|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 872 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... scription of this section, which is applicable to the year under consideration, the amount of tax, duty, cess etc. is liable to be included in the value of purchases, sales, opening and closing stock. It is not appropriate to include the closing Modvat in the figure of closing stock without modifying the figures of purchases, sales and opening stock. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Works Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 116 (Bom.) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mahavir Alluminium (2008) 297 ITR 77 (Del.) have held to this extent. As the authorities below have not adjusted other figures with the amount of tax, duty, cess etc., we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of AO for deciding it afresh in accordance with the afore-noted judgements and the provisions of section 145A. Accordingly, Ground No VI is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 871 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Supreme Court in case of Satwant Singh Sodhi (supra) are clearly distinguishable with the facts of this case. 112. In my view thus there is no substance in the cross objections filed by the respondents and thus no interference is warranted with the impugned findings of the learned District Judge in this cross objections and the same thus deserves to be dismissed. I, therefore, pass the following order - (1) Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2010 is allowed. Impugned order dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the learned District Judge-1 Pune is set aside. (2) Miscellaneous Application No. 899 of 2007 filed by the respondents is dismissed. (3) Cross objections (L) No. 728 of 2013 is dismissed. (4) There shall be no order as to costs. Mr. C.S. Kamdar, the learned counsel for the respondents at this stage applies for stay of operation of this order for the period of eight weeks from today. Operation of Order and Judgment delivered today is stayed for the period of eight weeks from today.
-
2013 (6) TMI 870 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... wherein CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of 10 % of administrative expenses. After verifying the exempt income vis-à-vis income liable to tax, the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance to the extent of 10 %. Following the reasoning given by us, in para 9 of our order, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for restricting the disallowance to the extent of 10%. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, the decision of CIT(A) for treating the profit on sale of shares as capital gain was alleged. The facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are pari materia with the assessment year 2002-03. In view of our discussion at para 5 hereinabove, following the same reasoning, we uphold the action of CIT(A) treating the action as capital gain instead of business income. 21. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed. (Order was pronounced in the open court on 25/06/2013. )
-
2013 (6) TMI 869 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... /s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as also considering the fact that the assesee has owned up the bank accounts and has offered the transactions in the said bank accounts to tax, we are of the view that the assessee can be granted a instalment scheme and an early hearing. In the circumstances, it is directed that the assessee shall pay ₹ 25 lakh against the consolidated demand of penalty, for all the years under appeal for which stay applications have been filed, on or before 30th June, 2013. The assessee shall also pay an instalment of ₹ 5 lakh per month the first instalment being on or before 31st July, 2013 and the subsequent instalments on or before the end of the subsequent months. Appeals of the assessee filed before the Tribunal on 18.04.2013 is directed to be posted for early hearing on 12th August, 2013. The registry is directed accordingly. 5. In the result, stay petitions filed by the assesee stand allowed in terms of above. 6. Order is pronounced in open court.
-
2013 (6) TMI 868 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Kaman was entitled to a budgetary allocation between ₹ 1210.39 Lacs to ₹ 1815.59 Lacs. Hence, if a budget of ₹ 1309.70 Lacs has been granted to the Panchayat Samiti, Kaman, it cannot be said that the respondents have granted more budget to Panchayat Samiti, Kaman than it actually deserved. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that Kaman has been favoured due to the interference of respondents No.4 and 5 is unacceptable. Further, respondent No.4 happens to be the Member of Parliament from Bharatpur. Thus, obviously he represents the interest of the entire district. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that he has interfered in order to favour one particular Panchayat Samiti over another. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. (VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)VJ. (R.S. CHAUHAN)J. GS All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
-
2013 (6) TMI 867 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d by reasons. Prior to the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent bank taking a decision on the petitioners' appeals, the information as to the petitioners being branded as wilful defaulters, if circulated to any authority or agency, should be immediately recalled by the respondent bank upon copies of the relevant notices being marked to the petitioners and forwarded to the petitioners within a fortnight from today. WP No. 11833 (W) of 2013 is allowed as above. The petitioners will also be entitled to costs assessed at 3000 GM from the respondent bank for its inappropriate appreciation of the seriousness of the procedure required to be adopted under the master circular and its tardy conduct in not communicating its decision to the petitioners, particularly as the bank in this case is no less than the State Bank of India. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (6) TMI 866 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves the relief prayed for and hence the communication dated 04.05.2012 and 24.01.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondent is directed to engage itself in a bona fide manner with the petitioner to arrive at the price of gas to be effective from 01.01.2014. Taking into consideration the fact that time at the disposal of the parties is short, it is directed that the petitioner shall approach the respondent by writing a letter as early as possible, but not later than 15.07.2013, seeking the aforesaid exercise. The respondent is directed to undertake the exercise soon after receipt of such letter from the petitioner and complete the same as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of such communication. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. GAIL (India) Limited (12.06.2013 - GUJHC)
