|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 1004 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tioner made an application claiming the refund which was not considered on the ground that an appeal has been filed and letter dated 10.10.2012 was written to the petitioner which, in substance, declined to consider the claim of the petitioner without any reason. After the said letter, a period of six months has expired. The petitioner points out that as per instructions of the CBEC contained in Excise Manual, the refund could not be withheld only on the ground that an appeal was being filed unless the appellate authority grants stay. No stay has been granted and thus there was no justification for withholding the benefit due under an order of the appellate authority. Notice was issued and time was given to file reply twice but no reply has been filed. In view of above, we direct respondent No.3 to take steps for implementation of order of the appellate authority in accordance with law, in absence of stay being granted within six weeks from today. The petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 1003 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated 15.04.2013 claiming exemption from service tax based on Section 65(90a)(i) of the Finance Act 1994. 2. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.04.2013, claiming exemption from service tax based on Section 65(90a)(i) of the Finance Act 1994, and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of this order. M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 1002 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. In fact, this Tribunal had an occasion to consider this issue elaborately in the case of Kadachira Service Co-operative Bank Ltd in ITA No.251/Coch/2012 Ors order dated 31-01-2013. The ld.senior counsel seeking adjournment in this case has also appeared before the bench in one of the cases in the order dated 31-03-2013 in Kadachira Service Cooperative Bank Ltd and others (supra). This Tribunal, after considering the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Act found that unless the assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) or 139(4) or within the time specified in notice issued u/s 142(1) or 148 of the Act, the assessee is not entitled for deduction u/s 80AP(2)(a)(i) of the Act. By following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kadachira Service Co-operative Bank Ltd and others (supra) and for the reasons stated therein, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 22nd April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 1001 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of the opinion that a conditional interim order requires to be passed in these cases. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner in each case to pay/deposit 50% of the tax demand with interest for the past period. However, there shall be absolute stay of recovery of the penalties. For the future period, as and when the demands are raised by the respondent-authorities, the petitioner in each case shall pay/deposit 50% of the said demand within 30 days time from the date of the demand. If, for any reason, the petitioner in each case fails to comply with the orders and directions passed by this Court, the respondents would be at liberty to recover the entire tax liability with interest. We make it clear that, if for any reason, the petitioner(s) succeed in these matters, the respondent-authorities shall refund the amounts paid by the petitioner(s) pursuant to the interim orders passed by us within 30 days time from the date of the order with statutory interest. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 1000 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of SLP (C) Nos. 33637-33638 of 2011 (Manohar Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.) will govern Civil Appeal Nos. 3388-3389 of 2011, C.A. No. 5206 of 2011, C.A. No. 5208 of 2011, C.A. No. 5209 of 2011, C.A. No. 5210 of 2011, C.A. No. 5211 of 2011, C.A. No. 5212 of 2011, C.A. No. 5213 of 2011, C.A. No. 5214 of 2011, C.A. No. 5207 of 2011, C.A. No. 5215 of 2011, C.A. No. 5216 of 2011, C.A. Nos. 7179-7182 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. .... (CC 14220-14221 of 2011), SLP (C) No..... (CC 14164 of 2011), SLP (C) Nos. 21344-21351 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32764-32765 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32766-32767 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32770-32771 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32772-32773 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32790-32791 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32792-32793 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32796-32797 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32798-32799 of 2011, SLP (C) Nos. 32801-32802 of 2011 and SLP (C) Nos. 32806-32807 of 2011. 51. Having regard to the facts of the various cases disposed of by this judgment, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 999 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ing in the seized records were further analyzed by the assessees and they came forward with profit percentage of 25.68 % of undisclosed income to undisclosed sales declaring undisclosed total income of Rs. 2.03 crores as against the total income of Rs. 1.35 crores offered before the Settlement Commission. This increased offer on the part of these assessees throws some light on the bonafides of these assessees. We further find that out of the payments of Rs. 8,89,48,819/- assessees themselves conceded that a sum of Rs. 3,01,16,524/- was inadmissible expenditure as these payments were of capital account. This also shows fairness and reasonableness on the part of these assessees. Keeping all these facts and circumstances of these cases in view, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 18. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (4) TMI 998 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... Ld. CIT(DR) in the case of CIT vs. Naya Sahitya 84 ITR 567 (Del) and to Visakhapatnam Sugar and Refinery Ltd. vs. CIT 47 ITR 139 (AP) and in our opinion, both the decisions are not helpful to the revenue as the facts are totally different. In our opinion, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly allowed the expenditure of the royalty as a revenue expenditure and we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above reasoning. 