|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 831 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1238 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... s of jewellery claimed to have sold to M/s. Bhootnath Jewellers (P) Ltd. Considering the above facts, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has not proved the sales of jewellery to M/s. Bhootnath Jewellers (P) Ltd. Mere filing of bill of M/s. Bhootnath Jewellers (P) Ltd., and the claim of receipt through cheques are not sufficient to establish the claim that the assessee has received money consideration of Rs. 9 lakhs out of sale of part of jewllery he received as gift. The assessee having failed to establish his above claim, in our considered view, the authorities below are justified in making addition of Rs. 9 lakhs u/s.68 of the Act. We, therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss ground No. 2 of the appeal taken by the assessee. 15. In the result, ITA No. 2002/KOL/2009 filed by the Revenue is dismissed and ITA No. 1809/KOL/2009 filed by the assessee is allowed in part. This Order is pronounced in open court on dt. 23.04.2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1237 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... part, having gone through the review petition and its connected documents, we do not see any reason to review our order dated 12th December, 2007. The review petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as also on merits.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1236 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it is borne out from the record that one Ganta Infrastructures is the company owned by Sri Kishan Rao and having lost in the contest, resorted to approach this court by way of filing a writ petition, which ended in dismissal, which again was challenged in a writ appeal, which also eventually was dismissed. Therefore, it appears that had he been successful bidder, he would have been in the place of POAL and would have resorted to the same procedure that was being now adopted by ARCIL by way of formulating a scheme. In other words, it is only his loss in the race of bidding process prompted to raise this present dispute. This conduct cannot also be appreciated, which virtually amounts to blowing hot and cold. 110. For the aforementioned reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned common order rendered by the learned Judge in the Company Petition and all the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 111. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1235 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of which the earlier permission which was granted has been withdrawn and which has been the subject matter of several decisions of the Tribunal, such as Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. .vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, SuratI reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T. 344 (Tri. Del.) and Ginni International Ltd. .vs. Commissioner reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 172 (Tri Del.), the respondent ought to have heard the petitioner before cancelling the permission already granted. 3 We accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent no.2 to hear the petitioner before passing any order with regard to the permission already granted and decide the matter within three months from today. The respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. We make it clear that this decision shall not affect any other pending proceedings. 4 With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1234 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e Respondent Dr. Debi Prosad Pal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv., Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv., Mr. S. Ramakrishnan, Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv., Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. Hearing expedited.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1233 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A), levy of penalty on the aforesaid amount is justified. CIT Vs. Altron Electronics India Ltd.,301 ITR 66(Kar) . In the light of view taken in the aforesaid decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court as also of Hon’ble Delhi, Allahabad and Orissa High Courts, the burden that lies on the assessee is not discharged by convincing explanation nor it is law that any explanation offered by the asseessee must be accepted. We, therefore, have no alternative but to uphold the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) insofar as levy of penalty on the amount of Rs. 7,95,000 2,08,000/- 10,03,000/- is concerned, the assessee having not been able to discharge the burden that lay upon it by Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, ground no.1 in the appeal is dismissed.. 22. No additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground, this ground is ,accordingly, dismissed. 23. In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fied in granting relief of “additional depreciation” when the assessee failed to file “Form 3AA” along with return of income as per sec. 32(iia)(B) and is not involved in production or manufacture of article or thing ? 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case is the tribunal justified in granting relief of “additional depreciation” relying on the judgement in 208 ITR 481 CIT vs. N S Arunachalam, though the conditions laid down therein itself is not fulfilled.? 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the ITAT is correct in directing that a statutory report in Form 3AA which was to have been filed with the return of income be accepted in revisionary proceedings under sec. 263, which is conducted for the purpose of revenue alone. 10.Whether the Appellate authority below have perversely appreciated the evidence on record resulting in serious miscarriage of justice warranting interference at the hands of this Appellate Court.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1231 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... withdraw the petition, under instructions, with a view to file appropriate application before the Settlement Commission. 