|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 722 Records
-
2008 (12) TMI 776 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... een applied to deny the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of interest paid by it because in this case we are concerned with the asst. yr. 1989-90. 3. We may clarify that according to the Department even without the proviso appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of interest allowance under s. 36(1)(iii) as it stood at the material time. We express no opinion on that point in this case. 4. Accordingly, this civil appeal stands allowed and the matter is remitted to the High Court for its decision in accordance with law.
-
2008 (12) TMI 775 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... penalty u/s 271(1)(c) signifies a deliberate omission on the part of the assessee. Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. It was specifically held that the assessing officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by the assessee, in the event he offers one, was false. He must be found to have failed to prove that such explanation was not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same which are material to the income were not disclosed by him. Thus apart from his explanation being not bona fide, it should be found as a fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which were material for the computation of his income. 8. Applying the above propositions laid down by the Apex Court and High Courts, to the facts of the case on hand, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. 9. Order pronounced on this 4.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 774 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Liquidator, Chandigarh And Others, P.L.R. 1995 (1) 75 is also relevant. 30. In the light of the above, therefore, even if 1st respondent is a holding company of the 2nd respondent till 30-09-2004, it cannot be made liable and, the company petition as against 1st respondent-company is liable to be dismissed. Further, it is also significant that the appellant also did not involve the 1st respondent in any of the correspondence or in the first two legal notices and had roped the 1st respondent for the first time in the third legal notice. Since the company petition is not maintainable against the 1st respondent, irrespective of the maintainability vis-- vis the 2nd respondent, the third question framed for consideration viz., lifting of corporate veil etc., does not arise for consideration. 31. In conclusion, therefore, in view of the 1st and the 2nd questions having been answered against the appellant, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on as to whether the LML Ltd. could enforce a circular as against the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company although it did not make any representation. The question of the tariff prevailing over such circular did not arise therein as no such circular had been issued by the Kanpur Electricity Supply Company at all. 17. The circular impugned before the High Court was undoubtedly issued pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court but then whether having regard to the doctrine of promissory estoppel the same could have been withdrawn or not, further determination in that behalf was not warranted. 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that LML Ltd. (supra) does not require reconsideration. This appeal shall also be governed by the aforementioned judgment. The appeal is allowed with the direction to refund the entire amount within four weeks. Respondent shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout. Counsel’s fee assessed at ₹ 1,00,000/-.
-
2008 (12) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dated 5-12-2008 passed in CM 17067/2008 in P.M. Electronics case (supra). In the said judgment we have noted that a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in CIT v. Nexus Computer (P.) Ltd. 2009 177 Taxman 202 has taken a view contrary to that of its own Division Bench, in the case of Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. (supra) by holding that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vinay Cement Ltd. 2007 166 Taxman 62 being the law declared under article 141 of the Constitution of India was binding on it, as also, the fact that in Vinay Cement Ltd.’s case (supra) the Supreme Court had dealt with the case which related to a period prior to the amendment of section 43B of the Act. 5. In view of the above, the question framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 24-8-2007 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and that of the CIT(A) dated 31-3-2001 on this issue is sustained.
-
2008 (12) TMI 771 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ent termination of agreement the licensee (i.e. the assessee) was supposed to deliver within 20 days of termination notice all the goods and items bearing trade mark, the confidential information in the form of drawings, designs including the copies made to the license. It was made clear that the assessee would not have any right whatsoever to use the technical information and the trade mark for termination of the agreement.", could not be converted by the ld. D.R. for the Revenue before us, the CIT(A) in his well reasoned and well discussed order has rightly deleted the impugned addition made by AO by holding that the royalty expenditure involved in the instant ground of appeal is revenue expenditure and not capital expenditure. Accordingly the order of CIT(A) in this regard is upheld and ground no.3 of the Revenue is rejected. 16. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 770 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... fore, the finding of the learned CIT (Appeals) in this matter is confirmed. Thus, ground nos. 15 and 16 are dismissed. 9. Ground no. 19, being residuary in nature, was not argued by the learned counsel. Therefore, the same is dismissed. ITA No. 1566(Del)/2005 - Appeal of the revenue - 10. In the order on the appeal of the assessee (supra), it has been decided by us that the learned CIT (Appeals) was right in admitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. He has decided the matter after hearing the AO on the additional evidence. It has also been held that the learned CIT(Appeals) was right in deleting the disallowance of interest amounting to ₹ 95,52,136/-. Therefore, we do not find any error in the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), which requires correction from our side. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 05.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 769 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. Harish Chandra, Sr.Adv., Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Anubha Agarwal, Adv., Mr. B.V. Balaram Das,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Satyen Sethi, Adv. ORDER Dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 768 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ill, which was executed on the same day as that of the Gift Deed, we hold that even the said document is found to be of suspicious nature and therefore the said deed is also held to be not duly proved. o p /o p 37. Consequently, no interference is called for to the findings recorded by both the appellate courts below to the effect that the appellant has failed to prove that the said deed of gift was executed by deceased Chathu. That apart both the appellate courts below have found that both the documents namely the Deed of Gift as also Deed of Will suffer from suspicious circumstances. The said findings are concurrent findings of fact which should not be normally interfered with by the Court by exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. o p /o p 38. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the High Court. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2008 (12) TMI 767 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of Statute - Sections 33 and 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 - suit filed for recovery - document was admissible for collateral purpose or not.