-
2013 (6) TMI 865 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... e of Sub Registrar, Bariwala for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. Since the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in assessee’s case for the assessment year 2006-07 in ITA No.137(Asr)/2013 and therefore, our decision in ITA No.137(Asr)/2013 is identically applicable in the present three appeals and accordingly order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 138 to 140(Asr)/2013 are dismissed.” 7. In view of our findings hereinabove and our decision in ITA Nos. 137 to 140(Asr)/2013 and others (supra) reproduced hereinabove, shall be applicable in the present appeals and accordingly all the grounds raised by the assessee in all the appeals mentioned hereinabove are dismissed. 8. In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos. 261 to 265(Asr)/2013 and 266 to 270(Asr)/2013 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 864 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ng heard. On receipt of a reply from the said person/entity, the Respondent may call upon him/it to take such measures as may be deemed fit in the interest of the securities market and for due compliance with the provisions of the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations. The above said provisions have admittedly not been followed by the Respondent in issuing the observation/comments/advice contained in para 4(a) of the annexure annexed with the impugned letter dated November 30, 2012. The Appeal, therefore, deserves to succeed in terms of prayer clauses (a),(b) & (c) of para 7 of the Appeal. Ordered accordingly. We, however, make it clear that we do not intend to make any observation on the merit of the issue regarding the three Alleged Triggers dated March 30, 2007, October 12, 2007 and February 19, 2011 and the contentions of parties in this regard are kept open. The Appeal, thus, stands allowed in terms of prayers contained in paras 7(a), 7(b), & 7(c) thereof. No costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 863 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... y way of a letter dated 27.10.2006. On the strength of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CIT rendered in I.T.A. No.474/201 (copy placed on paper book page No.305) contended that the Assessing Officer ought to have explore the assessment of this period in the hands of amalgamated company i.e. M/s GCB Capital Finance Pvt. Ltd. According to the Ld counsel for the assessee, the assessment is not sustainable on this ground also. He further relied upon the orders of the ITAT in the case of Impsat (P) Ltd. v. ITO reported in 92 TJ 52. 7. The Ld DR was unable to controvert the contention of Ld counsel for the assessee. Since we have already passed the order, therefore we do not deem it necessary to go into this issue as well as other issues on the merit. 8. In the result, the cross appeal of the assessee is allowed consequent to which the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 7th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 862 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e pendente lite interest or the interest on judgment could not be faulted on such logic. 7. The matter may be viewed from another angle. If a civil suit claiming money decree could be decreed by a civil court and the civil court would be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Arbitrator, discharging the same function in an alternate dispute resolution mechanism, should be clothed with the same power, otherwise the purpose of alternate dispute resolution mechanism would be frustrated. We thus respectfully differ with His Lordship, at least on the issue of pendente lite interest and interest on judgment. 8. The appeal thus succeeds in part. The award is modified to the extent, the decision of the learned Judge setting aside the award on overrun charges is affirmed. The decision of the learned Arbitrator awarding pendente lite interest and interest on judgment is affirmed. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 861 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sallowed the entire sum of ₹ 18,47,838/-. 11. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the facts of the case, we agree with the Assessing Officer that the above items of gift are of personal nature and in the absence of contrary evidence furnished by the assessee, it cannot be accepted that the above expenditure was incurred for the purpose of assessee’s business. We, therefore, sustain the disallowance out of gifts to the extent of ₹ 11,52,260/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not discussed about the nature of remaining items and the reasons for disallowing of the remaining gift. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer on this point also and direct him to pass a speaking order with regard to the remaining amount of the expenses i.e. ₹ 6,95,578/- (Rs.18,47,838 - ₹ 11,52,260). 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is deemed to be partly allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 14th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 860 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW BOARD , MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er, 2008, the continuance of the three directors is considered essential for continuance of the management of the R-1-company. Therefore, the R-1-company is hereby directed to file Form 32 through any of its officers within three weeks of receipt of this order. Meanwhile, their DIN numbers if required to be freshly issued be also got issued. Thereafter, the directors so appointed shall hold a Board meeting, if necessary in the presence of a representative from the CLB, and appoint two more directors from the respondents' group to give effective representation to the shareholders on the R-1-company's Board. 13. The newly constituted Board may consider change in registered office of the R-1-company. Company Petition No. 3 of 2009 is disposed of in the above terms. All interim orders stand vacated. All company applications stand disposed of. No orders as to cost. Parties are at liberty to mention the matter in case of any difficulty/hindrance in implementing this order.
