|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 662 Records
-
2007 (10) TMI 661 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quashing the assessment made by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax?" 3. Filing of paper book is dispensed with. 4. In view of our order in CIT v. Bindal Apparels IT Appeal No. 1706 of 2006, dated 24-8-2007 the question of law is required to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The matter has not been dealt with by the Tribunal on merits. Therefore, we remand the matter to be heard by the Tribunal on merits. 5. Parties will appear before the Tribunal on 14-11-2007. 6. This order will cover the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 2157/Delhi/2004 and C.O. No. 244/Delhi/2006. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (10) TMI 660 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rt dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the same issue on the ground that no substantial question of law had arisen for consideration. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the Division Bench did not consider some grounds that have been urged now. We find from the memorandum of appeal in ITA No. 69 of 2003, a copy of which is placed on record, that all possible grounds were indeed raised but this Court was of the view that no substantial question of law arose. Moreover, we cannot reopen a settled issue, particularly when the Revenue appears to have accepted the decision dated 8th January, 2004 of the Division Bench. We, therefore, cannot entertain the argument of the learned counsel that certain grounds were not considered by the Division Bench. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that questions no. (f) and (g) as formulated by the Revenue are not substantial questions of law. Filing of paper books is dispensed with. To be listed along with ITA No. 609/2005.
-
2007 (10) TMI 659 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - Post dated cheques was given as Earnest money deposit Or Security - Legally enforceable debt u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 Or not? - The difference in the two kinds of post-dated cheques would be that the cheque issued under first circumstance would be for a debt due, only payment being postponed - The latter cheque would be by way of a security - HELD THAT:- A post dated cheque may be issued under 2 circumstances. Under circumstance one, it may be issued for a debt in presenti but payable in future. Under second circumstance it may be issued for a debt which may become payable in future upon the occurrence of a contingent event.
The word 'due' means 'outstanding at the relevant date'. The debt has to be in existence as a crystallized demand akin to a liquidated damages and not a demand which may or may not come into existence; coming into existence being contingent upon the happening of an event.
It would be relevant to note that the statute does not refer to the debt being payable, meaning thereby, a post dated cheque for a debt due but payment postponed at a future date would attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. But the cheque issued not for an existing due, but issued by way of a security, would not attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, for it has not been issued for a debt which has come into in existence.
Looking to the precedent, I find that in the decision M.S.Narayana Menon @Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr.[2006 (7) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT], it was observed that:- “If the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act.''
Thus, the petition must succeed - The summoning order is quashed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he discount/special commission paid to its agents was debatable. It obtained the opinion of some experts including the former Chairman of CBDT, a senior Advocate and a Chartered Accountant to the effect that no tax was deductible at source from the discounts and special commission offered by the assessee to its agents. Accepting this explanation, the Tribunal concurred with the view of the CIT(A) that penalty ought not to be levied on the assessee. It accordingly dismissed the revenue’s appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any error in the view taken by the Tribunal. It is not disputed that the assessee had taken the opinion of some experts who had advised that tax was not required to be deducted at source. The issue was a debatable one. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient and reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act for the assessee not deducting the TDS. 5. No substantial question of law arises. 6. Dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 657 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... method of accounting of overdue interest on cash or actual receipt basis, when the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting. The reassessment proceedings were not valid." Again, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. (supra) reiterated the same position. Therefore, we are of the view that in this case, notice issued for reopening of the assessment after the expiry of four years of the completion of the original assessment is beyond time-limit provided in the proviso to s. 147 of the IT Act and, therefore, we hold that the reassessment is illegal and the same is quashed. 6. In view of our above decision to quash the reassessment, there is no need to go into the merits raised by the assessee as well as the Revenue. Therefore, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and annul the reassessment proceedings. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nty five lakhs. That calculation is based on the CIF value (import value). 8. For the aforestated reasons we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to the adjudicating authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We make it clear that in this case the burden will be on the assessee to provide details regarding the status and the addresses of the aforestated three entities, namely, M/s. Ajanta Printers, M/s. Amar Dyes and Printers and M/s. Vinay Dye Chem Corpn. If the goods have been sold through commission agent then the burden will be on the assessee to show as to who has paid the amount towards the price of the goods. Taking into account of these factors the Commissioner is directed to decide the matter de novo in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Department succeeds. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Civil Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (10) TMI 655 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... y were not applying their profits to any purpose other than their own infrastructural and other developments, they could not be called a ‘commercial coaching centre’ and, for that matter, their activity could not be termed ‘commercial’. This argument has been rejected by learned Commissioner. Right now, the prima facie view taken by the coordinate Bench at Bangalore in similar cases of similar institutions is in favour of the appellants vide Stay Order Nos. 172-175/2007, dated 28-3-2007 - ICFAI v. CCE (Bang. - CESTAT) and Stay Order No. 144/2007, dated 1-2-2007 - Administrative Staff Collage of India v. CCE (Bang. - CESTAT). On this basis, we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the present case also. It is ordered accordingly. 2. Having regard to the high stake involved in the case, we would also like to dispose of the appeal itself as early as possible. Accordingly, the appeal is posted to 14-12-2007 for final hearing.