HELD THAT:- Indisputably an instrument was executed. By reason of such an instrument not only the entire amount of consideration was paid but possession of the property had also been transferred - The explanation has been inserted by M.P. Act 19 of 1989. By reason of the said provision, thus, a legal fiction has been created. Although ordinarily an agreement to sell would not be subject to payment of stamp duty which is payable on a sale deed, but having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve the legislature thought it necessary to levy stamp duty on an instrument whereby possession has been transferred.
We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 33 of the Act casts a statutory obligation on all the authorities to impound a document. The court being an authority to receive a document in evidence is bound to give effect thereto.
The unregistered deed of sale was an instrument which required payment of the stamp duty applicable to a deed of conveyance. Adequate stamp duty admittedly was not paid. The court, therefore, was empowered to pass an order in terms of Section 35 of the Act.
The contention of ld counsel for the appellant that the document was admissible for collateral purpose, in our opinion, is not correct.
Section 35 of the Act, however, rules out applicability of such provision as it is categorically provided therein that a document of this nature shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever. If all purposes for which the document is sought to be brought in evidence are excluded, we fail to see any reason as to how the document would be admissible for collateral purposes.
The view we have taken finds support from the decision of the Privy Council in Ram Rattan v. Parmananad [1945 (12) TMI 5 - PRIVY COUNCIL] where it was held that That the words ‘for any purpose’ in Section 35 of the Stamp Act should be given their natural meaning and effect and would include a collateral purpose and that an unstamped partition deed cannot be used to corroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the factum of partition as distinct from its terms.
For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal which fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (12) TMI 766 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... h Court. The Hon ble High Court dismissed that petition after observing that there was no case for interference with our order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide High Court Order dated 20/11/2008 in Writ Petition No.2376/2008. Today, the matter arises for report of compliance with our direction for pre-deposit. There is no evidence of pre-deposit. The appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act 1962. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (12) TMI 765 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e in the return filed and reassessment of income was proposed on merits by change of opinion and not on the ground of failure of the assessee to disclose true and full material. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to point out that in the return of the assessee, there was any omission to give any material. In such a situation, even if the Assessing Officer finds that there is an escapement of income, reassessment was not permissible after expiry of four years. 8. For the above reasons, the notice for reassessment is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of assessment is also without jurisdiction. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned notice and order of reassessment. C.W.P. No.15730 of 2008 10. On the request of learned counsel for the revenue, it is made clear that this order will not be a bar to passing of any fresh order, if so permissible under law. 11. The petition is disposed of.
