|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1412 Records
-
2017 (6) TMI 1252
Estimation of income - rejection of books of accounts u/s 145(3) - unaccounted stock - valuation of raw material and finished, semi precious stones - CIT(A) had deleted the additions - ITAT remanded the matter back to AO in the remand proceedings, AO estimated the income @32.31% on estimated sales - Held that:- In our considered opinion observations of CIT(A) is attractive but not according to law and view taken by the Tribunal is required to be accepted. - Both the issues are answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1251
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that:- it is clear that the AO in the assessment order as well as in the penalty notice did not specify for which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty is not leviable in the matter. - No penalty - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1250
Depreciation on leased assets - Held that:- The definitions of “ownership” essentially make ownership a function of legal right or title against the rest of the world. However, it is “nomen generalissimum”, and its meaning is to be gathered from the connection in which it is used, and from the subject-matter to which it is applied. As long as the assessee has a right to retain the legal title against the rest of the world, it would be the owner of the asset in the eyes of law.” - Claim of depreciation allowed.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1249
Renting of immovable properties - renting out various properties namely shops, open space etc. for the period 01.06.2007 to 31.10.2010 - extended period of limitation - Held that:- As the issue of taxability of service was in dispute during the relevant period, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case - the demand for extended period of limitation is set aside and demand within the period of limitation has been confirmed - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1248
Demand of service tax under BAS and GTA - Held that:- An identical issue came up before this Bench in various matters in the case of GREEN LEAF TOBACCO THRESHERS AND OTHERS LTD VERSUS C.C.,C.E., & S.T. -GUNTUR [2017 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] wherein the Bench presided by the Hon’ble President has held that service tax liability does not arise under the category of BAS for threshing activity while GTA services are liable to be discharged by the appellants - the demands, interest thereof and penalties under BAS set aside, while upholding the service tax liability under GTA liability.
Penalty - Held that:- Since the issue of service tax liability under GTA was in dispute and have to be settled by retrospective amendments and also various decisions of the apex court, the penalty imposed under the category of GTA is set aside.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1247
Exemption u/s 11 - question of payment of excessive salary to the persons specified u/s 13(3) - Held that:- The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions has given a finding that salary paid to these persons are comparable to earlier years with yearly increase of 10% assessment of the trust for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2011-12 were framed u/s 143(3) wherein the salary to these persons were accepted. The Assessing Officer has not given any justification except saying that the salary cannot be higher than salary of the Principal. - Benefit cannot be denied - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1246
Verdict passed by the learned Single Judge - crux of the grievance is that the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P2 series notices issued by the authorities in respect of the different months of 2016 has not been properly appreciated with reference to actual facts and figures - Held that:- The explanation sought to be offered from the part of the petitioner was not all palatable in view of the specific provision for compounding. By virtue of the option exercised by the petitioner and the sanction given accordingly, it was obligatory for the assessee to have satisfied the tax in terms of the compounding provision. It was accordingly, that interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.
The petitioner has satisfied a portion of the outstanding liability. There are no tenable ground to intercept the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge declining interference on merits.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1245
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Tax Deducted at Source deposited after the due date - Held that:- Tax Deducted at Source was deposited after the due date, before the date of filing of the return. In that view of the matter, according to the Tribunal, disallowance under Section 40 (a) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be made. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of this Court in the case of J.K.Construction Co. [2013 (2) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. This question is, therefore, not required to be considered.
Enhancement under Section 40 (a) (ia) - charges paid to the truck owners for transportation of the goods - Held that:- AO as well as CIT (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of such transportation being in the nature of a contract, required deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal, however, held that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any relationship of contractor and contractee between the assessee and the truck owners. The assessee had merely hired the trucks for transportation on need basis. That being the position, no question of law arises.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1244
A motion is made for speaking to the minutes in respect of order dated 9th June,2017. It is stated that in the title clause, though the respondent is 'Bank of Baroda', however, inadvertently the same is typed as 'Bank of India'.
Necessary correction be effected in respect of the respondent in the title cause of the order, commensurate to memo of appeal.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1243
Disallowance under 14A - Held that:- The issues involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another [2017 (5) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
-
2017 (6) TMI 1242
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - rejection of books of accounts and estimation of profit - tribunal deleting penalty - Held that:- As observed by the Tribunal that the impugned assessment was the second round of assessment. In the first round, the CIT (A) had set aside the assessment to be done denovo. In the regular assessment, the findings were based on the findings for the Assessment Year 1994-1995 wherein the books of accounts were rejected and average rate of 3% of net sales and other income was applied. It was held by the Tribunal that the assessment was based on the preceding year and in fact, in the current year, there was no material, with which the Assessing Officer could pin down the assessee - no substantial question of law arises
-
2017 (6) TMI 1241
Principles of Natural Justice - effective opportunity of hearing before the respondent not afforded - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that:- On a perusal of Ext.P3 order, it is fount that there is no ground to vitiate the same on account of any jurisdictional error or non-compliance with the rules of natural justice - The petitioner has to be relegated to his alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against Ext.P3 order of the Commissioner of Customs - without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P3 order is dismissed.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1240
Restrict the determination of the ALP to transactions with the AE rather than on the entire turnover of the Company - Held that:- The Tribunal has held that the figures are available with the Assessing Officer, the details of which has also been filed with the Tribunal. It would be clear that the details of the international transaction are specifically made available and therefore the apprehension of the department as such is misplaced.
