Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1152 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ... ... ... ..... s regard, we have carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) and we find that the ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated these issues in detail in his order. Since no infirmity has been pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm his order and reject these grounds of appeal. 12. In ITA No. 345/LKW/1999, the other grounds raised by the assessee relate to disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G(iiig) of the Act and charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. These grounds were properly adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) in his order and no infirmity has been pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Finding no merit in the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee, we subscribe the order of the ld. CIT(A) on these issues and reject the grounds of appeal. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.8.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1151 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Hanuman Cotton Mills & Anr. vs. Tata Aircraft Ltd. which holds that as against an amount tendered by way of security, amount tendered as earnest money could be forfeited as per terms of the contract. 39. We may additionally observe that original time to pay the balance bid consideration, as per Ex. P-1 was May 18, 1982 and as extended by Ex. P-8 was October 28, 1982. That DDA could auction the plot in the year 1994 in sum of 11.78 crores was immaterial and not relevant evidence for the reason damages with respect to the price of property have to be computed with reference to the date of the breach of the contract. 40. The appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and decree dated September 10, 2007 is set aside. Suit filed by M/s.Kailash Nath & Associates is dismissed, but we leave the parties to bear their own costs all throughout. Amount deposited by DDA under orders of the Division Bench in the instant appeal be returned to DDA together with interest accrued thereon.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1150 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... the lenders and asks the assessee to further prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, the A.O. does not follow the principle laid down u/s. 68.” 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court we are of the view that in the facts of the present case, since the assessee has discharged the initial burden cast on it, the addition made u/s. 68 is uncalled for. We accordingly delete the addition. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.919/AHD/2012 13. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the penalty levied on the addition made u/s.68. 14. Since the addition made u/s.68 has been deleted vide Appeal No.399/AHD/2009 hereinabove of the assessee, the penalty on such addition does not survive. We accordingly direct the deletion of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31 - 8 - 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1149 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... g unilateral journal entries one entity cannot pass ownership of assets to another tax- entity. Transfer of possession may have taken place between the firm and the proprietary concern, but only on that basis depreciation cannot be allowed. Shri Dadarkar had not introduced the assets-in-question as his contribution towards his share of capital while becoming partner of the firm. In these circumstances accepting the argument of the assessee firm; that depreciation can be allowed to any tax entity for the assets purchased by the other taxpayer; will lead to a dangerous preposition and will go against the basic provisions of law related to depreciation. In the case under consideration assessee-firm has also made a claim of depreciation on assets owned by another tax-entity. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we reject the appeal filed by the assessee. This Ground of Appeal is decided against the appellant-firm. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-08-2012 .
-
2012 (8) TMI 1148 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... tion that was tendered by the assessee was ignored and not considered before passing the order u/s. 271(1)(c). In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court we are of the view that the penalty order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the order levying penalty cannot be upheld. Even on merits the factual position that emerges is that the assessee has losses to be carried forward to the extent of ₹ 3.73 lacs after giving effect to CIT (A)’s order. In such a case following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SLN Traders (supra), we are of the view that the assessee cannot be considered to have concealed income so as to justify the levy of penalty. In view of this matter, the order levying penalty is deleted. Assessee’s appeal is allowed. 11. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 9 - 8 - 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1147 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... sions and facts and circumstances of the case, we note that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) considered additional evidence violating Rule 46A(3) of the Rules but at the same time, we also observe that the appellant filed a Paper Book containing 99 pages before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which he could not submit before the Assessing Officer during the assessment and the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material available on record before him. Therefore, we find it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh after due consideration of additional evidence and affording a due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In view of above, the appeal of the Revenue is disposed of and accordingly, it is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.8.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1146 - ITAT PUNE
