|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 10765 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 748 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssed. 21. The last ground i.e. ground No. 6 relates to bad debt and deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 22. The Assessing Officer has disallowed the bad debt amounting to ₹ 87,36,000/-. The details and status of the debts were produced and have been written off as irrecoverable as per the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the books of accounts of the assessee. There is no dispute on this fact. After01.04.1989, w.e.f. assessment year 1989-90, there is no requirement by the assessee to prove that the debt has actually become bad. Therefore, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee. To support our view, we may mention the case of T.R.F. Ltd. vs. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC) and it has been held that it is enough if the debt has been written off in the books of account after mentioning the same as irrecoverable debt. Accordingly, we confirm this deletion also. 23. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 747 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... id that repayment is not of a specified sum. Hence, in our considered opinion, UTI, MIP-99 is also a bond as per this definition of bond. 12. Since, the Tribunal in the case of Maanraj Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has not decided this aspect as to whether UTI-MIP is bond or not, for deciding this aspect, there is no order of Tribunal to guide us and hence, we decide this aspect on the basis of above discussion and hold that UTI-MIP is a bond. Once, we hold so, the Tribunal order cited by Ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case because in that case, the Tribunal has proceeded on this basis that UTI-MIP is not a bond or debenture without deciding or examining that aspect. 13. As per above discussion, we hold that UTI-MIP-99 is a bond & hence, the assessee is not eligible for indexation in view of 3rd proviso to Section 48. This ground of Revenue is allowed. 14. In the result, appeal of Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 09/12/2011
-
2011 (12) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10. On the question of applicability of Section 54F, ld. counsel for the respondent submits that there is another decision of the tribunal in favour of the Revenue as the purchased property is not located in India but abroad. 3. There will be stay of further coercive steps on the part of the Revenue till the next date of hearing subject to petitioner depositing the following amounts - (1) ₹ 50 lakhs on or before 20th December, 2011. (2) ₹ 50 lakhs on or before 15th February, 2012. (3) ₹ 50 lakhs on or before 15th April, 2012. 4. Petitioner will also ensure that the immoveable property in his name is not sold, transferred or encumbered till the next date. Attachment order in respect of said property will continue but no further steps for sale of the property will be taken. 5. Counter affidavit will be filed within 6 weeks. Rejoinder affidavit will be filed within 6 weeks after counter affidavit is served. 6. List on 7th March, 2012. Dasti to both the parties.
-
2011 (12) TMI 745 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... e learned CIT. The learned Chief CIT has allowed the registration which means that the activities of the trust are genuine and as per its object. The advertisement expenses if genuine and have been paid to son of the settlor of the society then this cannot be made a ground for disallowing exemption. Reference is made to the order of the Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Young Scholars Educational Society v. ITO (2011) 12 ITR (Trib) 640 (Chd). In respect of the payments made to the persons covered under section 13(3), the assessee has already explained the reasonableness. The reasonableness is actually to be seen by the AO and not by the learned CIT while allowing registration or cancelling the registration. Thus looking to the above discussions, we hold that the learned CIT was not justified in cancelling the registration. The order passed by the learned CIT under section 12AA(3) is cancelled and appeal is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 744 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... dditions made and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) will not subsist as those additions have to be set off against additions made on account of sales suppression. 9. We are not able to accept this contention because the mutually offsetting impact of additions on account of sales suppression and other individual additions have not been established in this case. Individual additions made by the assessing authority are supported by materials standing far away from the case of sales suppression. They do not have any contemporaneous nexus. Therefore we find that the plea of the assessee for the benefit of telescoping cannot be accepted. 10. Regarding the individual merit of those additions, we do not find much force in the argument of the assessee. Those additions have been made on the basis of materials collected during the search. 11. In result, these appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 8th December, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (12) TMI 743 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... liance Capital Ltd. amounting to ₹ 5,60,54,795/- on account of loan of ₹ 300 crores @ 11% interest taken on 29.1.2007 has been given to Swan Consultants P. Ltd. on the same day on which equal amount of interest has been received from them. Only the amount borrowed from Sonata Investments P. Ltd. on which interest of ₹ 47,99,527/- has been paid can be disallowed u/s 14A read with Rule 8D since the loan has been utilized in shares of Adlabs Films Ltd., the income of which is exempt from tax. In this view of the matter and in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice by the ld. D.R against the factual finding given by the ld. CIT(A) that there is one to one nexus between interest paid and interest received, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are accordingly dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 14.