|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1208 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d Rs. 1 crore. It is very much apparent from the reading of Section 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the I.T Act 1961 with Rule 2BC (1) of I.T Rules 1962. The Ld. CIT (A) was thus not justified in refusing the claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) of the Act on the basis that approval has not been accorded by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax without appreciatng the provisions u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act. We thus set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to allow the claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) if on verification he finds that the gross-receipts during the financial year relevant for the assessment year under consideration does not exceed Rs. 1 crore. It is needless to mention over hear that while verifying this fact the assessee will be afforded with opportunity of being heard by the Ld. CIT(A). The grounds involving the issue are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th July/ 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1207 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e on margin money deposits and employees loans as its business income and dismiss Ground no. 1. 26. As regards ground no. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 it is observed that the issue involved therein relating to addition of Rs.4,22,50,000/- on account of income-tax recoverable from GUVNL and Essar Steel Ltd. while computing the books profit u/s 115JB is similar to be one involved in ground no. 2 of the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2004-05 which has already been decided by us in forgoing portion of this order. Following our conclusion drawn in A.Y 2004-05 on similar issue, we restore this issue to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh as per the same directions as given by the Tribunal in its order for AY. 2003- 04(supra). Ground No. 2 of the revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 is accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose. 27. In the result, all six appeals are partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the open court on 12th July, 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1206 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... after his birth defendant no. 2 could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity. It is nobody’s case that defendant no. 2 executed the sale deeds and release deed as Karta for any legal necessity. Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void. However, in respect of the property which would have fallen in the share of Gulab Singh at the time of execution of sale-deeds and release deed, the parties can work out their remedies in appropriate proceeding. In view of what we have observed above, the view taken by the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court is erroneous in law. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court as affirmed by the High Court and restore that of the trial court with the liberty aforementioned. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1205 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Profit & Loss Account as an expenditure nor did the assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise. Ld. Counsel for the revenue submits that the assessee has sought to evade tax under the mercantile system of accounting. We are of the view that it is not for the revenue authorities to tell the assessee how to maintain its accounts. We cannot find any fault in the view taken by the Tribunal and find no merit in this appeal.” 10. From the above case lodge it is clearly evident that provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the service tax liability. Accordingly, respectfully following the decisions as above the set aside orders of authorities below, and decide the issue in favour of assessee. 11. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court 5 July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1204 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on 115-0 are not applicable in the case of the assessee corporation. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the addition made on this issue. 4. Since the issue was crystallized in favour of the assessee in earlier years by the decision of the co-ordinate Benches and as the ld. CIT(A) relied on the same while giving relief, we do not see any reason to differ from the findings of the CIT(A). Accordingly ground No.2 is rejected. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. ITA No.3939/Mum/12 for Assessment year 2008-09 6. Similar issues were raised in ground No.1 and 2 in this year also. The ld. CIT(A) following the order in assessment year 2007-08 deleted the additions. Since these two issues are decided in the other appeal in ITA No.3938/Mum/12, for the reasons stated therein, there is no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, they are dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1203 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n account. Hence, both the CIT and the learned Assessing Officer fell in error when they consolidated only two accounts of the assessee with M/s. Star Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. ignoring its debenture account therein. We find from paper book page Nos. 18 to 19 that if all those three accounts are taken together, assessee at no point of time vowed any money to the company and therefore, assessee cannot be considered to have loan or taken any advance from the said company. Therefore, there is no question of any deemed dividend arising in its hand.” After considering the factual position of the assessee and legal position and respectfully following the decision in case of Anil Kumar Agrawal vs. ITO (supra), we have considered view that CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s. 