-
2008 (12) TMI 764 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence of the order of the Tribunal and question the wisdom of Tribunal as though the Tribunal had observed that on the basis of the price alone the nature of the relationship between parties could be determined. Following the Gujarat High Court judgment (cited supra), the Tribunal had observed that if the dealers were selling the goods at the price for which they are purchasing from the company, then trade incentive would amount to commission only. We should read the whole order in its entirety and not tear one sentence out of context. Therefore, we are not answering the question of law since the matter has been remanded to the file of the AO. The AO shall independently examine the issue, namely, whether the trade incentive was a discount and to prove this, if any other evidence available to the assessee, it is open to the assessee to produce the same before the AO. Tax case appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 763 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... record to show that ultimately what happened to the stock of these items. Therefore, in view of these facts and circumstances, and in view of the reasons given by CIT (A) we confirm the order of the CIT (A) on this issue. 11. Ground no.4 is against confirmation of the action of the A.O. in reducing 90 of the following miscellaneous income aggregating to ₹ 3,40,000/- from the profits of business, for purposes of computation of relief under S. 80HHC." 4. In view of the aforesaid finding that change of method of accounting was not considered to be bona fide. Over and above, nothing has been brought on record, even to show as to what happened to the stock of more than ₹ 10,00,000/-. 5. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. In view of the aforesaid categorical findings of fact, there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 762 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... d L, account, which, in turn has the effect of reducing the profit of such undertaking, hence, these amounts have got direct nexus with the export activities of the undertaking. Further, it is also a settled position that exemption/deductions under the Income Tax Act should be given on the basis of assessee income, to be justified. Accordingly, we direct the AO to grant the exemption u/s. 10A of the Act on the assessed income, being enhanced due to both employees's as well as employer's contribution so disallowed. Thus, ground No. 4 of assessee's appeal stands allowed and this also takes care of ground No. 4 of Revenue's appeal which also stands allowed, however, as a consequence of that, assessee would be entitled for deduction u/s. 10A of the Act on that amount." 15. The ld. DR also agreed. 16. Thus, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed in this year also. 17. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed. Pronounced on 19.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 761 - ITAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... not deductible u/s. 24 but would be deductible even while computing the ALV of the property u/s.23, since they would have to be taken note of while calculating the ALV. In the Mumbai case (supra), the Society Maintenance charges were similarly held deductible while estimating the ALV of the property u/s.23, following the order of the Delhi Bench cited supra as also the order of the Mumbai Bench dt.15.11.2000 in the case of Bombay Oil Industries Ltd,. in ITA No.550/Mum/2000. No order or judgement taking a contrary view was brought to our notice by the department. Therefore respectfully following the aforesaid orders of the Delhi and Mumbai benches of the Tribunal, we direct the Assessing Officer to deduct the association maintenance charges paid to The Summit Apartment Owners' Association even while computing the ALV of the property u/s.23 of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs. 4. Order pronounced in the open court on this 23.12.2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 760 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he flats i.e. Flat No. 301 and 302 at Cozy Dwell Apartments, Bandra, Mumbai. However, this needs verification by the Assessing Officer. Further, the fact whether these two apartments are being used as one residential house or not is also to be verified. Accordingly the order of the CIT (A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to - (1) verify the fact whether investment in Flats No. 301 and 302 was made by the assessee from his own funds and (2) whether such flats a re adjacent to each other having common passage and are being used as one residential house. After ascertaining these facts the Assessing Officer shall allow the exemption in respect of both the flats if it is found that both the flats are being used as one residential house and the investment was made by the assessee himself." 3. In view of the above, and in view of the remand, we do not find any substantial question of law in the above. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2008 (12) TMI 759 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... (Appeals) therefore came to the conclusion in favour of the asessee. He further came to the conclusion that the disallowance has been made on presumption. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and subsequent thereto, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already considered the case of the department and upheld the order passed by it. We have carefully considered the said question and in our considered opinion, there is no illegality or irregularity in respect of the order so passed by the learned Tribunal. We, accordingly, find that there is no reason to interfere with the order so passed by the learned Tribunal and further the order so passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and we find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. All parties concerned are to act on a xerox signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2008 (12) TMI 758 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. CIT (239 ITR 587) at page 595 of the report. Thus, the assessee has acted in accordance with law. We agree with the views of the CIT (A) that no deduction of tax is necessary on the supply agreement and the income determined at 10 on the erection agreement is also reasonable. So far as business connection and establishment of PE are concerned, there is no force at all in the contention of the revenue. So far as PE is concerned, the proviso to Article 7(1) of the DTAA between India and China clearly stipulates that no business profit would arise if no activities are carried out in India. It is the Assessing Officer's own finding that no activity has been carried out in India with regard to the manufacture of the generators supplied to the assessee. In the ultimate analysis we uphold the order of the CIT (A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the court on 19-12-2008.
-
2008 (12) TMI 757 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tion of capital gain. In our considered opinion, the ends of justice will meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to decide this point afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the fresh proceedings the assessee will have the right to independently argue the matter from any angle. However, it is made clear that the issues which have been decided by us in the paras upto serial No. 22 of this order, will not be argued again before the AO. The scope of the proceedings open before the AO will be limited only to the computation part of the capital gain, which is subject-matter of discussion in para No. 23 onwards of this order. We further clarify that the discussion in the later paras represents the arguments of both the sides on some of the aspects of the computation of capital gain and it should not be considered as expression of our view.
........
|
