|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 381 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 207 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... visions of section 50C. In support of this contention the assessee has filed a report of DVO obtained in case of purchaser who has valued the property at ₹ 32,01,100/- and impugned addition was made in the hands of purchaser by the AO and the same has been deleted by ld. CIT (A). Therefore, for this reason also it can be said that addition made by AO which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) was not justified. 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that addition made in the hands of assessee by invoking provisions of section 50C which is confirmed by ld. CIT (A) was not justified and accordingly the impugned addition made and confirmed is hereby deleted. 16. Since we have already deleted the addition on merit, therefore, we are not inclined to dispose off the legal ground against initiation of proceedings under section 148 at this point of time. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 18. The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 206 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... address. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the identity of the share applicant have been established. The other documents on the basis of which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has granted the relief have not been the subject matter of scrutiny and examination by the Assessing Officer. It is also not the case that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has himself verified these documents. We further find that the share in this case have been issued at premium of Rs. 40 per share, this aspect has not been examined by the authorities below. In these circumstances, in our considered opinion, interest of justice will served if the matter is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. Hence, the matter stands remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31/1/2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 205 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the State of Uttar Pradesh has the authority to fix the State Advised Price (for short, `SAP'), which is required to be paid over and above the minimum price fixed by the Central Government?
-
2012 (1) TMI 204 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Import of popcorn-maize - actual user condition - N/N. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 - Held that: - the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor is the Government bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the Government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the Government is not barred by the promises or legitimate expectation from evolving new policy in the impugned notification.”
The policy of the Government of India stipulating the customs duty at Nil rate and withdrawing the condition of actual user cannot be said to be arbitrary, particularly, in view of the factual position evident from the table, extracted above, that the imports being way below the quota prescribed has no affect on domestic growers or the market and no harm to domestic growers or consumers is caused by notifying duty free import of maize (corn) and withdrawing the restriction of actual user.
Petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (1) TMI 203 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... religious purposes in the earlier year against income earned by the trust in the subsequent year will have to be regarded as application of income of the trust for charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which such adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in section 11 of the Act and will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(1) of the Act. 5. It is candidly pointed out by the learned senior counsel Mr.Manish Bhatt that recently Delhi High Court's judgement in case of Raghvanshi Charitable Trust and others Vs. DIT reported in (2011) 221 Taxation 250 decided on 27th July, 2010, also decided the issue on similar line. Question having been concluded by this Court and with no other material aspect being brought to the notice of the Court for making any interference in the decision of Tribunal, this Tax Appeal requires no meritorious consideration. Hence, Tax Appeal is dismissed No costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 202 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... and finally posted for hearing on 19.1.2012. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, opposed grant of extension of stay. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has made out prima facie case for grant of extension of stay and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to grant extension of stay for further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. It is ordered accordingly. It is to be noted that the stay is extended beyond 365 days. However, it is to be mentioned that delay in disposing of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and hence, in the light of the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ronuk Industries Ltd. 333 ITR 99 and the order of the Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Tata Communications Ltd. V ACIT 9 ITR (Trib) 1, the stay is extended beyond the period of 365 days. 5. In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 201 - SC ORDER
Jurisdictional issue pertaining to the Committee – Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, had by his order dated 23-4-2008 dropped all the charges brought against M/s. Kothari Products Ltdand consequentially allowed its products to be cleared from the factory - Members of the Committee on a consideration of the materials on record, adjudged the said decision of the Commissioner and directed him (Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh) to apply to the Tribunal for a correct determination of the points as enumerated in its order dated 24-7-2008 – Respondents preferred against the decision dated 24-7-2008 of the Committee, questioned its (Committee) jurisdiction and authority contending that the composition thereof was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 35(1B) of the Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder – According to them, two members thereof namely Shri Rajendra Prasad who acted as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, and Shri Hrishikesh Sharan who did so as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, had no locus standi to discharge their said roles as the necessary notification under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to that effect which is obligatory, had not been issued.
-
2012 (1) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the detaining authority acted rather casually in the matter in issuing the order of detention and the High Court also appears to have missed the right to liberty as contained in Article 21 of the Constitution and Article 22(2) thereof, as well as the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Whether the impugned order of detention dated 31st January, 2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Imphal West District, Manipur, in regard to the detention of Yumman Somendro @ Somo @ Tiken son of Y. Roton Singh, is acceptable?
-
2012 (1) TMI 199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fore this Court) admittedly was placed before the Detaining Authority. Inspite of the said order, the Detaining Authority formed subjective satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner as he was likely to indulge in prejudicial activities in future. In the recent decision in the case of Rashid Kapadia vs. Medha Gadgil & Ors. In Criminal Writ Petition No.3253/2011 decided on January 4, 2012, we had occasion to consider similar grievance. We have held that when the Detaining Authority does not refer nor rely on the contents of a particular document to form subjective satisfaction, the fact that the said document was not supplied to the detenu along with the grounds of detention would not enure in favour of the detenu. In other words, even the ground under consideration, for the reasons recorded earlier, is devoid of merits. 22. As no other ground was urged before us and for the reasons recorded hitherto, we proceed to dismiss this Petition. Hence, dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 198 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0/-. For agitating the said claim, writ is not an appropriate remedy. To this extent, we differ from the judgment (supra) of Bombay High Court. 16. The appeal therefore is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition qua the amount of ₹ 4,42,500/- is set aside and the respondents are directed to within eight weeks hereof pay the said sum of ₹ 4,42,500/- to the appellant failing which the said amount shall also incur interest at the rate of 10 per annum. However, as far as the claim of the appellant for interest at 10 per annum on the said sum of ₹ 4,42,500/- from 1st December, 2009 onwards is concerned, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition with liberty to the appellant to institute a suit therefor shall stand. We also award to the appellant costs of legal proceedings of ₹ 20,000/- payable by the respondent to the appellant, alongwith the amount aforesaid. Dasti.
