|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 774 Records
-
2009 (2) TMI 846 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... it is held that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 10A without setting off brought forward and current year losses of non 10A unit." o p /o p 9. The decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal (referred supra(2) and 3) on which the assessee placed strong reliance, had occasion to deal with similar issues and decided in favour of the respective assessee. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal cited supra, we decide the issues in ground Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the assessee." o p /o p The aforesaid decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. We, therefore, applying the same, direct the AO to allow the assessee set off of unabsorbed depreciation and unabsorbed business loss before allowing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. It is ordered accordingly. o p /o p 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2009. o p /o p
-
2009 (2) TMI 845 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... w, the Ld. CIT(A) - XI, Mumbai has erred in restricting the addition of ₹ 4,64,148/- in the place of ₹ 11,60,370/- on account of motor car expenses, interest on car loan and depreciation on car, without appreciating the facts of the case". 8. The Assessing Officer had made the disallowance of ₹ 11,60,370/- on account of motor car expenses, etc. as against which the CIT(A) has restricted the disallowance of ₹ 4,64,148/. The parties have been heard by us on this issue. The only issue before us is about the reasonableness of the quantum of disallowance. 9. In our considered view, the disallowance sustained by the CIT(A) at 20 is reasonable, particularly when in the subsequent assessment year the disallowance to the tune of 10 only has been made. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 4.02.2009.
-
2009 (2) TMI 844 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uo; The provisions of the Rules and principles emerging from the aforesaid discussion when applied to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident that the assessee-respondent No. 1 has been receiving duty paid RFO in its factory, which is used for generation of steam. The steam is, therefore, used for production of the final product which may be chargeable to duty or not. All the same, the RFO would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57B(1)(4) of the Excise Rules. On this count also, the appeals filed by the revenue-appellant are liable to be dismissed. On account the fact that the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the aforesaid two premises, we do not wish to go into the alternative submission made by the learned counsel for the assessee-respondent No. 1 on the basis of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Limited (supra). For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 843 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ds and as such the entire situation was revenue neutral. As soon as the above was pointed out to them, they paid the entire duty along with the interest and as such no penalty should have been imposed on them. 4. In support of the above contention ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (232) ELT 29 (Tri. LB) and in the case of M/s. Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. 2009 (233) ELT 141 (Tri. Ahmd.) . He submits that there being no malafide on their part and the fact of non-reversal of credit was not with any ulterior motive or by fraudulent means and such credit being reversed by them immediately along with interest, imposition of penalty is not justified. Inasmuch as we find that the ratio of the above decisions are fully applicable, we, while confirming the demand of duty, set aside the penalty imposed upon the appellant. Appeal is disposed of in above terms. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2009 (2) TMI 842 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uty. The Tribunal has further recorded a finding that there was no evidence on record to show C.E.A. No. 131 of 2008 any alternate source of inputs. Once the aforesaid findings have been recorded, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. Moreover, we have already dismissed a bunch of 21 appeals wherein similar orders passed by the Tribunal were subject matter of challenge, vide order dated 24.2.2009 passed in CEA No. 108 of 2008 (Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner, Chandigarh v. Shri Nirmal Kumar Aggarwal). The principle of consistency obviously would apply. Moreover, there are firm findings that the inputs have been used in the final product and there was no evidence to show that any other method of supplying the inputs except the supply made by the dealer. Accordingly no question of law would arise for adjudication much less a substantive question of law within the meaning of Section 35 G of the Act. The appeal does not warrant admission and consequently dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 841 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Principles of consistency - the recipients of inputs had received the inputs which were used in the manufacture of goods cleared on payment of duty - Section 35 G of the Act
-
2009 (2) TMI 840 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... rtment is to be assessed separately as done by both the Assessing Officer and CIT (A) it would be only logical to allow direct loss of ₹ 7,48,49,000/- if not the total loss of ₹ 13,15,36,745/- in Ocean View project. The assessee can claim this loss on the basis of cost or market price whichever is lower as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chainrup Sampatram (supra). However, the assessee has offered income 5 on the aggregate recoveries during the year in respect of all the three projects put together, which is more beneficial to revenue than allowance of loss of ₹ 7,48,49,000/- in Ocean View project. We therefore direct that the basis of the uniform rate of 5 in respect of all the three projects as offered by the assessee himself should be accepted and the income of the assessee is computed accordingly. 10. In the result while the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, department's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 02.02.2009.