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 05.07.2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1202 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... te. The Tribunal, thereafter, compared G.P. rate with the cases of the business houses carrying on the same business of carpet manufacturing in the same area, furnished before the A.O. and formed an opinion that the assessee's Gross Profit rate of 28.48% could not be enhanced 32.75%. In comparable cases GP declared was very low i.e. 9% to 21%. Looking at the GP declared by the assessee in different years the Tribunal found that the assessee has shown natural GP on the basis of books of account from year to year. The revenue failed to point any special circumstances for estimation of such high profit particularly when during the course of search no incriminating material was found. The submission that in CIT v. Shri Pradeep Baranwal, ITA No.107 of 2013 the appeal was entertained on similar questions of law is not a good ground to admit this appeal as the questions framed are not substantial questions of law to admit the appeal. The income tax appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions made by learned counsel for the parties and bare perusal of the order reveals that the application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground of there being no scientific method for determining the age of the ink upon the cheques. Perusal of the order does not reveal the basis on which the said observation was made by the trial court. In the circumstances, the order based upon the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and set aside by keeping the said question open for consideration of the trial court. 5. Resultantly, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the trial Court for deciding the application Exh.-55, in accordance with law. It is clarified that the issue regarding relevancy of age of the said ink is kept open for consideration by the trial Court. The trial Court is further directed to decide the proceeding as expeditiously as possible. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1200 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ief granted by the Assessing Authority for the expenditure arising on account of Employees Stock Option Plan. This expenditure incurred as per SEBI guidelines and granted by the Officer could not be considered as erroneous one calling for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. “ 8. Thus, he prayed that the expenditure on ESOP claimed by the assessee of ₹ 14,91,000/- should be allowed. 9. The ld. CIT/DR fairly conceded that the issue was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs PVP Ventures Ltd (supra). In view of the submission of the ld. CIT/DR, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the ESOP expenses of ₹ 14,91,000/- claimed by the assessee. Thus, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner indicated above. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 18th of July, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1199 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... re, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 7. On the other ground raised by the revenue with respect to setoff and carry forward of losses incurred in share transaction for Rs.1,81,708/- which was not disclosed in the return of income, we find that the learned CIT(A) has remitted back the issue to the learned AO directing him to verify the claim of the assessee and allow the set-off or carry forward as per law. We do not find as to why the revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. The learned CIT(A) has only directed the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and decide the issue as per law. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, this issue raised by the revenue is also dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10-07-2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1198 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s not form part of total income was and remains a condition precedent to disallow interest paid on borrowed funds. He thus following the decision of Hon’ble P & H High Court in the case of Hero Cycles Ltd (Supra), of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities Power Ltd (Supra) and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of in the case of Munjal Sales Corporation (Supra) has come to the conclusion that no disallowance of interest can be made so long the investment in mutual fund is less than the internal/accruals profits earned. The Ld. CIT(A) has thus rightly held that the AO was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act and marking disallowance of the interest of Rs.24,261/-. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 24,261 is thus upheld. The Ground Nos. 3 & 4 involving the Issue NO-2 are thus rejected. 14. In result, appeal is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th July/ 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1197 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... wherein capital gain is computed. However, in the instant case before us, the profit on sale of land was liable to be taxed as business profit which is computed u/s 28 to 44 of the IT Act. Since section 50C is not applicable in the case of business profit, we do not find any infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). Our view is further fortified by the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2013 by insertion of section 43CA wherein section 50C was specifically made applicable to transfer of assets other than capital assets with effect from 1.4.2014 i.e. A.Y. 2014-15. However, the instant case before us relates to the A.Y. 2009-10 in which Section 50C is not applicable. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) and confirm the same. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands 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 1196 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, if any, on the same within 60 days from the date of the Order. 17. The Petitioners are directed to file a copy of this Order along with a copy of the Amended Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court (O. S.), Bombay, with the concerned Registrar of Companies, electronically, along with E-Form 21 in addition to physical copy, as per the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. 18. The Petitioners in both the Company Scheme Petitions to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- each to the Regional Director, Western Region, Mumbai and Petitioner in Company Scheme Petition No. 347 of 2013 to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay. Costs to be paid within four weeks from the date of the Order. 19. Filing and issuance of the drawn up order is dispensed with. 20. All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this Order along with Amended Scheme and Form of Minutes duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court (O. S.), Bombay.