|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 380 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 389 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the application of the Appellants, the Tribunal did not consider any of the above-mentioned aspects mentioned in the application. Unfortunately, the High Court lost sight of the said aspects and failed to properly consider whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there was any need for keeping the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the uncontroverted averments in the application of the Appellants referred to above, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the prayer of the Appellants. Hence the impugned orders of the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside. The prayer in the application of the Appellants for release of the amount invested in long term deposits stands allowed. The entire amount of compensation shall be withdrawn and paid to the Appellants without any further delay. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 388 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... lly considered the submissions of the learned DR. We have also gone through the assessment order as well as the order passed by the CIT (A). The facts stated in the order of the CIT (A) are not controverted by the revenue. Learned CIT (A) has recorded a finding that the assessee had employed the staff for carrying out its activities. The assessee has also entered into lease agreement and is paying rent and other infrastructure has also been created for setting up of the business. A finding has been recorded by learned CIT (A) that the business of the assessee was set up. No contrary material has been brought on record to assail those findings of the learned CIT (A). Therefore, having regard to all these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) vide which the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted. We decline to interfere. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 27.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quashed and set aside. (iii) It is held that the Order dated 19/12/1975 did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Mamlatdar and ALT, South Solapur. It is however clarified that the question whether the said Order dated 19/12/1975 was a nullity on account of a fraud allegedly played on Late Andappa and the ALT is a question which is kept open for being agitated in appropriate proceedings either in the nature of an Appeal for challenging the said Order dated 19/12/1975 or in the nature of an Application for setting aside the said Order on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or in an appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. All rival contentions of the Petitioner and Respondents about the alleged fraud are kept expressly open. Similarly all questions regarding limitation of any such proceedings are also kept open to be agitated before the appropriate Authorities/Court. (iv) Rule is made partly absolute on the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 385 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lar No.286/2/2003 dated- 10-3-2003 wherein it is stated that while recording statement during the course of search and seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Apart from above it has also been noticed that the AO has applied profit rate on shortage of the stock without examining the correct fact whether the assessee has sold raw material out of books or the assessee has sold manufactured items due to which shortage of a stock was there. Without examining such fact, merely on the basis of statement given at the time of survey which has been retracted by furnishing evidence and reconciliation we are of the considered view that under such circumstances the addition by applying profit rate on shortage of a stock cannot be made on presumption. We therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 2,03,875/- made by the AO. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 13-01-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 384 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he objections of the assessee, the AO is directed to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra). Before conclusion, it is worth to mention that the assessee had raised grounds challenging the quantum addition, however, since the issue on jurisdiction has been restored back and that legal issue is to be settled first therefore at present at this stage it is not viable to decide these grounds as it was suggested in the case of Rahulkumar Bajaj v. ITO (1999) 69 ITD 1 (SB) (Nag). The other grounds are not accordingly being decided and the matter is sent to the file of AO who will decide the other issues de novo after passing a speaking order as directed above but by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 383 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of one week, failing which this application as against him shall stand rejected without further reference to the Bench. In the meantime, further proceeding in Complaint Case No. 185 (C) of 2011, Tr. No. 1904 of 2011 pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bettiah shall remain stayed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 382 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... us prosecution, is on the plaintiff. He had to discharge it. Mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not give rise to a presumption of his malicious prosecution in a suit for damages on that account. The issue has to be proved before the civil court independently. Whatever evidence the respondent-plaintiff wanted to lead to discharge the burden to prove issue no. 1 was to be produced at the very first instance. The case of the plaintiff- respondent from the very beginning is that it was a case of malicious prosecution. Once the burden on the issue, in discharge of which evidence in rebuttal is sought to be led was on the plaintiff, his prayer to lead evidence in rebuttal could not be accepted. The learned court below has gone wrong in passing the impugned order and permitting the respondent- plaintiff to examine the hand-writing expert. 18. For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside.