Considering the provisions of Section 92 of the Income Tax Act, so also the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal suggesting that separate figures of international transaction are available, so also the order referred above. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1239
Penalty on CHA u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - High Seas Sale - Concessional rate of Duty - N/N. 36/96 - “actual user” condition - it was found that M/s. JVL used the name of M/s. Magpic Overseas Co., a fictitious firm to avail the concessional rate of duty - The main contention of the appellant is that they have no knowledge of the alleged offence - Held that:- It is noted that the appellant CHA was aware of the High Seas Sale to M/s. Magpie, but, the entire transaction was made by M/s. JVL. Even the payment was received from M/s. JVL. The appellant had not refuted such charge. Hence, the plea of good faith cannot be accepted.
A person cannot claim the plea of good faith by mere saying, without any material, as he had taken due care and attention. In the present case, it is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant had helped M/s. JVL for committing the offense. Hence, the imposition of penalty is justified.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1238
Disallowance of mark to market loss on foreign exchange forward contract loss - whether the said loss was not a notional loss and hence cannot be allowed - Held that:- Grounds raised in these appeals were similar to the once raised in Income Tax Appeal [2016 (12) TMI 1726 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the said appeal is dismissed by this Court.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1237
Stay of demand - pre-deposit requirement - Held that:- As the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in requiring the appellant to remit 15% of the disputed demand. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal.
Be that as it may, from the submissions made before us we are informed that a part of the amount due to satisfy the 15% as ordered by the learned Single Judge has already been remitted by the appellant. Taking note of the above and also the financial constraints that are projected before us, we allow the appellant a period of 8 weeks from today to satisfy the balance amounts that is due.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1236
Addition u/s 41 - Taxability of income as a perquisite - waiver of loan by creditor - deemed income u/s 41(1) - sum due by the Respondent later on waived off by the lender - applicability of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act - whether waiver of loan by the creditor is taxable as a perquisite under Section 28 (iv) or taxable as a remission of liability under Section 41(1)? - Held that:- Issue is now squarely covered by the decision of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jindal Equipments Leasing and Consultancy Services Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 364 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held the waiver/written off part of principal amount of loan by JSPL does not constitute income at the hands of the assessee. On the facts of this case and particularly having regard to the nature of business only, it will constitute capital receipt.
There is difference between ‘trading liability’ and ‘other liability’. Section 41 (1) of the IT Act particularly deals with the remission of trading liability. Whereas in the instant case, waiver of loan amounts to cessation of liability other than trading liability. Hence, we find no force in the argument of the Revenue that the case of the Respondent would fall under Section 41 (1) of the IT Act. - Thus answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue
-
2017 (6) TMI 1235
Condonation of delay - reviving and/or restarting the proceedings under the stale show cause notice dated 27-12-1995 - whether such revival is permitted or not? - Held that:- The Court need not elaborately dwell much upon any other aspect, as the entire controversy is covered by the observations of this Court rendered in case of Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] relying upon the Supreme Court judgments, where it was held that Revival of proceedings after a long time gap without any proper explanation therefor, is unlawful and arbitrary - petition allowed.
-
2017 (6) TMI 1234
Disallowance of deduction towards payment of PF and gratuity - Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (“GCSA”) authorizes assessee to establish a provident fund for its employees which will be governed by Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 - Held that:- A fund which has been constituted under the GCSA will be treated at par with a fund constituted under scheme formulated as per the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952. Thus, a fund which has been constituted under section 72 of the GCSA and administered under section 71 of this Act would be treated as a fund contemplated in be definition of Section 2(38) of the Income Tax Act.
Thus, it is observed that fund constituted by the assessee under GCSA is to be treated at par with, fund recognized by the Chief Commissioner or established under the scheme formulated under the Provident Fund Act, as provided u/s.2(38) of the Act - section 36(l)(iv) and section 40A(9) would come in picture. They provide deduction of any expenditure incurred by assessee by way of contribution towards recognized fund. The assessee fulfills all these conditions. It has been allowed this deduction in the Asstt. Years 2004-05, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. The assessment orders were passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. We allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the AO to grant deduction of amounts paid by the assessee towards provident fund established by it under section 72 of the GCSA. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2017 (6) TMI 1233
Valuation - P.C. Poles manufactured by the appellant-assessee and used by State Electricity Board in transmission of electricity - Rule 8 or Rule 11 of Valuation Rules - Held that:- The issuing arising herein stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune v. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Court held that Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000 would not be applicable as the goods are not used for production or manufacture of other articles either by the assessee or by any other person on its behalf.
Rule 8 would not be applicable and the assessment would have to be a best judgment assessment in terms of Rule 11 of Valuation Rules, 2000.
Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
............
|
9911796707