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 742 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... was rejected in other cases of the same group. 40. Next issue is against confirming trading addition of ₹ 1,76,838/- made by applying GP rate of 30% as against 10.02%. 41. Similar addition was made in earlier years where we have directed to apply 15% GP rate against 10.2% shown by assessee. Accordingly in this year also we direct the AO to recalculate the addition by applying a GP rate of 15%. 42. Next issue is against confirming addition @ 25% of unverifiable purchases and cash purchases. 43. Similar issue was involved in earlier year and we have allowed the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, for the year under consideration also this ground is allowed. 44. Remaining issue is against confirming 10% disallowance of various expenses is rejected as similar ground was rejected for earlier year also. 45. In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed and appeals of the assessee are allowed in part. 46. The order is pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 741 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on account of late delivery. The clause pertaining to cost reduction in the eventuality of late delivery is an accepted fact and such conditions are inherent risks and incidental to the running of business. The factum of the occurrence of the event for which cost reduction has occurred has not been doubted by the A.O. The challenge posed by the department is only on the legal principle that a breach of contract of this nature is not an allowable expense. On consideration of facts and judicial principles, we are of the view that the department’s ground deserves to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly for the reasons given hereinabove being in agreement with the conclusion and the finding of the CIT(A) the impugned order is upheld as the department’s ground is dismissed. 7. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the C.O. by the assessee though in support of the impugned order is dismissed as infructuous. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 740 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ave added the entire proceeds on the ground that the assessee failed to establish its business activity. However, no other unexplained investments had been found and, therefore, normal presumption would be that the withdrawals from the Bank account were utilized for making various payment and deposits were from sale proceeds since Assessing Officer has not brought on record any other purpose for utilization of withdrawals. The assessee has filed a statement of peak credit contained at pages 5-7 of the paper book and the amount shown dated 02.10.2005 in the statement of ₹ 3,07,727.17 has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, restore the matter to the file of Assessing officer for examining the peak credit statement and if the same is found to be correct, then to restrict the addition to the extent of peak credit. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/ 12 /2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 739 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... opinion, reference to the lease deed would help in arriving at a proper conclusion with regard to the nature of the expenditure. We, therefore, admit the additional evidence in the form of lease deed. However, this lease deed was not before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the natural justice demands that the Assessing Officer should be given an opportunity to examine the issue afresh in the light of the lease deed. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the authorities below on this point and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. We direct the assessee to produce the lease deed and any other explanation/evidences which he wants to produce before the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer is directed to readjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical purposes. Decision pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 29th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 738 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... duty has been estimated at ₹ 2,93,78,432/- 36,72,30,391 x 8/100 ₹ 2,93,78,432/- . 41.It is quite relevant to note here that the appellant has paid already a sum of ₹ 1,40,88,000/- Rupees one crore forty lakhs and eighty eight thousand only . According to the appellant, the deficit stamp duty is ₹ 29,559/- 1,41,17,559- 1,40,88,000 . This is the exact amount, which the appellant has to pay to the Government. 42.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the first respondent dated 15.12.2010 and made in Pa.Mu.No.38508/N4/2009, and the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 02.06.2009 and made in Pro.C.S.R.No.1047/2008/Tallakulam are set aside . The appellant is directed to pay the deficit stamp duty of ₹ 29,559/- Rupees Twenty nine thousand Five hundred and fifty nine only to the 2nd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 737 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and building of M/s. Neeraj and Associates would not render the valuation report of M/s. Vipin Aggarwal as either null and void or illegal. As an expert, M/s. Vipin Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, was entitled to rely on any report placed on record by either of the parties. It is pertinent to mention that prior to furnishing of the valuation report by M/s. Vipin Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, there was no challenge by the appellant-petitioner to the valuation report of land and building of M/s. Neeraj & Associates. 17. Consequently, present appeal being bereft of merits is dismissed and the interim orders stand vacated. 18. At this stage, Mr. Adhip Iyer, learned counsel for respondent on instructions of Mr. Neeraj Bhasin, fairly states that the Car being Maruti Baleno Vxi, Model 2005 bearing Registration No. DL 9CJ 7067 can be retained by the appellant. The statement made on behalf of the respondent is accepted by this Court and the respondent is held bound by the same.