-
2012 (1) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the order dated 27.09.2004 passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), Lucknow demanding differential stamp duty with interest and penalty in respect of the sale deed dated 16.04.2003 executed in favour of the respondents herein?
-
2012 (1) TMI 196 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... revenue. The decision of Hyderabd Bench is reported at 129 TTJ (UO) 57, Teja Construction co. Vs. ACIT. The ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Singhal Builders Contractors Vs. Addl. CIT 133 TTJ (UO) 102 held that no disallowance u/s 40a(ia) cannot be made in case books of accounts have been rejected. We have also gone through the case laws on which the ld. DR has relied upon. We agree with the views of the ld. DR that order is erroneous if the AO has not made any enquiry. We had already discussed that the AO has made enquiry and it is not a case where the AO has not considered the issue on which the ld. CIT has passed the order u/s 263 of the Act. We therefore, feel that the ld. CIT was not justified in setting the order with the direction to the AO to examine the issue as mentioned in the order of the ld. CIT. In view of above discussions, the order of the ld. CIT is cancelled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 195 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... sum of ₹ 61,000/- could, in the circumstances of the case, have been assessed as undisclosed profits. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has been misconstrued in isolation and without reference to the context and entirety of the facts of that case. The cross-examination of the person who filed affidavits is one of the reasons’ for the finding arrived at by the Hon'ble Apex Court, alongwith other reasons. Consequently, the ratio of the decision concluded and relied upon by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the case. 14. Having regard to the legal and factual discussion, we are of the opinion that the assessee has failed to adduce corroborative documentary evidence to the factum of incurring the said expenditure and hence, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. This ground of appeal of the revenue is allowed. 15. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25th Jan., 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - retail sale price - clearances made to exports - cement bags - whether retail sale price is required to be written on the cement bags in terms of Standard Weight & Measurement Act, 1976? - Held that: - the identical issue stands dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the Sl.No.1 (C) of the Notification would be proper serial number for payment of duty in respect of the cement cleared for export - condition of pre-deposit dispensed with - petition allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 193 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n issued by the respondent without issuing a proper notice to the petitioner, under Section 55 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the respondent, dated 03.09.2009, is set-aside. The respondent may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, as per the relevant provision of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, if so advised, to revise the assessment order, dated, 23.09.2004, in respect of the assessment year 2003-2004. On the respondent issuing such notice, the petitioner shall file its objections raising all the grounds available to it, as per law, including the ground relating to the aspect of limitation. On the petitioner filing the objections, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits, and in accordance with law, considering the objections raised by the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2012 is closed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 192 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the State Government communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.3.2011 as well as order dated 30.3.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Badaun contained in Annexure No.1 and 2 to the W.P. No.4097 (M/B) of 2011, with consequential benefits with liberty to proceed afresh with due consultation with the District Judge and District Magistrate. (iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case in the light of observations made in the body of judgment, expeditiously and in the meantime, the petitioner shall be permitted to discharge duty in accordance with Rules. (iv) A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the State of U.P. to consider for amendment in the L.R. Manual keeping in view the finding recorded and observations made in the body of judgment expeditiously say, within three months. (v) No orders as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT
Demand of tax - Request to remand back the matter - whether Value Added Tax was payable in respect of the goods being transported through the State of U.P.
-
2012 (1) TMI 190 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tal asset within the meaning of sec. 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since no material has been brought on record by the AO to support his contention that the impugned lands were situated within the 8 kms from the outer limits of Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon, in our considered opinion, the profits arising on sale of such lands would not constitute capital asset. Since the nature of land was not doubted by the AO, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned CIT-DR that the matter should be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for verification of the fact whether the lands were agricultural in nature or not. In view of above facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) allowing the relief to both the assessees in both the assessment years. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in both the cases for both the Assessment Years are dismissed. 9. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 31st January, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pellant that in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. M/s. Shree Krishna Pipes Industries, the order passed by the Appellate Authority in reducing the interest and penalty was illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court had confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. The appellant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 5930/2008. The Supreme Court in the connected appeals involving the similar substantial questions, in the case of Union of India and Others v. Darmendra Textile Processors and Others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 8038 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), while disposing of other batch of connected appeals including Civil Appeal No. 5930/2008 in the case of M/s. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, has held that the Authorities have no discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty. 3. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority (CESTAT) in reducing the penalty and interest is bad in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d involved is 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2006. 3. As the issue involved is of narrow compass and are covered by the decision of this Tribunal, therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, we take up the appeal itself for disposal. 4. We have seen that, in the case of B.A. Research India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad reported in 2010 (18) STR 604 (Tribunal) this issue came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal held that, prior to insertion of the explanation in the Finance Act, 1994 on 01/05/2006 the activity undertaken by the appellant are not liable to service tax. The same view was followed by this Tribunal in the case of Synchron Research Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad reported in 2011 (24) STR 654 (Tribunal). Therefore, we find that the issue is no more res integra and accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 5. The appeal as well as the stay application are disposed of in the above manner.
............
|