... ... ... ... ..... ard 2(3), Sangli. Copy to 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur. True Copy Sd/- (B.P. Changan) Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Sangli. 6. After going through the remand report submitted by the AO it can be seen that the order passed by the AO has been modified on 04-08-2003 at 4.28 pm. Further the finding given by the learned CIT(A) that the envelope despatched by the Income Tax Office bears date stamp of 09-04-2003 at 12.48pm was also could not be controverted by the learned DR. Under these circumstances and in view of the detailed order passed by the learned CIT(A) on the basis of various decisions we find no infirmity in his order holding that the assessment order passed by the AO is bad in law and therefore the same has to be annulled. Accordingly the order of the learned CIT(A) is upheld. The grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1145 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... icate or extinct the investigation, which was carried out pursuant to FIR before service of the order and, is subject to revival. It, therefore, cannot be said that when the order was passed by the learned JMFC, there was no investigation and, therefore, there is no force in the argument that learned JMFC could not have remanded the accused in such a situation in exercise of powers under Section 167 of the Code. And secondly, the act of learned JMFC remanding the accused to custody is a judicial act, which cannot be termed as part of investigation and cannot be considered to have been covered under the stay granted by this Court in CRMA No.10303 of 2012. 15. Illegal or unauthorized detention or confinement is a sine qua non for entertaining a petition for writ of Habeas Corpus. The custody of the petitioner is, therefore, judicial and cannot be considered to be illegal. As such, the relief sought in the petition cannot be granted. The petition must fail and stands dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1144 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tly argued that as the petitioner had already undergone the total period of sentence, which he would have suffered, if he has not preferred a revision or in the revision, the sentence was not modified, that does not make any difference while considering the question whether the compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure could be realised after the accused has undergone the default sentence. In view of the earlier findings, even though petitioner has undergone the default sentence, as the compensation is payable under Section 357(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a warrant could be issued for its recovery. Crl.M.C. 2083 of 2011 is also dismissed. The learned counsel submitted that the injured have not sought realisation of the compensation awarded. It is clarified that if the injured reports to the court that he/they do not intend to realise the compensation, pursuant to the distress warrant, Magistrate is competent to withdraw the warrant issued.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1143 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... on prescribed under Section 145 for the rejection of books of account or the method of accounting is fulfilled. The Assessing Officer has not recorded the finding that the books of account of the assessee are required to be rejected in terms of Section 145. However, since we are setting aside the issue relating to cash credit, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with regard to gross profit addition also. The Assessing Officer will examine the assessee’s books of account and if he finds that the books are liable to be rejected as per the provisions of Section 145, then only, he will proceed to reject the trading result and estimate the gross profit at a reasonable and fair rate. Needless to mention that the Assessing Officer will allow adequate opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1142 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ... ... ... ..... d the insurance claim received by the assessee on account of the depreciable assets as short term capital gains. As per the provisions of sec. 50 since the block of assets after reducing the insurance claim received is still continuing with the positive value, there will not be any capital gains to be taxed in the year. The assessee was held to be entitled for the depreciation on the WDV so reduced by the value of the insurance claim received during the year. Thus the learned CIT(Appeals) has held that the assessee rightly reduced the insurance claim received of ₹ 1,54,93,244/- from the opening WDV as on 01-04-2002 of ₹ 9,00,33,053/- and therefore it cannot be taxed as short term capital gain. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) . Therefore, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 24th of August, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1141 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s-examine. Such contention, on the face of it, is misconceived and as such, does not merit acceptance. 14. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the statements recorded under section 14 of the Central Excise Act were never retracted and were supported with corroborative evidence and as such, could have been placed reliance upon by the adjudicating authority, loses sight of the fact that if such statements were sought to be placed reliance upon by the Department, the respondents were required to be given an opportunity of cross-examining such persons. In the absence of the respondents being permitted to cross-examine such witnesses, the Tribunal was justified in holding that such statements could not be placed reliance upon. 15. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the questions are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the respondents and against the Department. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1140 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... or complexes. These are different from building used for residential or commercial purposes as envisaged in sub clause 3. We, therefore, of the considered view that the asset, which is subjected to Wealth Tax by the learned Assessing Officer, is a property which is in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes, and, therefore, exclusion provided in sub clause 5 to clause (i) of sub section (ea) of Section 2 will be applicable. Accordingly, the findings given by the CIT(A) is upheld. Thus, grounds taken by the department are treated as dismissed. 9. Since, in other years i.e. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08, issues involved are similar, therefore, the findings given hereinabove, applies mutatis mutandis in these years also. Thus, following the aforesaid finings, grounds raised by the department in all the aforesaid years, are dismissed. 10. In the result, the all appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th August, 2012 .