-
2009 (2) TMI 839 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... they are “Dummy Companies” as alleged by the Department. In this connection we may add that depending on the answer to Question No. (ii) the Tribunal will have to decide on the point of differential duty. The Tribunal has also to decide as to whether the rental charges for vending machine are deductable from the price and to what extent. Accordingly, Civil Appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs. We request the Tribunal to expeditiously hear and dispose of the appeals, preferably within nine months.
-
2009 (2) TMI 838 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... law?” 2. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in the impugned order has recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has paid appropriate duty and then stored the goods and since the duty was paid by them at the correct rate prevailing at the relevant time, the question of refund does not arise. The Tribunal has further observed that the variation in the rate of duty does not alter the material fact that duty was initially paid by the appellant at the appropriate rate. This is purely a finding of fact. There is no question of law involved. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.”
-
2009 (2) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ver, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existing, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-a-vis the High Court." 14. The above position was highlighted in Lokesh Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr. (SLP( Crl.) No. 2861 of 2007 disposed of on October 21, 2008). 15. Since the High Court had not kept the relevant parameters in view, while granting bail, we set aside the impugned order. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We however, request the trial court to complete the trial as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this court's order. 16. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2009 (2) TMI 836 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Physician samples - Related person - whether the transaction value at which the physician’s samples have been sold by the appellant to M/s. Aditya Medisales Ltd. is required to be adopted for the purposes of duty, in terms of provisions of Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act or resort is required to be made to Section 4(1)(b) read with the Central Excise Valuation Rules
-
2009 (2) TMI 835 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Differential duty ... ... ... ... ..... of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts in view of the case law cited by the counsel. In all those cases, materials in running length imported by the assessees concerned were accepted to be conforming to similar entries under the relevant customs notifications. In the result, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the amounts adjudged against the appellants. 4. emsp This application also contains a prayer for provisional release of the goods. The learned Counsel submits that the assessee is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee for the entire amount of differential duty demand and a bond covering the fine and penalty as condition for provisional release. After hearing the DR, we are of the view that the above conditions are reasonably acceptable to the Revenue. It is ordered that the goods be provisionally released to the assessee, pending the appeal, against bank guarantee for differential duty demand and bond for the fine and penalty. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (2) TMI 834 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oint of law cannot be regarded as information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purposes of re-opening of an assessment. Since it is not a matter of dispute, that in the present case the reassessment made by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 25-3-1987 was based solely on the advice of the audit, and it has not been repudiated, that the Assessing Officer did not take into consideration any material besides the audit objection, we are satisfied, that the impugned order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Authority dated 8-1-1992, setting aside the reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25-3-1987, calls for no interference. Dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 833 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. Appeal admitted.
-
2009 (2) TMI 832 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
... ...
... ... ..... arability adjustment of 11.72 (6.46 working capital adjustment 5.25 risk adjustment) ignoring all important issues like the quality of adjustment data, purpose and reliability of the adjustment performed to be considered before making adjustment on account of capital and risk, which was contrary to Rule 10B(3)(ii) which provides for only reasonably accurate adjustment? 39. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the companies with even a single rupee worth related party transactions should not be selected as a comparable and still proceeded to accept the taxpayer's comparable which had significant related party transactions? 40. Whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the arm's length price determined by the taxpayer which suffered from various defects and rejecting the arm's length price determined by the TPO which was based on cogent evidence and correct analysis of the data?" Call for records. Stay of the impugned judgment without recovery.