-
2011 (12) TMI 736 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... assessee to furnish confirmation statement since they were aggrieved for not being paid in due time by the assessee, cannot be brushed aside. When all the facts were before the revenue, the revenue had enough authority to make some enquiries on the bona fide of the creditors. Further, the revenue has not brought anything on record to show that the sundry creditors had forgone their debts in favour of the assessee. From the case laws relied upon by the assessee supra, it is obvious that such addition under section 41(1) of the Act cannot be made by the revenue in these circumstances. 8.1 From the facts and circumstances of this case, relying upon various decisions cited by the assessee and from the above discussions, we have no hesitation to delete the addition made by the ld. A.O. for ₹ 45,72,591/- under section 41(1) of the Act which was further confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 735 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rits of the allegations levelled against the Petitioners in the disciplinary inquiry or criminal prosecution against the Petitioners nor with the merits of the defences urged by the Petitioners in respect of the allegations. With this clarification, we allow the petition. 29. Hence, it is declared that the Petitioners' suspension under orders dated 10th September, 2009 passed by the Commissioner of the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 5) shall be treated as having come to an end upon expiry of the period of six months from the date of suspension, on account of such suspension not having been confirmed by the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 4) during the said period of six months as provided under Section 56 (1) (b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. We, accordingly, direct the Respondent No. 4 - Corporation to allow the Petitioners to resume the work. 30. Rule is accordingly made absolute with no order as to cots.
-
2011 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... next assessment year, i.e. 2008-09 was filed on 27th September, 2008 and in the said return, depreciation was not claimed on the land. 3. It is obvious that the assessee had furnished accurate particulars in the return for assessment year 2007-08. Claim for depreciation on land was wrong. Depreciation on land cannot be claimed. This is a well settled principle, and not a debatable question/proposition. It is an accepted position, that the appellant assessee did not revise the return even when return for Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed. The explanation of the assessee that the claim was a bona fide error has been examined by the Tribunal and it was found that the assessee has not been able to discharge the onus placed under the explanation to Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. 4. Keeping in view the factual matrix and reasoning given by the Tribunal, we are not inclined to interfere with and entertain the present appeal under Section 260 A of the Act. 5. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 733 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 7-08, Ground No. 5 in Assessment Year 2002-03, Ground No. 2 in Assessment Year 2004-05, Ground No. 2 in Assessment Year 2005-06 and Ground No. 2 in Assessment Year 2006-07 directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 27,19,09,845/- in Assessment Year 2007-08, ₹ 28,13,95,360/- in Assessment Year 2002-03, ₹ 4,78,50,242/- in Assessment Year 2004-05, ₹ 9,33,17,162/- in Assessment Year 2005-06, ₹ 15,98,84,207/- in Assessment Year 2006-07 and first ground of appeal in the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 1507/Mds/2007 order dated 30.10.2009 on account of broken period interest and allowing the same as Revenue expenditure and the decision of the Tribunal in respect of the said grounds are to be treated as decided in favour of the assessee by following the above cited decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 6. In the result, all the M.Ps are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th December, 2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 732 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... assessee and the director cum shareholder was not that of loan or deposit and it was only a current account in nature and no interest was being charged in the above transaction. Going through the facts of case before us, we are of the view that the transaction between assessee and his sister namely, Ms Naya Sethi for giving a support and help and not denied by revenue, in law was not a loan or deposit in stricter sense of section 269SS of the Act and it was only a financial support. Once this is the position, the transaction does not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, penalty levied by Addl CIT and sustained by CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Appeal of assessee is allowed.” In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, and following the decision of Coordinate Bench cited supra, we uphold the action of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in open court on 30.12.2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 731 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... through its directors. According to him, by punishing the company the current shareholders are being punished. We are unable to accept this argument either. Section 27 of the Act, inter alia, provides that when an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against. This provision also applies to the violation of the regulations framed under the Act. Therefore, we are unable to accept the argument that since the company acts through its directors, the company cannot be punished for the violations in question. Following our earlier order dated November 15, 2011 in Appeal no. 180 of 2011, we uphold the findings of the adjudicating officer. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 730 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ribunal has held that any expansion plans or execution of new projects necessarily has to be in relation to the company and that when a construction company is awarded a contract by a third party for execution of new projects, such execution of project is in the normal course of its business activity, the impugned order needs to be set aside. We are unable to agree with this argument as well. The order passed by the adjudicating officer can be sustained for the reasons other than the reasons given by him on the same set of facts. In the earlier part of this order we have already held that when the appellant, as an insider, traded in the shares of the company on February 9/10, 2009 he was in possession of unpublished price sensitive information. Therefore the charge can be upheld for the reasons recorded by us. In the result, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the adjudicating officer. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT
Murder - Act of a person of unsound mind - Conviction for offence punishable under Sections 302, 295 and 449 of the IPC - defence of insanity - suffering from Epilepsy - HC acquitted of all the offences - ''mens rea'' - respondent abruptly hurled a stone on head of Pujari Tulsi Das (now deceased) resulting into his instantaneous death - he also damaged the idol and other properties of the temple - This all was unprovoked.
HELD THAT:- To commit a criminal offence, mens rea is generally taken to be an essential element of crime. It is said furiosus nulla voluntus est. In other words, a person who is suffering from a mental disorder cannot be said to have committed a crime as he does not know what he is doing. For committing a crime, the intention and act both are taken to be the constituents of the crime, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Every normal and sane human being is expected to possess some degree of reason to be responsible for his/her conduct and acts unless contrary is proved. But a person of unsound mind or a person suffering from mental disorder cannot be said to possess this basic norm of human behavior.
Once, a person is found to be suffering from mental disorder or mental deficiency, which takes within its ambit hallucinations, dementia, loss of memory and self-control, at all relevant times by way of appropriate documentary and oral evidence, the person concerned would be entitled to seek resort to the general exceptions from criminal liability.
Epileptic Psychosis is a progressing disease and its effects have appropriately been described in the text book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi, 24th Ed. 2011 - “Epileptic Psychosis – Epilepsy usually occurs from early infancy, though it may occur at any period of life. Individuals, who have had epileptic fits for years, do not necessarily show any mental aberration, but quite a few of them suffer from mental deterioration. Religiousity is a marked feature in the commencement, but the feeling is only superficial. Such patients are peevish, impulsive and suspicious, and are easily provoked to anger on the slightest cause.''
According to the statement of this doctor and the prescription, the respondent was suffering from Epilepsy and while describing post epileptic insanity, this witness stated that after the epileptic attack, a patient behaves like an insane person and he is unable to recognise even the known persons and relatives. During this time, there is a memory loss and the patient can commit any offence.
Another witness who was produced by the defence was DW-1, Bhanwar Lal, the brother of the respondent. According to this witness, the respondent was suffering from mental disorder since 1993. He stated that when he gets the fits of insanity, he can fight with anybody, hit anybody and even throw articles lying around him. This oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the respondent was suffering from epileptic attacks just prior to the incident. Immediately prior to the occurrence, he had behaved violently and had caused injuries to his own family members. After committing the crime, he was arrested by the Police and even thereafter, he was treated for insanity, while in jail.
Thus, there is evidence to show continuous mental sickness of the respondent. He not only caused death of the deceased but also on the very same day injured and caused hurt to his family members including DW-1. His statement made under Section 313 Cr.PC is fully corroborated by oral and documentary evidence of DW-2 and Ext. D-3 and D-4. Though, the High Court has not discussed this evidence in great detail, but this being an admissible piece of evidence, can always be relied upon to substantiate the conclusion and findings recorded by the High Court.
Ex-facie, injuries do not appear to be so vital that they could have resulted in the death of the deceased, but this fact was required to be proved by expert evidence. There is no documentary or oral evidence to prove the fact that the injuries caused by the respondent to the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Therefore, we find no error in the judgment under appeal. Thus, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
........
|
