|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 620 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 788 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... f the losses then when we allow the interest component which was part of the losses which is not allowable to the assessee to set off because the said loss return has been filed belatedly by assessee then this will be contrary to the provisions of the IT Act. Therefore we are unable to accept the contention of the assessee as well as the ld. CIT(A). In the result we concur with the view of AO and upheld the same by setting aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result ground Nos. 2 to 4 of the revenue are allowed. 10. The issue raised by the Revenue is not arising out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, in our considered opinion while passing the consequential order u/s 143(3)/254 of the I.T. Act the AO is not empowered to rectify the mistake initially committed on the basis of the assessment order made u/s143(3) of the IT Act dated 17.03.2006. 11. In the result ground no.5 of the revenue is dismissed. 12. In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 787 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r 2011 passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer and prays for leave to withdraw the Petition. In terms of the request made before the Court, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2011 (12) TMI 786 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... duction in the Court and without any evidence to the effect that how the said alterations in the cheques were made, were absolutely void and the accused could not have been found guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the said void cheques. In view of this finding, the other arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant now remain only of academic importance, which need no further discussion in the present case. 13. In view of the aforementioned discussions, I find and hold that the respondent accused could not have been found guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the said void cheques which have been produced in the Court below and marked Exhibits 2 and 2/1, there being material alteration in the dates of the cheques. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any material worth interference with the acquittal of the respondent accused. There is no merit in this appeal, which, accordingly, fails and the same is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 785 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... TICE, HON BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK, HON BLE MR. JUSTICE SWATANTER KUMAR For the Appellant Mr. Shyam Divan,Sr.Adv., Ms. Sonal,Adv., Ms. Naheed Carimjee,Adv., Mr. Rishi Maheshwari,Adv., Ms. Adidi Prabhu,Adv., Mr. P.S.Sudheer,Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 784 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . No such evidence was brought on record to justify the addition. The CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, 131 I.T.R. 597 and CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., 159 I.T.R. 71 has held that addition merely on account of valuation report could not be made. 11. We have heard both the parties. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record brought by the Assessing Officer to suggest that any money over and above what is recorded in sale deed has been paid by the assessee. There is no other evidence or surrounding circumstances to indicate that there was under hand payment of money for purchase of the properties. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of valuation report. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 16th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 783 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o Rs.7.50 lakhs. Even with respect to some handful of customers, sales might have been made directly, but it cannot be stated that the LGDA was not entitled to commission qua the sales made to such agents. LGDA was the sole selling agent and was responsible for the promotion of sales. In the process, services rendered could not have been bifurcated as rightly done by the Tribunal vis-a-vis a handful of customers as against more than 2000 customers whose requirements the LGDA would be satisfying. In the result, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal's order requires no interference. We may notice that the Tribunal relied on number of decisions of this Court and other courts to examine the nature of allowability of the claim made by the assessee. However, even on facts, we find that the Tribunal is justified in accepting the claim of the assessee, we do not find it necessary to make a detailed reference to these judgments. In the result, both the Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 782 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ve no legs to stand as the consequential assessment made has become nonexistent. Accordingly, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. As a result, the cross objection which has been filed in respect of the appeal filed by the Revenue will also not survive. But, it was yelled by the ld.AR that merits of the grounds taken in the cross objection should not be washed away permanently and the assessee should be given an opportunity to revive these issues as and when the proceedings, if reversed, by the higher forums. We find that this is not a genuine fear of the ld.AR. We may mention that in case of revival of any order, all the connected matters are also liable to be revived. Therefore, this fear of the ld.AR is unfounded. Accordingly, both appeal as well as the cross objection stand dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection of the assessee stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 781 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... unts by treating them as application of income. Therefore, it is argued that the assessee is entitled to the deduction of depreciation. We find that this issue has not been discussed by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore, we think it fit to restore the matter to his file for considering this submission of the assessee also and thereafter decide it de novo after hearing the assessee. Thus, this ground is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.” 31. Incidentally, it may also be mentioned that the assessee had preferred an application u/s 254 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 14.10.2011 in MA No. 133/Del./2011, in which it was specifically mentioned that the question whether the assessee has earned profits and gains from business has to be decided not with reference to the provision contained in sec. 2(15), but with reference to the provision contained in sec. 2(13) of the Act. 4. In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2011 (12) TMI 780 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ssee firm is governed by the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act in the hands of the firm and the same is includible as income in the hands of the partner in view of provisions of section 28 (v ) of the Act. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.” 6. We also find that similar findings have been given by the Tribunal in assessment year 2007-08 in the case of assessee in ITA No. 1210/Chd/2010 order dated 29.11.2010. While deciding the appeal for assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal has followed its earlier order passed in assessee’s case for assessment year 2006-07. There is no change in facts and therefore, respectfully following the orders of the Tribunal referred to above passed in assessee’s case, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue and hence the same is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 27th day of December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 779 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s, hence Revenue Receipt, cannot be sustained, being against the law laid down by Hon’ ble Supreme Court of India in Sahney Steel and Ponni Sugars cases (supra). 31) The finding of the Tribunal that the incentives were Revenue Receipt is, accordingly, set aside holding the incentives to be Capital Receipt in the hands of the assesses. 7. The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmi High Court in respect of the very same scheme with which we are concerned in the present appeal, we are of the view that the receipt in question is capital receipt not chargeable to tax. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we hold that the receipt in question is capital receipt not chargeable to tax. In view of the above the question of allowing deduction under section 80 IB of the Act on the Excise Duty refund does not arise for consideration. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd day of Dec. 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 778 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e debt / liability against the accused and the disputed cheque in question, was issued by the accused to the complainant towards the discharge of said legally enforceable debt / liability, partly or in whole. 22. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse. Moreover, reasoning given by the learned trial court, for acquittal of the accused, also cannot be faulted with, and hence, no interference therein is called for, and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the present appeal. 23. In the result, present Criminal Appeal, which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent no. 1 herein i.e. original accused, dated 16th August 2000, stands confirmed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 777 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e have noted that the amount in question was received in the year 2000, relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, and that nothing happened during the relevant previous year so as to provoke it’s taxability u/s.28(iv). The year before us is neither the year of receipt nor a year in which any material development took place so as to alter the character of receipt. It is not the case of the revenue that liability has ceased in the relevant previous year, and, for the said reason, the amount became taxable. In any event, taxability u/s.41(1) could not invoked as neither there was a cessation of liability nor the said amount was ever claimed as deduction in computation of income. There is thus no legally sustainable basis for impugned taxability of income. We, therefore, uphold the grievance of the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned addition of Rs.20 lakhs. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 28th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 776 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. vs CIT, 257 ITR 235(M.P) Saipem S.P.A. vs Dy. CIT 276 ITR (AT) 055(ITAT Del) DLF Universal Ltd vs CIT 306 ITR 271 (Del) 5. The above decisions were not available before the Assessing Officer as well. We are unable to ascertain as to whether the facts involved in all these cases are identical or distinguishable. Therefore, we deem it fair and justifiable to remit back the issue involved in these appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that he will decide the impugned issue afresh in the light of the above mentioned decisions and other relevant decisions which are put before him by the parties. Accordingly, we allow the appeals for statistical purposes. 6. In view of our above decision, the miscellaneous petitions have become infructuous, hence dismissed. 7. To summarize the result, the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes whereas the miscellaneous petitions stand dismissed being infructuous. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 775 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt Department. 5. The appellate orders were sought to be revised by the Joint Commissioner (CT) (Legal) but as noted above the said authority did not deal with the contention of the petitioners that the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department was not supplied to the petitioners and yet it was used against them. 6. Learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department says that the petitioners will be supplied with the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department within one week and the matter will be considered afresh by the assessing authority. 7. In view of this submission and statement by learned Special Counsel for the Commercial Taxes Department, we set aside the orders passed against the petitioners and remand the matter back to the assessing authority to take a decision after supplying a copy of the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department to the petitioners. The writ petitions are disposed of. Interim applications are also disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 774 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... court which proceeded ex-parte against the defendants under Order 9 Rule 6 of the Code. This being a position, the judgment of this court in Dhanwantrai R. Josh) & ors, (1998(4) ALL MR 509 (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. Since it is proved by the applicant - defendant No. 5 that the suit summons was not served upon her, the decree is liable to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Accordingly, ex-parte decree is set aside and notice of motion is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as follows - (a) That the Ex-parte Decree dated 6.11.1998 be set aside and quashed against the Defendant No. 5 and the suit be restored on file and the same be heard on merits Taking into consideration the fact that the suit is old and filed in the year 1993, hearing of the suit shall be expedited. Defendant No. 5 through her counsel waives service of writ of summons of the suit. Defendant No. 5 is directed to file written statement within 12 weeks.