-
2009 (2) TMI 831 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ation by the customer was a mistake committed by the customer and not by the bank, the failure to comply with the provisions of sec.139A as envisaged in section 272B(1) was of the customer and not of the bank. The penalty if any, was to be imposed on the customer and not on the bank. There was no failure on the part of the assessee in complying with the provisions of rules 114B to 114D. The assessee should have been allowed an opportunity to make good the deficiency in Form No. 60 and it was not a fit case for levying penalty u/s 272B of the Act". Facts being similar, following the same reasoning, penalty in question is directed to be deleted. ITA Nos. 908 and 909(B)/2008 4. In these two appeals, similar issue arose against the penalty levied by the AO. As we have decided the issue in the aforesaid ITA No. 907(B)/08 against the revenue, following the same reasoning, we delete the penalty levied by the AO. 5. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 830 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... rn itself, as above. True, in the case of Hiralal Maganlal & Co. vs. Dy. CIT (2005) 97 TTJ (Mumbai) 377 (2005) 96 ITD 113(Mumbai), it has been held that a voluntary disclosure cannot be allowed to be retracted later. However, this case does not further the cause of the Department inasmuch as the present is not a case, as discussed where a voluntary declaration was made rather surrender was made in the aforesaid peculiar circumstances and it was withdrawn immediately on filing the return. 15. Last but not the least, the surrender statement itself is hit by the CBDT instruction (supra), which is binding on the AO. The Department has, rather, tried to walk out of the said instructions by stating that these instructions were not available at the time of assessment, which, as seen, is incorrect. 16. In view of the above, finding force in ground No. 2 taken by the assessee, the same is accepted. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed, as indicated.
-
2009 (2) TMI 829 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as become bad. It can be claimed in any later year in which the debt has been written off in the books of accounts. The said position has also been clarified by the CBDT in the circular issued by them bearing No. 551 dt. 23rd ( 5. ) IN the facts and circumstances of this case it appears to us that the loan was given in the ordinary course of business of money lending by the assessee and there is no doubt that the debt became bad was written off during the relevant previous year. ( 6. ) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha and Ors. 1974 CTR (SC) 159 (1972) 84 ITR 481 (SC) specifically held that in money lending business, amount not recoverable and written off by the assessee is allowable as a bad debt. ( 7. ) THEREFORE , considering all these aspects of the matter we do not find that there is any irregularity or any substantial question of law is involved in this matter to admit this appeal. ( 8. ) ACCORDINGL Y , we dismiss this appeal.
-
2009 (2) TMI 828 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... n record that the income of ₹ 61,93,285 stood duly disclosed by the assessee thus, requiring no notice under s. 148 reasons recorded being combination of various facts proved to be incorrect and few allegations which are not borne out of record. Further, as held above major part of the reasons recorded have been held to be based on irrelevant material and in view of the decision in the case of ITO vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das (supra) it was held that "use of extraneous or irrelevant material in arriving at the conclusion would vitiate the conclusion of facts because it is difficult to predicate as to what extent the extraneous or irrelevant material has influence on the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact". 30. We accordingly have no hesitation in quashing the notice dt. 15th Feb., 2005 issued under s. 148 and proceedings consequent to the above notice. 31. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 827 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... exemp-tion under section 11(1) read with section 11(2) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1970-71 where the basic provisions are different from that contained in section 10(23C)( vi) of the I.T. Act. In that case, issue of interpretation of the provisions contained in 3rd proviso to section 10(23C)(vi ) was not before the Apex Court for its consideration. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andhra Chamber of Commerce's case (supra) is also not relevant for the issue involved in the case at hand as in that case the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Object of general public utility" is not restricted to object beneficial to the whole mankind. An object beneficial to a section of the public is an object of general public utility. Thus, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case is of no help to the petitioner. 14. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, C.J. - I agree. Petition dismissed.
........
|
