery of advances, it cannot be said that the said rate of interest is applicable as M/s.SCSL has not admitted the liability of even the amounts of advance. As such, we find that there is no certainty with regard to the said rate of interest. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that the interest accrued to the assessee at the rate of 18% p.a. as claimed by the assessees in the suits filed for recovery of advances.
The Civil Courts would consider and decide the liability of M/s. SCSL to repay the amounts of advances and would also consider the liability of M/s. SCSL to payinterest thereon and the rate of interest at which the advances should be repaid. Therefore, unless and until the liability to pay the advances and the rate of interest at which the temporary advances are to be repaid is determined by the Civil Court, it cannot be said that the same has accrued or arisen to the assessees. However, if the assessees had advanced interest bearing funds as interest free advances, the interest paid by the assessees towards such borrowed funds would have to be disallowed and treated as the income of the respective assessees. We find that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has examined the issue from this angle. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer share set aside and the issue is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer of the respective assessees for de no consideration in the light of our observations above. Further, we hold that if the amounts advanced to M/s. SCSL by the respective assessees are from their own funds, then the interest expenditure cannot be disallowed and brought to tax
-
2014 (5) TMI 1082 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
MAT - Computation of book profits under section 115JB - addition on account of disallowance worked out under section 14A - plea of the assessee in this regard was that the assessee itself had disallowed sum on account of disallowance under section 14A under regular provisions and under section 115JB provision in its return of income on proportionate basis - Held that:- Similar issue of computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act in view of readjustment on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act arose before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2008-09 wherein as directed Assessing Officer to adopt the book profits as per the Profit & Loss Account and do not make addition on account of disallowance worked out under section 14A of the Act, as such disallowance is computed under the normal provision of the Act, which are not applicable for determining book profits under section 115JB of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1081 - ITAT PUNE
Enhancement of income on account of incremental disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- The stand of the assessee that no expenditure was allocable towards the earning of exempt income is a bald assertion; and, therefore the CIT(A) made no mistake in rejecting it and considering a portion of operating expenses as having been incurred towards earning of exempt income. The quantification of such expenditure done by the assessee is ₹ 3,76,53,360/-, which is the amount disallowed by the CIT(A) u/s 14A of the Act. We find no reason to discard the working which the assessee itself furnished and accordingly in so far as the disallowance of ₹ 3,76,53,360/- u/s 14A of the Act made by the CIT(A) is concerned, the same is hereby affirmed - Decided partl in favour of assessee
Claim of exemption u/s 10(23G) of the Act with respect to the interest income earned by the assessee from infrastructure advances - Held that:- Since the aforesaid issue was not before the lower authorities, we deem it fit and proper to restore it to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall consider the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 10(23G) of the Act on its merits, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Need1l1ess to say, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to put-forth its claim, and only thereafter, he shall adjudicate the claim of the assessee as per law - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) in respect of debts written-off by non-rural branches - Held that:- The claim of the assessee is that the said Additional Ground is entirely in tune with the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (2012 (2) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). On this aspect also, we deem it fit and proper to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall consider the claim of the assessee in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. (supra). Herein also the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to put-forth its claim and only thereafter, he shall adjudicate the claim of the assessee as per law.
Depreciation @ 25% in respect of electronic equipments and Safe Deposit Vaults, etc. grouping the same under the head ‘Plant & Machinery’ - Held that:- Having regard to the parity of reasoning laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central Bank of India (1975 (6) TMI 12 - BOMBAY High Court ) as well as Punjab & Sind Bank Ltd. (2000 (5) TMI 31 - DELHI High Court). In both the judgements, it clearly emerges that in the case of a banking company, for allowing depreciation in respect of lockers, counters, steel equipment, electrical fittings, etc., their functional utility has to be evaluated. Assessing Officer is required to go into the aspect of the depreciation allowable in relation to the impugned assets afresh.
Exclusion of a sum out of the total income on account of write back of Provision for non-performing investments - Held that:- In our view, the aforesaid claim could not have been foreseen by the assessee at the time of filing of the return of income as it has emerged out of the past assessments, wherein certain additions/disallowances were made by the income-tax authorities. Therefore, instead of shutting out such a claim merely because of its absence in the return of income, the income-tax authorities ought to have examined the same on its merits. As a result, we therefore deem it fit and proper to set-aside the order of the CIT(A) on this aspect and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the factual position and thereafter allow the claim of the assessee in accordance with law. Needless to mention here, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to put-forth its claim and the Assessing Officer shall thereafter adjudicate the claim of the assessee as per law. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Disallowance of depreciation on value of securities transferred from ‘Available for sale’ to ‘Held to Maturity’ - Held that:- Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim of the appellant that depreciation is reduction in value of the securities held under the category 'Held to Maturity' because of reduction in market value of these securities as on 31st March 2004 which is the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. If it is found that the reduction by way of depreciation is because of reduction in market value of securities as on the last day of the relevant financial year, the claim of the appellant shall be allowed as allowable deduction for the purpose of computing taxable profit during the assessment year under appeal.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1080 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Disallowance u/s 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- In the present case, it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that any part of the remuneration paid by the assessee company to the directors was on account of extra commercial consideration and hence, the judgment of Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax as reported in [1996 (12) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court ] by learned D.R. of the Revenue is not applicable in the facts of the present case. We also find that it is noted by CIT(A) that his predecessor has also adjudicated upon the same issue in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case in the immediately preceding year and nothing has been brought on record before us by learned D.R. of the Revenue that the order of CIT(A) in the earlier year was reversed or modified by the Tribunal. We also find that although the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act but he has not established that the increase in remuneration to the directors is excessive or unreasonable. Under these facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of Revenue is rejected.- Decided against revenue.