9. In the result, the ground taken by the revenue is dismissed. Nothing contrary was brought to our notice. Facts being same, so following same reasoning we hold that royalty paid in respect of goods sold in domestic market and the amount of royalty pertains to and is necessarily an expense incurred to earn sales revenue during the year, hence same is revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 3. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 997 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to an advance made by the Petitioner to the Respondent on the basis of the cheque which admittedly is a negotiable instrument. Thus, the bar of Section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted to a loan given on the basis of a negotiable instrument, like a cheque. I am supported in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657. Thus, the learned MM fell into error in dismissing the complaints and acquitting the Respondent solely on the ground that the complaint was barred under the provisions of the Act of 1938. 8. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same are accordingly set aside. 9. The cases are remanded back to the Court of MM concerned for its decision in accordance with law. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM concerned on 30.04.2013. 11. Trial Court record be returned immediately. 12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court. 13. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 996 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udgment and order passed by the High Court, dated 04.02.2009 and restore the consequential order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 19.12.2006 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had directed the investigating agency to investigate and submit their report before the Court pursuant to the order of remand passed by the learned Chief Judge, dated 13.11.2006. 6. In the result, we set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 19.12.2006. 7. Keeping in view the pendency of the matter from last five years, we direct the investigating agency to complete the investigation and submit their report before the trial court as early as possible, at any rate, within six months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 995 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... 10 is fully allowed. 14. Ld. D.R. supported the order of the A.O. whereas the Ld. A.R. submitted that the facts are identical to that of the earlier year and supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 15. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the addition has held that the facts of the case of the year under appeal are identical to that of earlier year and has followed the order of his predecessor. Further, he has also relied on the decision of Hon ble ITAT in the assessee s own case for assessment year 2006-07 for deleting this addition. The finding of Ld. CIT(A) could not be controverted by the Ld. D.R. by bringing any contrary material on record. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus this ground of the Revenue is also dismissed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 17. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (4) TMI 994 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ceipts of Rs. 4.55 lakh. 14. Thus out of the total undisclosed income of Rs. 17,36,436/- assessed by the AO, the appellant is entitled to relief to the extent of Rs. 9,04,791/- i.e. the value of the unexplained investments. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is therefore restricted to Rs. 8,31,645/- as against the Undisclosed income of Rs. 7,47,200/- offered before the Settlement Commission. The related grounds of appeal are therefore partly allowed accordingly.” It is clear from the above that Ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on his decision in the cases of three Group Companies i.e. GMGB, MPCL & SRCI. Since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of those companies has been upheld by us vide IT(SS)A Nos. 38,39 &40/Ahd/2009, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby upheld. 3. Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page
-
2013 (4) TMI 993 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rgued that the petitioner has been penalized under the said Act and he has paid whatever penalty was imposed upon him and there is no provision for registration of FIR under this Act. Learned Deputy Advocate General has not been able to deny this legal position. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the F.I.R. No.101 dated 30.09.2012 along with all other consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua petitioner. Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 992 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... these advances are made in the course of business which must necessarily qualify for the expenditure of revenue in nature. Also the same with the advance of Rs.26,38,520/- to Prem Associates Advertising for the purposes of marketing plans and distribution of educational products. While we concur with the view of the Ld.CIT(A) that this is clearly not a case of written off of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii), we are of the view that the said advances qualify for the deduction u/s37(1) of the Act. Thus, we delete the disallowance/additions of Rs.25 lakhs, Rs.7.80 lakhs and Rs.26,38,520/- written off as irrecoverable from Krishan Prem Narayan, Kirti Triveni and Prem Associates Advertising respectively. In addition, we sustain the relief of Rs. 10,644/- already given by the Ld.CIT(A). We direct and order accordingly. Thus, Ground No 2 is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of April 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 991 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hat penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable in the case of the assessee. That being so, in our considered opinion, the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have stopped short at that. It did not lie within the purview of the Ld. CIT (A) to at that stage hold that the assessee was liable for levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, when the provisions of the said Section had nowhere been invoked by the Assessing Officer. Pertinently, u/s 271AAA, the CIT (A) has not been vested with power to initiate or impose penalty thereunder. It was not a case of an appeal having been filed against an order passed u/s 271AAA of the Act. 16. For the above discussion, finding merit in the grievance sought to be raised by the assessee, the same is hereby accepted. The order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is, accordingly, cancelled, deleting the levy of penalty as imposed by the Ld. CIT (A). 