-
2012 (1) TMI 381 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der the provisions of the IT Act for the assessment year 1998-99 and that being worked back etc. 47. Therefore, while we are not called upon to examine either the scope of the charging section or the nature of the transaction per se insofar as the assessee is concerned in the present appeals as such questions did not arise and the Tribunal having bestowed its attention only on the question of the reopened assessments being bad either as barred by limitation or by change of opinion and that alone is to be examined and that question having been answered, we do not propose to go into the details of other submissions and it 13 therefore we do not propose to discuss further on the merits of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the assessee with regard to chargeability of the amount involved in the hire purchase transaction and the nature of the hire purchase transaction. 48. In the result, these appeals are allowed. However, parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 380 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... quo;charitable purpose” is intended to mean. We are certain that these observations were not intended to keep out of the meaning of the word “education”, persons other than “young”. The expression “schooling” also mean “that school instructs or educates”. The Supreme Court has observed that the word “education” also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction which a person has received. This clearly indicates that the observations of the Supreme Court were not intended to give a narrow or pedantic sense to the word”education”. 11. In view of the above, finding no error whatsoever in the order of the ld. CIT(A), the same is hereby confirmed, rejecting the grievance sought to be raised by the Department, finding the same to be shorn of merit, in view of the aforesaid decision. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 379 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e, which was carrying on the business of manufacturing, selling and distribution of pharmaceutical and medical preparations, received during the assessment year 199798 ₹ 50 lakhs from Ranbaxy as non-competition fee. It agreed to transfer its trade marks to Ranbaxy and in consideration for such transfer the assessee agreed that it shall not carry on directly or indirectly the business hitherto carried on by it. The agreement was for 20 years. The Tribunal held that the amount was a capital receipt; but the High Court reversed the decision. On appeal to the Supreme Court Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that prior to April 1, 2003, when Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts, the payment was in the nature of a capital receipt.” 4.1. Respectfully following the view taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we hereby affirm the findings of ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 5. In the result, Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 378 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cants have upgraded the machineries and have spent considerable sums in construction of civil works and have employed workers/staff afresh. In these circumstances, the company application is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). 24. As a result of the above, the prayer made by the Official Liquidator fails and his report is accordingly rejected. However, it would be open for the Official Liquidator to determine the dues of workers as claimed by him in his report dated 25th January 2011 and thereafter seek appropriate directions against the secured creditors in terms of prayer clause (c) of the report. Let the Official Liquidator adjudicate the claims pending, if any, of the workers expeditiously and the amounts can be then directed to be brought back by the secured creditors on appropriate undertakings obtained from them. Leaving open that course, the prayer that sale may be declared null and void is rejected. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 377 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... or assessment year 2006-07 relating to the deletion of addition on account of prior period expenses. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that the disallowance of ₹ 1,65,974/- has to go back to the file of ld. A.O. for proper adjudication on merits and in accordance with law. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and remand the matter to the file of ld. A.O. to decide the issue afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee and in accordance with law. The assessee is at liberty to justify the claim with relevant sufficient material to the satisfaction of the ld. A.O. Hence the second issue for assessment year 2006-07 is to be treated as alloweod for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and that for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/1/2012
-
2012 (1) TMI 376 - DELHI HIGH COURT
|
Allegations are regarding procurement of the Time Scoring Results (TSR) - Award tender to Swiss Timing Omega - Seeking grant of regular bail - criminal conspiracy - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “PC Act‟) - the allegation qua forgery relates to insertion of an advertisement wherein instead of the words "Timing, Scoring or/and Result", the words "Timing, Scoring and Result" were used, the cost of which advertisement was only ₹ 69,603/- which was not cleared by the Petitioner.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, this court have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the Appellants is 'the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of the Appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibration of the scales of justice." The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, Court is inclined to bail to the Petitioners. It is, therefore, directed that the Petitioners be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. The Petitioners will not leave the Country without the prior permission of the learned Trial Court.