-
2012 (8) TMI 1139 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... s applicable for resident Indians only, even the provisions of section 195 is not applicable as payments are made to non-resident overseas agents for the services rendered outside India. So, relying upon CIT(A)’s order, it was pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the sides, considered the material on record as well as precedent relied upon by the CIT(A) and find that basis and reasoning as given by the CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition made by the Assessing Officer are sound and convincing in the light of the case law relied upon. Neither any contrary material has been placed nor any infirmity or flaw has been pointed out or noticed in the order of the CIT(A). As such while concurring with the finding of the CIT(A), we uphold his order and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 6 As a result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court soon after the conclusion of the hearing on 29.08.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1138 - ITAT COCHIN
Receipt of fixed deposit and the compensation of the spread-over period - Deemed to be accrual of Income or Not - Freezer deposit - HELD THAT:- The agency agreements in the instant case are live and continuing. Accordingly, we hold that the deposits collected from vendors cannot be considered as income of the assessee so long as the agency agreement continues. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition relating thereto.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1137 - ITAT INDORE
... ... ... ... ..... the market and assessee was also in receipt of substantial amount of dividend income of ₹ 2.30 lakhs and ₹ 1.90 lakhs in the assessment year 2006-07 an 2007-08 respectively. Keeping in view the intention of the assessee, the treatment given by the assessee in its books of account in respect of shares so sold, the stand taken by the Departmental Authorities in earlier years and the fact of assessee having used own funds for investment in shares, we are inclined to agree with the contention of ld. Authorized Representative that profit arising out of sale of shares were essentially liable to be taxed as short term and long term capital gains depending on period of holding of shares. Thus, we confirm the action of CIT(A) in both the years for treating the income offered on sale of shares as capital gains rather than business income. 19. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1136 - ITAT INDORE
... ... ... ... ..... ot clear from record as to whether entire unaccounted sales had been offered for taxation in the hands of the company. Assessee is also directed to submit revised cash flow statement duly incorporating the cash and income generated through unaccounted sales offered by assessee. The Assessing Officer should also keep into account any other unexplained expenditure etc. having been given set off against such addition of unaccounted sales/income offered by RGJPL. Only excess balance of cash so found in the hands of M/s. Rajat Gems and Jewelleries Pvt.Ltd. can be allowed as a set off against the cash found at the residence of the assessee. Assessing Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of our above direction We direct accordingly. 32. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 6th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1135 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... leting adjustment while computation of arm's length price of the international transactions of software services distributed by MUK (Associated Entriprise) by making an upward adjustment of ₹ 18,62,45,100/-? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in reversing the order passed by the Assessing Officer and thereby deleting adjustment by way of Human Resource Management services ₹ 2,92,22,683/- treating the same as an international transactions ?” 3. Issue notice to the respondents. Paper book be filed within three months.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1134 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... be restored to the file of CESTAT for fresh decision on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24th August, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1133 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... a restructured company of earlier and hit by provisions of section 10A(2)(ii) of the Act. In view of these facts and circumstances, we hold that ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the issue in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, we confirm his order." 8. The finding of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal and other facts and circumstances of the present case, narrated and discussed above, make it clear that all these questions are relating to questions of facts and there is a concurrent finding of facts recorded by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. ' 9. It is a settled law that income tax appeal can be admitted by this Court only on substantial question of law. This Court cannot interfere in the finding of fact recorded by courts below. 10. Since no substantial questions of law are involved in this appeal, therefore, we are not inclined to admit it and the same is, accordingly dismissed in limine.
........
|