|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 583 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 704 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en made in terms of Section 41(3) of the Act within the period prescribed under Section 42 of the Act, the Staterespondent is left with no other alternative but to refund the said amount as there has been no valid assessment for the relevant period. 8. In the case before us, it is not in dispute that the Return was filed and the tax was paid. As the Staterespondent did not assess any amount within the period prescribed under Section 42 of the Act, it is a fit case where the State should be directed to refund the amount claimed by the petitioner. We, thus, find that it is a fit case where we should pass such direction for refund of the amount claimed by the petitioner with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit of the amount till actual refund. Such amount be refunded within two months from today. If it is not returned within two months from today, then the interest will be payable at the rate of 14% per annum. The writ-application is, thus, disposed of.
-
2012 (3) TMI 703 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... to section 147, the assessing officer has to necessarily establish that there was negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material necessary for completion of assessment. In the absence of any material to show that there was any negligence on the part of the assessee in disclosing the material fact necessary for completion of assessment, the assessing officer cannot reopen the assessment after expiry of four years. Therefore, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Anu Cashews (supra) and for the reasons stated therein, this Tribunal hold that reopening the assessment after expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is invalid. The re-assessment proceedings, consequent to the reopening of the assessment has no independent leg to stand. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 02nd day of March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 702 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n is allowed and the Commissioner of Customs (P), Patna as well as the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), Custom Headquarter, Patna are hereby directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 21,33,500.00 along with statutory interest (compound) at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 30.08.2001, the date on which the petitioner’s appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal till the actual date of payment. The said payments must be made by the said authorities to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which, they will have to face serious legal consequences. 18. However, the Customs Department will be at liberty to initiate a proceeding against its employees/officers, who are found to be responsible for sale of articles, loss of public exchequer and also for making the concerned file traceless and recover the loss to the Department from their pockets apart from punishing them for their aforesaid misdeeds.
-
2012 (3) TMI 701 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e main purpose of the appellant was to buy the packing and printing material from the third party for the purpose of packing and no works contract was involved. The provisions of section 194C r.w.s. 40a(ia) of the Act have been wrongly held to be applicable in the appellant's case. The addition made is, therefore, deleted. 33. On perusal of the fact-situation of the present case, the findings of the ld. CIT(A), and the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Dy. Chief Accounts Officer, Markfed, 304 ITR 17, we find that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. Hence, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) are upheld. This ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are general in nature and hence need no separate adjudication. The same are dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas the appeal of the Revenue is also partly allowed. Order Pronounced on 26.3.2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 700 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e part of the trustee is proved to be actuated by dishonesty, a drastic action under Section 41-D is not warranted. In my opinion, the Charity Commissioner has considered the entire evidence available on record and has, thereafter, reached an appropriate decision that the case for drastic action for removal of the trustees had not been made out. No fault can be found with the reasoning of the Charity Commissioner in the impugned order. I entirely agree with the view expressed by the Charity Commissioner that the errors committed by the trustees were not so severe so as to warrant their removal. There is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same will have to be dismissed. 27. The intention of the Petitioner cannot be doubted and the Petitioner is also a person who is fighting for the Welfare of the trust. However, in the absence of any case for removal of the trustees, no fault can be found with the order of the Charity Commissioner. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 699 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... action by the CIT. 14. We have given a considered thought on the issue and we have come to a conclusion, that the AO applied his mind over non applicability of section 50C over depreciable assets and the ratios of various judgments have to be accepted and go to the basics, of section 263, i.e. whether the AO applied his mind over the impugned issue or not. In our considered opinion, the AO did apply his mind, besides, there are umpteen no. of decided cases where it has been held that both the limbs i.e. the order must be erroneous and that order must be prejudicial to the interests of revenue must be there for the CIT to step in to revise the order. In the present case, the circumstances as pointed out do not validate the action of the CIT to invoke the provision of section 263. 15. The direction given by the Ld CIT is, erroneous and is therefore set aside and the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) dated 11.12.2008 is restored. Pronounced in the open court on 21st March, 2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 698 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e parties on the question of interim stay, we direct that on appellants’ depositing with the Department 25% of the penalty imposed each on the Firm and its partner under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and furnishing a solvent security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner concerned for the balance 75% of the amount of penalty under the said Section, within four weeks from today, no coercive steps shall be taken for the recovery of the balance penalty amount.
