|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 844 Records
-
2011 (6) TMI 1039 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (supra) in which it has been held that conscious concealment is not required to be proved by the revenue and that penalty is only a civil liability. The decision of the Tribunal in case of Smt. Shanta Kumar (supra), is also distinguishable. In that case the Assessing Officer had added part of the loan but in appeal the ld. AAC added the entire amount. It was held that penalty in respect of the entire loan was not justified. The facts are obviously different and the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons given earlier we are of the view that the case of the assessee is covered by the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and the penalty has been rightly levied. We accordingly confirm the order of the CIT(A). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.6.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1038 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O. in the order passed u/s 154 has already accepted the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the additional ground No. 1 has become infructuous. So far as additional ground No. 2, is concerned, we find this ground is identical to ground taken by the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06. We have already decided the additional ground raised by the assessee and the matter has been restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. Following the same ratio, the additional ground No.2 raised by the assessee is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) who shall decide the same afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Additional ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 22. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced on 24.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1037 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... htly observed in M.Mohar Ali v. Md. MamudAli reported in 1998 (3) CCC 328 (Gau) the suit itself is barred by limitation and this has also not been considered by the trial Court. Further the second Defendant was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. On the date of assignation of suit sale agreement i.e., under Ex.A2 on 21.03.2000, the second Defendant was not having any right or interest over the suit property so as to enable him to assign the suit sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. 64. Having regard to the findings given above and on analysing the evidences both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of both sides this Court is of considered view that the appeal is liable to be allowed. 65. In the result the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 12.04.2006 and made in O.S. No. 17 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Judge of The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam is set aside and the suit in O.S. No. 17 of 2004 is dismissed with costs.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1036 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nnot be concluded that the cheque was drawn by accused. The trial court rightly acquitted accused, in the absence of proof of drawing of the cheque, which is the most essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 22. Learned Magistrate rightly held that execution is different from issuance of cheque. Issue means, to give something to somebody . Issuance of cheque does not mean drawing of cheque. I fully agree with the learned Magistrate that issuance and execution are different acts. Proof of issuance or giving of cheque by accused to complainant alone will not suffice to constitute offence under Section 138 of the Act. 23. Learned Counsel for Appellant was not able to satisfy this Court that impugned order or findings therein suffer from any perversity, illegality, error or infirmity which calls for interference. In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit this appeal. 24. This appeal is dismissed. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2011 (6) TMI 1035 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee. He recorded a finding that these amounts cannot be said to be accrued and crystallized during the accounting year, hence he made the addition. On appeal, Learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sourasthra Cement Chemical Ind. Vs. CIT, reported in 123 ITR 669. 19. With the assistance of learned representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The actual liability to pay to reconciled pay roll taxes has actually accrued and crystallized on June 30, 2003. When the reconciliation of Australian pay roll tax was done, pursuant to the closure of Australian tax year. Learned CIT(Appeals) has appreciated the facts and circumstances in right perspective. We do not see any reason to interfere in his findings. 20. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, it is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1034 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rt in the case of CIT v. R. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar, supra, relied on by the learned DR would have no applicability insofar as the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue wherein the assessee therein had attempted to start a new business and the capital was lost. In the present case the assessee has not started any business. The assessee has only given an advance in the course of its business to M/s. Shriram Coffee Tea Plantation Pvt. Ltd. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. 61. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1518/Mds/2010 stands dismissed. 62. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1512, 1513, 1516 1518/Mds/2010 stand dismissed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 1514, 1515 1517/Mds/2010 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. 63. The order was pronounced in the court on 24/06/2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1033 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... failure to comply with the provisions of law. The ex-partners have introduced their capital in the assessee firm and on retirement they were given their amount back through bearer cheques and, therefore, the assessee is able to prove that it had reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of law. The finding of fact given by the learned CIT(A) show that the assessee made payments bona fide and the default was highly technical in nature, therefore, the learned CIT(A) was justified in canceling the penalty. Consequently, penalty imposed by the AO merely on technical mistake if any committed by the assessee which has not resulted in any loss of revenue, the levy of penalty was harsh and could not have been sustained in law. We, therefore, find that the learned CIT(A) rightly cancelled the penalty in the matter which requires no interference. 