-
2007 (10) TMI 654 - ITAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal Delhi Bench in the case of Eicher Ltd. (supra) and the Tribunal Kolkata Bench in the assessees own case. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that the provision for bad and doubtful debt is not a provision for liability but it is a provision for diminution in the value of the assets. Once the provision is not for any liability, the question whether the liability is ascertained or unascertained does not arise. We, therefore, hold that cl (c) of the Explanation to s 115JA would not be applicable in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts," 10. Considering the fact that the computation of book profit under Section 115JA by the appellant is in conformity with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal, therefore respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal the grounds raised by the appellant, are allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing i.e. 24.10.2007.
-
2007 (10) TMI 653 - SUPREME COURT
Suit for specific performance - Contract for sale - legal representatives impleaded - Seeking Permission to file additional written statement - application under Order 22 Rule 4(2) r/w Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Right to file a written statement - Violation of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- It may be noted that in the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 the shop in dispute has been mentioned and the sale was shown in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons, Narainlal, Devilal and Pukhraj. Hence, the registered sale deed itself shows that the purchaser was not Kapoor Chand alone, but also his sons as co-owners. Hence, prima facie, it seems that the sons of Kapoor Chand are also co-owners of the property in dispute.
However, we are not expressing any final opinion on the question whether they are co-owners as that would be decided in the suit. But we are certainly of the opinion that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Whether this defence is accepted or not, of course, is for the trial court to decide. Hence, in our opinion, the courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an additional written statement.
In our opinion it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. In our opinion, if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment. To take a contrary view would lead to multiplicity of proceedings because then C will have to wait until a decree is passed against B, and then file a suit for cancellation of the decree on the ground that A had no title in the property in dispute. Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced.
Also, merely because some applications have been rejected earlier it does not mean that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand should not be allowed to file an additional written statement. In fact, no useful purpose would be served by merely allowing these legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file an additional written statement. In our opinion, this will clearly violate natural justice.
Thus, the impugned orders of the High Court as well as the trial court, are set aside - Appellants shall be allowed to file additional written statement and thereafter the suit should proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... mpts, in public interest, all tea produced in India and exported by the Export-Oriented Units from the levy and collection of cess.” Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. I have carefully considered the case records and rival submissions. As per Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX dt. 13-1-2006 issued by the CBEC, goods are exempt from payment of cess levied under any Act of the Parliament when exported, if in relation to levy and collection of such duty, the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules were applicable. On a combined reading of the CBEC circular dated 13-1-2006 and the Notification dated 1-9-2004 of the Ministry of Commerce, prima facie, cess on tea is not liable to be paid when the same is exported under bond by a star export house. In the circumstances, there shall be complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the cess demanded till the appeal is finally disposed of. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2007 (10) TMI 651 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... statute and therefore, I am not inclined to grant stay of the amended provision. But considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides following order is passed o p /o p The petitioners are directed to submit the self-assessment returns by including the amount for which tax is deducted at source. The respondents are directed to accept the returns to be submitted by the petitioners/assessees for the year 2007-08. The petitioners shall pay tax on the self-assessment income and the Department is restrained from taking any penal action till the filing of the counter affidavit. o p /o p The filing of the returns and payment of tax on the basis of such returns shall be purely provisional and subject to the liability of the petitioners filing the modified returns and pay such tax as may be due in the event the petitioners failing in this proceeding. o p /o p Learned Counsel for the .petitioner on record is directed to take private notice on the respondents.
-
2007 (10) TMI 650 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Denial of Rectification Application - Business income Vs. Other sources - Deduction u/s 80HHC - Interest received on FDRs - availing credit facilities - Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to reduce interest paid by it from the interest received by it, while calculating deduction u/s 80HHC(3A) read with Explanation (baa)? - HELD THAT:- Nowhere in the assessment order has the Assessing Officer found that the interest earned by the assessee was business income. Therefore, the first question stands answered against the assessee in view of the categorical pronouncement in Shri Ram Honda Power Equip.’s case that interest earned on FDRs kept for availing credit facilities is not business income but ‘income from other sources.’