Disallowance of depreciation on the vehicle - whether the assessee did not own the assets and it did not furnish the certificate of transfer of vehicle on which it had claimed depreciation at any point of time during the relevant part of the year - Held that:- In the facts of the present case, the entire purchase price paid by the assessee was received back because the car had some technical defects. For allowing depreciation on an asset, the assessee has to fulfill two preconditions that the asset should be owned by the assessee and it should be used by the assessee for business purposes. So far the user is concerned, it was submitted by the assessee that the assessee was using the car till it was returned to the seller but for the other condition i.e. the assessee was owning the car, we find that although the car in question was in possession of the assessee and the assessee used it also but no effort was made to get the car transferred in the name of the assessee company. It may have been different case if an effort was made to get the car transferred but the same could not be transferred for some technical defects. In the present case, no document has been brought on record to show that any effort was made by the assessee to get the vehicle transferred in its name. In fact, in the same year, the assessee intimated to the seller to take back the vehicle and refund the entire amount and the entire amount was refunded also although in a subsequent year. The assessee was retaining the car only because the seller did not return the money. As and when he returned the money, the assessee returned the car. Since the seller was using the money, the assessee was using the car. It does not make the assessee an owner of the car. The assessee was not even a beneficial owner and he is a bailor only because the assessee was to receive the full amount paid by it. Under these facts, in our considered opinion, it cannot be said that the assessee was owner of the car and therefore, depreciation is not allowable to the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1078 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Capital subsidy - whether subsidy received was of a Revenue nature as per CIT(A)? - Held that:- In case before us, the subsidy was given in the category of small scale industry and under further sub head export oriented units. The subsidy is directly related to plant & Machinery. Therefore in our opinion, in this background the subsidy is clearly of capital nature and accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hold that subsidy received by the assessee from Government of Punjab is in nature of capital receipt.
Disallowance on account of salary and wages on account of inflation of expenses - Held that:- The assessee has successfully explained the existence of extra attendance cards in respect of the number of the cards found during the survey but however, at the same time if we consider the case of 26 persons who had left the job in the month of August and Sept 2008 full explanation is not available. Therefore inflation of salary and wages cannot be ruled out totally. Considering overall explanation of the assessee and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if a disallowance of ₹ 8 lakhs is made in respect of inflation of salary and wages in this case. This proposal was accepted by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as the Managing Director of the company who was present in the Court, therefore we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the disallowance of ₹ 8 lakhs on account of salary and wages on account of inflation of expenses - Decided partly in favour of assessee
Addition on shortage of stock - Held that:- Assessing officer has not given any adverse comments and simply brushed aside the objection of the assessee by stating that item dealt by the assessee are numerous and are of different sizes. This is totally high handed approach by the Revenue. Whatever evidence is being filed, is not examined and simply brushed aside. Even before us, the Revenue could not point out any error in the valuation and the differences given by the assessee at page 323 to 329 of the paper book which were filed before the Assessing officer during assessment proceedings.Therefore in our opinion, these differences amounting to ₹ 12736887/- should have been accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). If these were supported by the copies of bills which have been filed in the paper book then same cannot be rejected.
Undisclosed sales - Held that:- Some stock was lying in Madhya Pradesh for which proper evidence has been filed. One more aspect was considered for determining of undisclosed sales and it was that assessee had employed more workers then actually shown in the books of accounts and for which addition of ₹ 86,57,239/- was made on that account which was reduced to ₹ 43,69,886/- by the Ld. CIT(A) because he accepted the contention regarding duplication of workers and contractor workers. However, we have already adjudicated this ground in above noted paras and addition has been reduced to only ₹ 8 Lakhs which was made only on estimated basis by us. Therefore this factor is also not available for the conclusion that the assessee had undisclosed sales. We also find force in the submission that during survey proceedings or otherwise the Revenue has not brought any material on record in form of any sales bill or diary notings that some sales have been conducted outside the books of accounts. Therefore in our opinion, this addition is totally uncalled for and accordingly we delete the same. Therefore this ground of assessee is allowed
-
2014 (5) TMI 1077 - ITAT MADRAS
Method of depreciation - Held that:- The issue for the year under consideration is squarely covered by the decision of the Chennai Bench of ITAT in the case of K.K.S.K. Leather Processors Private Limited v. ITO [2009 (11) TMI 556 - ITAT MADRAS-D] directing to to allow the depreciation on WDV method
-
2014 (5) TMI 1076 - ITAT MUMBAI
Claim exemption under section 54F denied - Held that:- In the case in hand, the residential property was not purchased by the assessee at the time of filing of the return. The claim was specifically made by the assessee before the appellate authority. But the first appellate authority failed to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the claim of the assessee.
We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to consider the claim of the assessee regarding deduction under section 54F of the Act on merits after giving property opportunity to the assessee to represent his case. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
............
|