2. Permission to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1230 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rson, to avoid dispute, she has also paid subsequently consideration for the undivided half share to the other co-sharer. 'A' and 'C' schedule properties are covered by Ex. A.1 Sale Deed, which is not in dispute. Similarly, the cart track right given in the 'B' schedule property cannot be denied by the subsequent document, Ex. B.2, as the same is not legally sustainable. There is no error or infirmity in the concurrent finding of the Courts below, so as to hold that the Courts below have overlooked any discrepancies in the plan submitted by the Firka Surveyor and the Municipal Surveyor, who had assisted the Commissioner during his visits and in the preparation of the report and accordingly, the substantial question of law No. 2 is answered in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and against the Appellants. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the Courts below, this Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1229 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ncial difficulties for making the payment of the outstanding tax and therefore, the stay need not be granted. 6. Having heard both the sides and having considered the rival contentions, we feel that the assessee has a prima facie arguable case and the assessee has also paid ₹ 9 lakhs out of the total demand of ₹ 24,70,685/-, which is more than 35% of the tax demanded and the assessee is also willing to pay ₹ 50,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to direct the revenue not to take any coercive steps to recover the entire outstanding demand, subject to the assessee paying ₹ 50,000/- per month till the disposal of the appeal. The stay shall be in force till the disposal of the appeal or 180 days from the date of stay, whichever is earlier. The Registry is directed to fix the appeal for hearing at the earliest. 7. In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is allowed as indicted above.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1228 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt is concerned, since the AO has himself allowed interest part, therefore, there cannot be any dispute regarding write off of the principal amount on the ground that the assessee had to prove that the debts indeed became bad debts. Even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Limited v. CIT, in Civil Appeal No.5294 of 2003 has held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt, in fact, has become irrecoverable. It is enough if the bad debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Therefore, this ground is dismissed. 11. The cross objection filed by the assessee is in support of the order of ld CIT (A). Since, we have dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, the cross objection filed by the assessee has become infructuous. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1227 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cree of ₹ 3,11,880/- with interest @ 14% p.a. on six monthly rests from the date of institution of the suit, and the defendants have not preferred any appeal against the aforesaid findings, the said findings have attained finality and therefore; we do not deem it necessary to consider other legal issues raised by the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed. The finding recorded by the trial Court against issue No. 17, dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, is set aside, and it is held that the suit was within time. Accordingly, the plaintiff/Bank's suit is decreed with cost throughout and it is held that the plaintiff/Bank is entitled to recover an amount of ₹ 3,11,880/- with interest @ 14% per annum on six monthly rests and the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff/Bank. A decree be drawn accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1226 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 - PIOL - 63 - SC held that “on every demand penalty is not automatic”. 8. Considering the facts of the case as noted above in the light of the above decisions and in the light of the findings of the learned CIT(A), it is clear that additions have been sustained partly by disallowing the expenditure on interpretation of the provisions of law and even the disallowance of ₹ 2,00,000/- u/s 14A has been restored to the file of the AO for re-consideration. Therefore, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. The AO has not brought any material on record to prove that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed particulars of income. We accordingly do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). We accordingly confirm his findings and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 9. As a result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16-04-2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1225 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... h has no basis. The value adopted by the assessee of land at ₹ 60/- per sq.mt. is based on a technical report of registered valuer approved by the Department. Accordingly, we accept the value adopted by the assessee for computation of capital gains at ₹ 60/- per sq.mt. and directing the Assessing Officer to adopt this value for the computation of capital gains in these appeals. 14. Similar being the issues and facts in ITA No.3375 to 3380/Ahd/2009 in the cases of Ashwiin M Reshamwala (HUF), Hasmukh D Reshamwala (HUF), Jaswantial D Reshamwala (HUF), Mohanlal J Reshamwala, Arvindlal C Reshamwala (HUF) and Rameshchandra J Reshamwala (HUF), these appeals are also decided in terms of the above. Accordingly, both the issues of the assessee’s appeals are allowed in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The orders of the lower authorities are reversed. 15. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/04/2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1224 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ma facie, at this stage, the first respondent/plaintiff had taken a specific plea that the original has been lost and xerox copy of the agreement is attested copy of the original, and therefore he is seeking to receive the document as secondary evidence and permit him to prove the document as secondary evidence. The trial Court rightly observed that the Court is entitled to reject any document which is irrelevant and inadmissible, at any stage of the case. Since the document sought to be received as secondary evidence is the suit document, necessary requirements that are to be followed under law, are required to be proved beyond preponderance of probability. It can be done ordinarily after adducing evidence. The trial Court, after consideration of the entire material on record, rightly allowed the petition, and it has not committed any mistake or error of law in allowing the petition. 24. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1223 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... incipal amount due under the cheques. Out of the balance amount, an amount of ₹ 1.5 lakhs each shall be credited towards the interest payable. The balance shall be credited as costs and expenses incurred for the prosecution of these three tier criminal proceedings. The revision petitioner shall have time till 1/6/2010 to make payment and avoid execution of the default sentence. If the fine amount is not paid on or before that date, the courts below shall immediately proceed to execute the default sentence. Needless to say, the amounts so paid under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C shall be given due credit if the civil Court's decree is confirmed and attempt is made to execute that decree. 44. It is submitted that an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs is lying in deposit before the court below which was deposited by the revision petitioner as per interim orders passed by this Court. The said amount shall forthwith be released to the complainant. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2010 (4) TMI 1222 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... h payments exceeding ₹ 20,000/- to contractors, these payments were made at the remote place in Bhutan for labour payment due to business exigency and necessity. These are genuine payments to labour charges, which is not disputed by the AO. The labour contractors are not having business banking account in Bhutan except personal saving bank accounts are there in one of the name of labor contractor. They had no bank account near the project site. Only in some cases for payment of labour at site etc these cash payments were made in business exigency. Since the banking facilities were not available to these labour contractor in above manner, these payments are covered under section 40A(3) read with Rule 6DD. According, CIT (A)’s order on this issue is upheld. Revenue’s ground is dismissed. 30. In the result, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) and according, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of April 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1221 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... f the Assessing Officer to apply his mind to the facts disclosed in the return and assess the assessee keeping in mind the law holding the field. ” We are of the considered opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was right in holding that the AO will not be justified if the incorrect income offered by the assessee is assessed and the assessee is made to pay tax on income which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act. 5. While we uphold this finding of the first appellate authority, we find that the revenue authorities have not verified the revised computation and the exemptions claimed by the assessee from the value of Fringe Benefits declared in the return. Thus we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction that the revised computation be verified and dispose of the case in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of April, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1220 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nalising the proceedings as to the liability of the petitioner . 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the State Level Committee, (to consider the eligibility of persons like the petitioner to have exemption under Ext.P1) is scheduled to be held in the first week of May, 2010 and that the proceedings will be finalised accordingly. 4. In the above circumstances, taking note of the directions given by the Division Bench vide Ext. P3, the first respondent is directed to cause the matter to be finalised pursuant to Ext. P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Finalisation of Exts. P6 and P8 appeals shall be subject to the orders to be passed on finalisation of the proceedings pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment as stated above. It is made clear that till such final orders are passed, all further coercive steps shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1219 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... - Mohd. Faruk Hossain and was also exhibited in the course of cross-examination of PW1 as Ex.PW1/D2. The said document, in my considered opinion, clinches the matter being a statement of accounts filed by the respondent itself, showing the amount due to the appellant. The portion C to D of the said document which appears at the bottom of the document and shows the bills rejected and not passed for payment, as stated above, cannot be believed. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled to recover the sum of ₹ 2,27,588.81 being the principal amount of the unpaid bills. 33. As regards the award of interest, though the invoices set out that interest @ 21 % per annum will be charged if the bill is not paid on the due date, keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest, the appellant is awarded interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 12.07.2001 till the date of realisation. 34. The appeal stands allowed. The impugned order is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