9. In the result, the appeal of the revenue has no merit and is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17-06-2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d on enhanced compensation in all the three writ petitions - Sr. No. CWP No. Amount deducted 1. 10333 of 2011 Rs.44,118/- 2. 10417 of 2011 Rs.11,69,007/- 3. 10481 of 2011 Rs.35,96,498/- 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that in view of receipt of interest element on enhanced compensation, the same being taxable in the year of receipt, the petitioners were required to file return as tax was payable on the said amount. In such a situation, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of filing the income tax return and getting the tax deducted at source adjusted against their tax liability. If any amount deducted at source is found to be in excess of the tax liability, the petitioners are entitled to refund in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 9. In view of the above, the writ petitions stand disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file the income tax returns and seek refund of excess tax deducted at source in accordance with law.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1031 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... consequence will follow and there is no need to pass order on merits of additions in reassessment. The analogy in the present cases being same, we respectfully follow the decision of Calcutta High Court (supra) as no contra decision was brought to our attention, we hereby quash the impugned assessments in view of the finding of factual aspect i.e., absence of warrant of search in the name of the assessee, no proceeding u/s.153A can be initiated against the assessee and also there is no need to adjudicate the merits of the additions made in such assessments. 6. As the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa itself has made an observation in paragraph 10 of its order dt.2.7.2010 that in case it is concluded that there is no search warrant in the case of the assessee, it would be open to the Department to make assessment in the manner other than 153A, if permissible under the law. 7. In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 23.6.2011
-
2011 (6) TMI 1030 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... money” in the case of the assessee; therefore, burden was upon the A O to prove that assessee made payment of “on money” from undisclosed sources, which has not been discharged in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the A O has not brought sufficient material against the assessee to make the above addition. The A O made addition merely on suspicion and assumption of facts, which cannot take place of legal proof. It is thus a case of no evidence for making the addition. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition against the assessee. We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition.” 7. In view of the above by following the order of the Tribunal, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30-06-2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1029 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... o before the date fixed for submission of the return of income cannot defeat the claim of the assessee. The decision taken by the assessee-Board was nothing but mere acknowledgement of the fact that the impugned sum was irrecoverable and therefore needed to be written off in the books of the assessee for the year under appeal pursuant to which the amount was actually written off by the assessee in its books for the year under appeal. 11. The assessee-Board has been returning substantial losses almost right from its inception. Besides, the assessee-Board is a body under the control of the State Government. In view of the mounting losses from year to year, it would hardly make any difference if the claim is allowed in year “X” or year “Y” as it would be tax neutral. For similar reasons, the assessee-board would also not gain anything in the process. 12. In view of the foregoing, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1028 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the present case. As regards learned DR’s submission that arguments now raised in present appeal were not taken by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) and the same are also not covered in any of the grounds raised by the assessee, we are of the view that when the proceedings under 147 of the Act are challenged all the aspects pertaining to same gets covered and more particularly the aspect of existence of ‘reason to believe’, which is a precondition for initiation of any proceeding under section 147 of the Act. Accordingly, ground no. 1 raised in assessee’s appeal is allowed. 15. As we have decided the jurisdictional issue in favour of the assessee, all the other grounds raised in present cross appeals, on merits, are rendered academic and infructuous. Accordingly, same are dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 27th day of June 2022.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1027 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ubmitted that the order does not deal with the submissions of the assessee in a speaking manner and, therefore, the same has been passed ignoring the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it is prayed that the order may be restored to the file of the DRP for considering the submissions and passing a speaking order. 1.2 The learned DR had no objection to restore the matter to the file of the learned DRP. 2. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We are of the view that the learned DRP is bound to consider the objections of the assessee to the draft order and thereafter pass a speaking order. This has not been done. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the DRP for granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and passing a speaking order. 