|
| |
-
2012 (1) TMI 375 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration. The issue whether deduction under sec. 54EC was available or not, in Assessment Year 2005-06 is not before us. The assessee has invested borrowed funds in acquisition of bonds and has earned interest thereon. Therefore, the interest payable on borrowed capital has to be allowed as deduction of interest earned on such investments. From the assessment order, it is not clear as to how much amount of interest was earned on the bonds purchased from funds borrowed at ₹ 6,42,80,000/-. Deduction of interest under sec. 57(iii) is to be restricted to the extent of interest earned on bonds acquired out of borrowed funds. We therefore, hold that the assessee will be eligible for deduction of interest out of interest earned on such investment. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify and allow the claim of the assessee accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 10. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or offends public interest or where injury to the public at large is manifest. As is perceptible, the GDA could not have granted the lease of the property belonging to the State Government as it was Nazul land meant for the Public Works Department. The collective interest in the property could not have been jeopardised by usurpation of power/authority by the GDA. Such assumption of power by the GDA makes the whole action sans substratum and thereby a nullity. Needless to say, any grant has to have legal sanctity and legitimacy. 23. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are allowed and the orders passed in the writ appeal and the application for review, being unsustainable, are set aside. The State Government and its functionaries are at liberty to proceed against the first Respondent for its eviction. It is open to the first Respondent to take recourse to the arbitration clause against the GDA for any other relief as advised in law. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 373 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... has power to cancel the registration granted u/s.12AA(1) of IT Act. In the above cited decision of Ahmedabad Urban Development(supra), it was held that when under the Act a specific provision for cancellation of registration is prescribed and the cancellation is possible under specific condition then fulfillment of those conditions are necessary for invoking the jurisdiction u/s.12AA(3). In the present case the reason for cancellation for registration was that the definition of charitable purpose u/s.2(15) has been amended therefore the assessee has not carried out the activity as per the definition of “charitable purposes”. This very issue has already been dealt with by the Respected Benches, therefore respectfully following these decisions we hereby reverse the view taken by the ld.Commissioner and direct not to cancel the registration u/s.12AA(3) of IT Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed. 5. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 372 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... usiness profit even during the period assessee enjoys exemption under section 10B(4). In view of the above findings, the appeals are to be allowed by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by restoring the order issued by the Commissioner under section 263 of the first four years and by upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the assessment year 2005-06 Para 5 .” From the above, it is clear that section 10B(4) itself refers to “total income” which would mean “income of all units put together”. It is settled law that if a decision of High Court is available, then the decision of Tribunal, even if that is of Special Bench, cannot override the same. Since the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and therefore following the same, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 27th day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 371 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee out of the business transactions but the same was rejected by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal and addition was confirmed. We find force in the argument of the Ld. Counsel that merely because the plea of the assessee has been rejected that may not automatically attract the penal consequences, more particularly under sec. 271(1)(c). We find that ‘deemed dividend’ is a legal fiction created u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act. The amount would partakes character of the dividend and same can be brought to tax as deemed dividend. In our opinion, this is not fit case where it can be said that the assessee has concealed the income or filed inaccurate particulars of income. Given our anxious consideration to the finding of the CIT (A), in our opinion, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CI T (A) is confirmed. 4. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 31st January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 370 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... /2010, similar issue relating to assessee’s claim under section 80HHC of the Act in respect of certain other items of income, has been considered by us vide para 16 above, wherein we have extracted the findings of our co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 30.11.2010 (supra) regarding exclusion of service charges from the profits of business as per Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. Following the said precedent as the circumstances are identical in this year, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and remit the matter back to his file to be adjudicated afresh in line with the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pfizer Ltd. (supra) and Dresser Rand India P Ltd. ITA No 2186 of 2009 (HC). We hold so. As a result, Ground No. 9 of appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 48. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed, as above. Decision pronounced in the open Court on this 31st Day of January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 369 - ITAT JAIPUR
|
Unexplained investment u/s 69 - AO found that the assessee purchased a property for which he passed some amount from the regular sources and the balance amount had been paid from unexplained sources, as during the survey, unsigned draft agreements were found. Also, no revised agreements were found at premises of assessee's company.
HELD THAT:- ld. CIT (A) held that the AO was not right in making impugned addition of the amount in question on the basis of unsigned and undated draft agreement and without bringing any corroborative evidence on record. We found that the agreements and the revised agreement cannot be denied merely for the reason that they were not found during the course of survey at the premises of assessee's company. The assessee claims that the same were there at his residence. The assessee's statements were not recorded during the course of survey otherwise he could have explained the complete facts at that time itself. Further, these agreement are written on the stamp papers issued prior to the date of transactions. No evidence is there on record showing the balance payment of sum by the assessee or his family members. The amount remaining to be paid in terms of the draft agreement also remained payable in terms of the signed agreement but the terms were subsequently revised and payment was made as per the revised terms.
In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given a well reasoned and well founded order after dealing with each and every aspect of the issue and we are in full agreement with the findings of the CIT(A) that the addition of balance amount made by applying the provisions of section 69 is not justified. We therefore, confirm the order of ld. CIT (A) - Decision in favour of Assessee.
|
........
|