-
2011 (12) TMI 773 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... routine transactions recorded in the books of accounts on day-to-day basis. In most of the cases, there were no opening balances and there were no transactions during the year. As discussed above that merely the notices issued by AO u/s.133(6) of the Act are not responded by the concerned parties. The assessee cannot be penalised by making addition in the hands of the assessee. We find that the sole reason for making addition by the AO was that some of the notices issues u/s.133(6) were not complied with. Contrary to that, the assessee has furnished sufficient material evidence and books of accounts to show that the transactions with parties were the regular transactions recorded in the books of accounts. In absence of contrary material and in light of above detailed discussion, we are of the considered view that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition of Rs.1,29,85,264/-. 9. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... FCI Ltd. to any other institution. The 'Company' was clearly told that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. was keeping open the option and the right to bid for the assets of the 'Company' or when the debt was assigned by IFCI Ltd. Thus, it is not a case where it can be argued that IFCI Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. acted in concert; clothing their acts in the secrecy of darkness and not known to the 'Company'. The 'Company' was clearly told by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. that notwithstanding it being appointed as a consultant by it, if IFCI Ltd. assigned the debts to a third party it was keeping its option open to participate in the bidding process. 49. We affirm the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge, but not on the process of reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge but on the process of reasoning aforesaid. The appeal is dismissed. 50. Keeping in view the weak financial position of the appellant we refrain from imposing any costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 771 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... enior partners’ car expenses. 6.1. Apropos other car expenses also, they are claimed to be incurred on staff travel. No instances have been brought on record to suggest that any item of expenditure was incurred on the private visit of the partners or staff, disallowance is thus uncalled for. In view of above, we delete the disallowance out of depreciation on car also. 6.2. Apropos telephone expenses also, we find merit in the argument of the learned counsel that for a professional firm, it cannot be assumed that the partners will indulge in private telephone calls at the cost of their professional work. The assumption drawn by AO cannot be upheld and maintenance of each and every minor detail of telephone user cannot be expected from assessee. In these circumstances, we delete the disallowance on account of telephone expenses also. Ground no. 2 of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23-12-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 770 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to any Court. In the event the misuse is completely stopped in all respects, the orders passed by the authorities shall stand quashed and the property would stand restored to the lessees. 9. These orders shall apply to all cases, where the order of termination of lease has been passed by the Development Authority irrespective of whether the same has been quashed and/or writs of the lessees dismissed by any Court of competent jurisdiction and even if such judgment is in appeal before this Court. 10. The orders in terms of this judgment shall be passed by an officer not below the rank of Commissioner. This order shall be passed after giving an opportunity to the parties of being heard by such officer. This direction shall relate only to the determination of charges, if any, payable by the lessee or occupant for the period when the commercial activity was being carried on in the premises in question. 57. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 769 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... al evidences. 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record and in the facts of the present case, we are satisfied that in order to decide the issue involved, admission of additional evidences filed by the assessee is necessary and hence, we admit the additional evidences. We feel that the matter should go back to the file of the AO for fresh decision in light of the additional evidences now submitted by the assessee and hence, we set aside the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. In the light of our above decision, the specific grounds raised by the assessee are not required to be adjudicated upon at this stage, and therefore, we do not express any opinion in this regard. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
........
|