3. In result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. This order was pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2011 soon after the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1026 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... so imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c), which was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that there was nothing on record to show that the amount of cash credits added to the total income of the assessee was the concealed income of the assessee from undisclosed source. In our opinion, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bhimji Bhanjee & Co (supra) as well as that of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rawalpindi Floor Mills P. Ltd. (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the same, we hold that it is not a fit case to impose penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is therefore deleted and the appeal filed by assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1025 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e as the amount for working out the disallowance without taking into consideration the investment in the said unit, some of which was made in the earlier year. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused record. In view of the finding of CIT(A) that the assessee had not borrowed any funds for creating the aforesaid assets and in the absence of the revenue bringing on record any evidence to the contrary, we are in conformity with the order of the CIT(A) in this regard and uphold the same. The assessee had shown income of Rs.93.61 lacs in assessment year 2006-07 and Rs.113.08 lacs in 2007-08 as against which the total investment in the fixed assets was 85.69 lacs which was invested from assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, upholding the order of CIT(A), we dismiss Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue. 12. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 21st day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1024 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ounting to Rs 9,72,538/- is admissible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. 3. We have heard both the parties. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that similar issue had been the subject-matter of consideration before a co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005-06 and the Tribunal vide order dated 29.05.2009 in ITA No 212/PN/09 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative, appearing for the Revenue, though defended the orders of the authorities below, did not controvert the factual matrix of the case. Under these circumstances, we hereby follow the precedent, and reverse the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. The appeal of assessee is allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision was pronounced in the open Court on 30th Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1023 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... n u/s 11. I hold accordingly and modify the appellate order dated 16.2.2010. The decision relating to ground No.1 is accordingly modified and the AO is directed to allow exemption u/s 11 of the Act.” 4. We have heard the parties. In our considered view there is no case for interference in the order of ld. CIT(A). The reasons are that ld. CIT(A) has passed the order following the order of the Tribunal wherein the claim of exemption was accepted. Since the facts of the case remained the same for this year also there is no reason to take a contrary view than what has been taken by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Asst. Year 2004-05 & 2005-06 in ITA No.3235/Ahd/2007 and ITA No.1818/Ahd/2008 pronounced on 24.10.2008 and in ITA No.2137/Ahd/2009 for Asst. Year 2006-07 pronounced on 7.9.2009. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 17.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1022 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... k, whether M/s. Venus Lubricants exists or not, before coming to a conclusion that the party is not in existence. This conclusion is drawn merely on the fact that the notice issued to the above concerned has been returned un-served. No effort has been made by the Assessing Officer to contradict the evidence submitted by the assessee. In our opinion the assessee has discharged the burden of proof that lay on it and onus has now shifted to the revenue, to prove that the evidences filed by the assessee are wrong. Mere non-production of a party or return of a notice, cannot negate evidentiary value of the material produced by the assessee. Thus, we agree with the submissions of Miss Renu Chaudhary and hold that the purchase of Rs. 1,18,130/- have wrongly been held as bogus purchases. In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed and the disallowance is deleted. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order has been pronounced on 3rd Day of June, 2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1021 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... emand notice issued by the Director of Income-tax CIB has suggested that the appeal lies before the Tribunal. 4. In the circumstances, we find that it may be open for the assessee to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), subject to the legal opinion that he may obtain. 5. But this appeal which is filed directly before the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 4. Further the said order has been followed in another case, which has been relied upon by the ld. AR of he assessee in ITA No. 2009/Mds/2010 with the prayer to decide the appeal on the basis of ITAT order. Considering the decision already taken by two Benches of the Tribunal at Chennai, we follow the said order and dismiss all the appeals of the assessee in limine being not maintainable. 14. As a result, all the appeals of different assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced soon after the conclusion of hearing on 02.06.2011.
-
2011 (6) TMI 1020 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the question of quantification of amount disallowable, because neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the estimation of amount disallowable, as made by the A.O. in the assessment order. In these circumstances, the Tribunal cannot go into the question of reasonableness of the estimate of the amount disallowable made by the A.O. because neither the assessee nor the revenue had challenged the findings of the A.O. making the disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act at Rs.42,130/-. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I agree with the findings of the Ld. A.M. that the amount disallowable u/s. 14A of the Act should have been 1% of the total exempt income. 8. The matter will now go to the regular Bench for passing the order as per the majority view”. Therefore, in accordance with the majority view, the appeal of the Department is dismissed whereas Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10.06.2011.
........
|