-
2012 (3) TMI 697 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has misdirected himself by holding that assessee’s argument that the interest expenditure should be netted for computing of its profits and gains of business is not acceptable. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, as regards the claim of interest expenditure should be netted for computing the profits and gains, this aspect should be remitted to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider the issue afresh. It is needless to say that our observation will not impair or injure the case of the Assessing Officer and it will not cause any prejudice to the defence/ explanation of the assessee. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall decide the issue in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/3/2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 696 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... to the appellant on this count. After giving the two illustrations in para 25 of the impugned order regarding reversal/synchronized trades, the whole time member has given the details of the trading done by the appellant supported with the extract of the trade/order logs. These trades are not denied by the appellant. A large number of reverse trades are by themselves reflective of the manipulation meant for increasing volumes on the screen of the trading system. There is no change of beneficial ownership in the traded scrip. Since the transactions were found between the connected parties, we cannot look into the trades of the appellant in isolation. Out of 18 days of trading, reversal of trades on 12 days in respect of 39,100 shares resulting in 178 buy trades and 192 sell trades cannot be a coincidence. We, therefore, cannot find any fault with the findings arrived at by the whole time member of the Board. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 695 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at Nizamuddin. As per the report “on chemical, TLC, GC-HS & GC-MS examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits “1”, “2”, “3” & “4”.” Thus it is apparent that though poison was allegedly consumed at around 6.00 AM on 5th January, 2011 the intimation was sent in the afternoon and no poison was detected. In view of the facts surfacing on record, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was tortured to such an extent that the Petitioner attempted to commit suicide. 20. In the facts of the case and in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed. Since the Petitioner has knowledge of all the facts, he is alleging, he would be at liberty to file a criminal complaint if so advised.
-
2012 (3) TMI 694 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... was deleted. 12.2 In reply, the finding that utilization of loan is of no consequence has been challenged in the light of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Ltd., 312 ITR 254 (SC). Accordingly, it is urged that the difference in loss and gain amounting to Rs. 32,19,738/- may be allowed. 12.3 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. It is seen that the issue is no longer res-integra as we have guidelines from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodward Governor India Ltd. (supra). The loan was taken for use as circulating capital. Therefore, the utilization was in the revenue field and not in the capital field. In this situation, the assessee is entitled to deduct the net loss of Rs. 32,19,738/-. 12.4 Thus, this ground is dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (3) TMI 693 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... essee’s case and are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, the assessees are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of article or thing, installed windmill on which additional depreciation was claimed. On those circumstances, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that the assessees are entitled for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on windmill. In the case on hand, the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing. Since, the assessee is not engaged in the business of manufacturing or production of any article or thing, in our considered view, the assessee is not entitled for additional depreciation on windmill. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored that of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 30.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 692 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... the income of the assessee. The fact situation of the present case is not identical to the fact situation in the case of Prabhat Kumar (supra), hence, the case relied upon is factually different and distinguishable. The estimate after rejection of books of account is required to be made on tangible, credible and objective criteria. This view is supported by a plethora of judicial decisions. It is well settled proposition that there can be an element of guess, in estimating the income. However, the same should not be purely arbitrary and based on surmises and conjectures. Having regard to the past history of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the end of justice would be served, if 7% net profit is adopted, as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the relief is given to the assessee and the AO is directed to recompute the income of the assessee. The assessee gets part relief. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced on 15 .03.2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 691 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... Rs.17,000/- (I.e. Person A - Rs.10,000/- and Person-B - Rs.2,000/-). Hence the claim of quantum of new provision made by the assessee, needs verification at the end of the AO. If the assessee has created a new provision on a particular asset by fully reversing the opening balance of provision relating to that asset, then the net accretion should only be treated as new provision. As stated earlier, it is only an academic exercise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, which may be carried out if the situation warrants. 10 The assessee has also prayed that this matter may be set aside to the file of AO to determine the issue of taxing the amount of Provision written back. We notice that this issue does not arise out of the Ld CIT(A) or the Assessment order. Hence, we are unable to entertain the said request of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 23-03-2012
-
2012 (3) TMI 690 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... office order dated 04.02.2003, the directions issued by Central Administrative Tribunal, cannot be said to be either perverse or erroneous. 25. We, therefore, find that the Central Administrative Tribunal has correctly appreciated the controversy and hence no interference is warranted in these writ petitions. Accordingly, rule is discharged in all matters and the petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Samel, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks suspension of present judgment and continuation of interim orders for a period of eight weeks. Shri Meghe and Shri Mathur and Dhondarkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in respective petitions are opposing the request. However, looking to the nature of controversy and in the interest of justice, interim orders already operating in the petitions are continued for a further period of eight weeks from today and the same shall cease to operate automatically thereafter.