-
2013 (6) TMI 859 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etitioner-creditor. At this juncture it requires to be noticed that respondent in its reply dated 29.12.2012 Annexure-P has admitted as under "2. It is true that my client is using your client's services for exporting goods and it is also agreed that my client is due to pay some due amount to your client, but it is not the amount as stated in your notice a sum of ₹ 4,39,313/-." Emphasis supplied This admission on the part of the respondent when read along with the acknowledgement by e-mails would clearly indicate that there is an acknowledgement of debt. 24. In that view of the matter I do not find there is any justifiable ground to grant any further adjournment to the respondent to make payment. Hence, petition is admitted. Petitioner is permitted to take out advertisement in "the Hindu", English newspaper and "Vijaya Karnataka", newspaper notifying the hearing date as 30.07.2013. Advertisement to be published on or before 16.07.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 858 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... on of Section 269SS of the Act is hereby affirmed. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue i.e. ITA No. 201/PN/2012 is dismissed. 12. ITA No. 202/PN/2012 is with regard to the levy of penalty under Section 271E of the Act on the ground that the assessee had repaid the alleged loan of ₹ 10,00,000/- to Shri K.N. Mutha in contravention of the provisions of Section 271T of the Act. Since it has been held, in appeal relating to the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act, that there is no proof that assessee had accepted such a loan, the question of levy of penalty for its alleged repayment in contravention of Section 271T of the Act does not arise. Therefore, the CIT(A) in our view has no mistake in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271E of the Act also. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue i.e. ITA No. 202/PN/2012 is also dismissed. 14. Resultantly, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 857 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... re, upheld. 3.3. This ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5.1. In our considered opinion, this kind of adjudication is not sustainable in law in view of the appealable nature of the order of the CIT (A). 6. Considering the above objections of the Ld Counsel, both on the assessment order as well as on the impugned order, we are of the opinion that all the grounds raised by the assessee are required to be set aside to the files of AO for fresh adjudication for want of a speaking order within the meaning of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. AO shall note that the objections raised in writing by the assessee should be taken into account while framing the assessment order. AO shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before making additions in the assessment. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are set aside. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 5.6.2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 856 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... peal on the fundamental issue that the benefit, even if any, was not in the revenue field, and could not have been brought to tax under section 28(iv) for this short reason, we see no need to deal with other peripheral legal issues raised by the parties, as also assessee’s contention to the effect that there was no benefit at all to the assessee. These issues are rendered academic and call for no adjudication. 3. Having heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record, we see no reason to take a contrary view than the view so taken by the coordinate Bench, even though, ld. representative for the assessee appearing before us vehemently relies upon the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer. We respectfully following the same approve the conclusions arrived at by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and decline to interfere in the matter. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 855 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the definition of computer software as contained in Explanation 2(b) to sec. 10A which includes in the definition of computer software customized electronic data or any product or service of similar nature. This circular is relevant only for the purpose of section 10A and the meaning of computer software in common paralence could not be implied to include these services in the computer software. Therefore, reliance placed by the AO on the definition of computer software itself makes the whole issue highly debatable because the definition for a particular section cannot be said to be the only meaning that could be assigned to computer software. Thus, it was rightly observed by ld. CIT(A) that it was a debatable issue as to whether the impugned amount was in capital field or was in revenue field. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/06/2013
-
2013 (6) TMI 854 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ly commercial transaction/regular business transaction, therefore, will not fall within the ambit of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Our view is supported by the decision from Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd.; 318 ITR 376, CIT vs. Rajkumar; 318 ITR 462 and CIT vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del). While coming to this conclusion, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Creative Dyeing and Printing Pvt. Ltd (supra), followed the decision in Navnitlal C. Jhaveri; 56 ITR 198 (SC) and the aforesaid decisions of Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. and clearly held that the advance for business transactions between the assessee company and P did not fall within the definition of deemed dividend. Finally the appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, therefore, 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 19.6.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 853 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... o based on the facts that the assessee has failed to explain the nature of services provided, by the Commission Agents, the disallowance was confirmed. This case law cannot be applied to the facts on hand. This is a case where the assessee has proved the identity of the Commission Agents. The nature of services were stated. Tax was deducted at source and payments made through cheques. In the case of Combined Associates, the major commission agent, the genuineness of the claim has been prima facie accepted by the A.O. of Combined Associates. In our view the assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on it. There is no adverse material collected by the A.O. There is no allegation of illegal payments, much less evidence. The disallowance was made on mere surmises. Hence we are inclined to allow the claim of the assessee. Hence this ground is allowed. 16. In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th June, 2013.
........
|