The decision in Punjab Stainless Steel Ind.’s [2007 (1) TMI 543 - DELHI HIGH COURT] case where the AO had held the interest income to be business income and which finding was not challenged is, therefore, of no assistance to the assessee. Also, in view of the finding by the AO in the instant case that there is no nexus between the interest paid and the interest earned by the assessee, the second question will also have to be answered against the assessee.
Thus, the question of law as re-framed by us, is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 649 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... vil Appeal D.No. (s) 29775 of 2006 with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court upon hearing counsel ordered as under "ORDER Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed." Ld. Jt. CDR submits that the Civil Appeal which was filed by the revenue is against the order of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case in an identical case. 6. It is settled law, that once a civil appeal filed by either side against an order of the Tribunal, is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, even without assigning any reason, the order of the Tribunal attains finality. As such, we find that the issue whether the explanation added by Notification No. 20/01 dated 1.3.01 is of retrospective nature or of prospective nature has been clearly settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the appellant. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. Pronounced in Court.
-
2007 (10) TMI 648 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ns of the Calcutta, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, there was no occasion for those High Courts to compare the 1984 Amendment with the subsequent amendment in 1989 which has been explained by the Supreme Court in Shri Arbuda Mills’ case (supra). It must be pointed out that the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Duncan Agro Industries Ltd.’s case (supra) given in 2001, does refer to Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.’s case (supra) but does not notice the contrast in the language of the two amendments, that is, the amendment in 1984 and the subsequent amendment in 1989. 11. We are accordingly not persuaded to reconsider the view already expressed by us in Smt. Asha M. Primlani’s case (supra). 12. Under the circumstances, we answer question No. (1) in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question Nos. (2) and (3), therefore, do not arise for consideration. 13. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (10) TMI 647 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ther unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be exercised for such a purpose. This position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. See Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. and Exta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities. 18. In view of the factual position, the actions of the respondents are not without sanction of law. Appeal is sans merit, deserves dismissal, which we direct. T.P. (C) No.846 of 2005 19. In view of our order in Civil Appeal No. of 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12531 of 2005), no further order is necessary to be passed in Transfer Petition.
-
2007 (10) TMI 646 - CESTAT MUMBAI
MODVAT/CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that they have availed cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices supplied by the registered dealer, who has not supplied duty apid inputs but has supplied non duty paid scrap to appellant - Held that: - the Revenue has not considered the fact that the appellant had received and consumed the inputs in the factory premises and paid for the same. There is also no contrary evidence to show that the appellant had not paid the supplier's invoices raised on them - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 645 - SUPREME COURT
N/N. 64/88-Cus. dated 1st March, 1988 - import of medical instruments - principles of Natural Justice - Held that: - case is remitted back to the DGHS to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the appellants to put forth their case.
-
2007 (10) TMI 644 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... titioner was not at fault. 18.Even the representation made by the petitioner was also not considered by the State Level Committee in its true perspective and no reasons whatsoever were assigned while rejecting the petitioner's representation. 19.Taking overall view of the matter and considering the documents on record as well as the provisions of the Scheme, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the full sanctioned amount of electricity duty as a remission. We, therefore, allow this petition and hold that the petitioner is entitled to utilization of full benefit of exemption / remission of electricity duty for the period from 01.12.1998 to 28.02.2003. Since the said period is already over, we direct the respondents to make good the loss of incentive amounting to ₹ 18.53 Lacs which the petitioner was compelled to forgo despite the same being sanctioned. 20.This petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. Sd/-
-
2007 (10) TMI 643 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... noted that on cross-examination the property dealer had denied that the property had been brokered by him. He further stated that the figure noted in his books did not pertain to the property in question. 8. As regards the valuation of the property by the Valuation Cell, the Tribunal noticed that the Valuation Officer had admitted that he had not called for any comments from the assessee nor allowed an opportunity to the assessee to file an objection. It also found that the revenue had not produced any evidence to show why the value of the property, as indicated in the registered document should not be relied upon. 9. It is well-settled that a registered document indicates the value of the property, unless it is rebutted by reliable evidence to the contrary. 10. We do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. We find that this case involves the appreciation of evidence on record and does not raise any substantial question of law. 11. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 642 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additions on Unexplained Share application Money - Loss declared - financing and trading in shares - HELD THAT:- We find that the findings of the CIT(A) as extracted hereinabove are sufficient to show that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were not justified. The reasoning and conclusions arrived at concurrently by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal suffer from no perversity and are consistent with the law as explained by this Court in CIT v. Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.[2006 (11) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
We are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in these appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
........
|