-
2012 (3) TMI 689 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated 29.10.2009. 15. In a decision reported in (2011) 2 MLJ (Crl) 357 (in the case of Pritish Tewari v. Vista. Security Technics Private Limited, Chennai. rep, by its authorised Signatory Dharma Raj), the High Court of Judicature at Madras, referring to the judgments; (1) (2001) Crl.L.J. 115 (Ahuja Nandakishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra) (2) AIR 1999 SC 3762 (in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan) and AIR 2001 SC 1161 (in the case of Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswala Neco Ltd.) has held the courts which have jurisdiction to try an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be 1) the place where the cheque has been drawn; 2) the place where the cheque returned unpaid by the drawee bank; 3) the place where, the statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque was served on the drawer." 16. In view of the above discussion, do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 688 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ined uncontroverted. There is no reason as to why the allegations/ submissions made by the Petitioner in the Company Petition should not be accepted. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts. Hence the following Order i) The Company Petition is admitted and made returnable on 25th April 2012. ii) The Petition shall be advertised by the Petitioners in two local newspapers namely ‘Free Press Journal’ (in English), ‘Maharashtra Times’ (in Marathi) and in Maharashtra Government Gazette. iii) The Petitioners shall, within a period of three weeks from today, deposit an amount of ₹ 10,000/with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards publication charges with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which the Company Petition shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution. iv) A copy of this Order shall forthwith be forwarded to the Respondent Company at its registered office by the Advocate for the Petitioner.
-
2012 (3) TMI 687 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... rom the record, we found that during the year, the assessee has undertaken the project under the name and style of C.I. Enclaves. The Project was approved by Municipal Corporation on 16.4.2003. This Project on the land was belonging to Ramnath Sharma. However, since the assessee could not get completion certificate within the time allowed under law, we do not find any infirmity in the order of lower authorities for declining claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10).” 14. Since in the instant case before us for the assessment year 2006-07 & 2007-08, the completion certificate was not issued till date, there is no reason to restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and lower authorities were justified in declining the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10). 15. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 19th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 686 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of sections 80HH and 80-I of the Act after hearing the assessee. Thus, this ground of the assessee stands accepted”. 39. Respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench, we entertain these grounds of appeal and remit these issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and readjudication. 40. In ground No.14, assessee has pleaded that learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee. This ground is pre-mature in nature. No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee. The defence of the assessee qua the penalty under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act would be entertained in the penalty proceedings, if any, commenced by the Assessing Officer which is a separate proceedings. Hence, this ground of appeal is rejected. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open court on 02.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 685 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , offences fall in Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the High Court held that cognizance thereof can be taken by the Magistrate only on the basis of complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code by an aggrieved person. That judgment cannot be applied to the present case. Facts of that case were different and there the High Court was dealing with cognizance of the offences falling under Chapter XX by the Magistrate. Upshot of the above discussion is that, no fetters can be put on the police preventing them from investigating the complaint which alleges offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and also offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed. The impugned order is set aside. Obviously, therefore, the direction to delete Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with law. 15. The appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
........
|