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court on 17.04.2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 990 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nt order that the AO has taken only the figure assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Assessing Officer, no doubt can take this figure assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act originally for the purpose of computation of total income into consideration u/s. 153A of the Act but the same is to be reduced for the purpose of computation of taxes, interest and penalty for the reason that the original assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the assessment order is inexistence and that has not been abated. The demands already created u/s. 143(3) of the Act is available on the records of the Income Tax Department and the same cannot be used for double addition and that is not the purpose of provisions of section 153A i.e. the procedure for search assessment. In such circumstances, we direct the AO to reduce this income from computation made u/s. 153A of the Act and amend the assessment order accordingly. 7. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.04.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 989 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... Further, the assessee claimed that unsecured loans were taken up for setting up of the business and at that time, banks were not in a position to advance huge loan to the assessee without security. Further, there is no substantial difference between the interest paid to the Directors and their relatives on the unsecured loan and in the interest paid to the Bank. The Authorities below have not considered the legitimate need of the business of assessee for taking such loan and nothing was brought on record of any comparable case to prove that such interest payment was excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the addition was wholly unjustified and is liable to be deleted. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of Rs.64,881/-. In the result, grounds Nos. 8 & 9 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. No other point is argued or pressed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (4) TMI 988 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the DVO was invalid and accordingly, the value shown by the assessee on the basis of the registered valuer’s report has to be accepted, therefore, the ground of the department is dismissed.” 6. We have heard both parties on this issue. After considering their submissions, facts of the case as well as aforementioned two decisions, we are of the opinion that learned CIT(A) has rightly held that the Assessing Officer cannot take any cognizance of report received from the DVO after passing the assessment order and long term capital gain was to be computed by accepting disclosed value as on 1.4.1981 based on registered valuer’s report. Therefore, we confirm the findings recorded by learned CIT(A) and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.7.2012. Following the aforementioned order, after hearing both the parties we dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Order pronounced in the open court on the 8th day of April, 2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 987 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llate Tribunal erred in law in holding that the difference between the price at which stock options were offered to employees of the appellant company under ESOP and ESPS and the prevailing market price of the stock on the date of grant of such options was not allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Printing of paper books is dispensed with. Tag along with ITA No. 1898/2010 (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT).
-
2013 (4) TMI 986 - ITAT ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ough the reasons given by the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the additions on merits which were based on the comments called from the Assessing Officer and the assessee as well as the evidences available on record. The ld. CIT(A) on just and proper reasons deleted all the additions on merits finding the liabilities of the past year, purchases not disputed and that there were opening balances of earlier years. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). The departmental appeal has no merit, particularly in view of the 154 order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 30.03.2012 accepting the claim of assessee of returned loss as per return of income filed. Thus, the departmental appeal has become infructuous and has no merit as well. Therefore, the departmental appeal is also dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn and departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (4) TMI 985 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is in relation to the disallowance out of telephone expenses, tea expenses, vehicle running expenses, depreciation on car and interest on car running on which the assessee had paid fringe benefit tax. We find no merit in the said disallowance wherein the fringe benefit tax had been paid by the assessee on particular expenditure, which was incurred in the course of carrying on the business. There is no merit in disallowing any part of the said expenditure for personal use as held by the authorities below. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in M/s ADELTA OPTEC Vs. ITO, Yamunanagar in ITA No.1265/Chd/2009. In view thereof, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.51,974/-. 19. The ground No.6 raised by the assessee is not pressed and the same is dismissed as not pressed. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of April, 2012.
........
|