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1195 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e on its merits cannot be accepted. If the present company petition is proceeded with and decided, it will result in conflict of decisions leading to further controversies and therefore this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of the Company Law Board vested in regulation 44 read with mandatory provisions of section 10 of the CPC. In view of the reason, I am of the considered opinion that the second respondent herein cannot proceed with the company petition being C.P. No. 37 of 2011 and accordingly the same is stayed till the disposal of O.S. No. 10 of 2005. The issue is answered. The citations, relied upon by learned senior counsel for the second respondent herein, are not squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand the citations, relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, are applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing reasons. C.A. No. 262 of 2011 in C.P. No. 37 of 2011 is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1194 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are of the view that the interest would be revenue receipt and therefore income. There is no exception provided in respect of interest on compensation payable under the Act. The only exception of the nature is seen provided under clause (ix) of sub-section (3) which we have already alluded to. Therefore, whatever may have been held by this court in the context of the question as to the prerequisite to maintain an appeal under S. 30, we would think that as far as the liability to deduct tax in so far as the interest is concerned it to be treated as revenue receipt and the appellant was liable to deduct tax on the interest. In such circumstances, the upshot of the above discussion is as follows - The appeal is meritless and it is dismissed. The appellant was justified in deducting tax on the interest portion under S. 194A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant will not be liable to pay that amount from out of the amount ordered by the Commissioner to the claimant under the award.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1193 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... prices of the shares could not have been considered, it is not necessary to go into the other aspects. In the light of the above, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” 9. In view of the decision of the Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court we hold that the value of the sale transaction of commodity through MCX without delivery cannot be considered as turnover for the purposed of section 44AB. Accordingly, by following the decision of this Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court, we deleted penalty levied u/s 271B as the transactions carried out by the assessee would not fall under the ambit of turnover for the purpose of section 44AB. Since the additional ground is decided in favour of the assessee therefore the other grounds raised in the appeal become in fructuous. Hence we do not propose to decide the same. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 10th July 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1192 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut it was recorded in full. Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that the law laid down in Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Anr. v. Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and Anr. (AIR 2011 SC 3076) (supra) be followed. 4. We have perused the notes of evidence which are produced on record. They clearly show that the evidence in this case was recorded in full and not in a summary manner. That being so, we cannot but accept the sub-mission of Mr. Ahmadi. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana, to proceed hereafter from the stage where it is pending now. As far as the application of the Respondents for adding some other person to the complaint is concerned, we are not inclined to accept that. It is for the complainant to decide as to against which party it wants to proceed. That application will stand rejected.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1191 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... employees, officers, representatives of people and other high dignitaries continue to stay in the residential accommodation provided by the Government of India though they are no longer entitled to such accommodation. Many of such persons continue to occupy residential accommodation commensurate with the office(s) held by them earlier and which are beyond their present entitlement. The unauthorized occupants must recollect that rights and duties are correlative as the rights of one person entail the duties of another person similarly the duty of one person entails the rights of another person. Observing this, the unauthorized occupants must appreciate that their act of overstaying in the premise directly infringes the right of another. No law or directions can entirely control this act of disobedience but for the self realization among the unauthorized occupants. The matter is disposed of with the above terms and no order is required in I. As for impleadment and intervention.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1190 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ade the payment of employees contribution before the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1), hence the disallowance made by the AO cannot be sustained. Therefore, the disallowance is deleted.” We are in agreement with the order of the CIT(A) to the effect that employees’ contribution, if paid, before the last date of filing of the return, the same is to be allowed. However, there is no positive finding by the CIT(A) to the effect that such contribution was actually paid before the last date of filing the return. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the actual date of payment of employees’ contribution and allow the same. In view of the above, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) with respect to interest of ₹ 14,60,58,000/-, ₹ 3,93,80,000/- payable to consortium bank and M.P. State Cooperative Bank, respectively. We direct accordingly. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part. Order pronounced in open Court on 16.7.2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1189 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... erefore, addition to the extent of ₹ 66,249/- of VAT collected but not paid to Govt. account is confirmed. 21. Rival contentions have been considered and records perused. The Assessing Officer has disallowed ₹ 14,57,800/- on account of VAT expenses. The ld. CIT(A) verified the billwise details of purchase and sale of supply division and works out VAT figure after giving detailed finding at pages 25 & 26 of his appellate order. On verification, it was found that VAT of ₹ 66,249/- remained unpaid. Accordingly, disallowance was restricted to ₹ 66,249/-. Nothing was brought on record by Department to controvert the findings recorded by the ld.CIT(A), accordingly, no interference is required therein. Thus, ground raised by both assessee and Revenue are dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part, whereas cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2013.
........
|
