|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 638 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2010 (6) TMI 904
... ...
... ... ..... as indicated above. 8. Regarding ground No.2, we find that the issue regarding duty drawback is directly covered against the assessee by the judgement of Hon ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Liberty India (supra). Regarding interest issue also, we find that in line with our decision on this aspect with regard deduction allowable to the assessee u/s 10B, for the purpose of granting deduction u/s 80IB also, such interest income has to be excluded from business profit because such interest income cannot be said to be part of the profit and gains derived form eligible business of undertaking. Hence both these aspects are decided against the assessee. Ground No.2 is rejected. 9. Regarding ground No.3, it is by now a settled position that interest issue is consequential and hence no separate adjudication is called for. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated above. 11. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... nature and character of the amounts in question received by the assessee, it is observed that the said aspect has already been found to be relevant by the Tribunal having a bearing on the issue. Moreover, the said order has been passed by the Tribunal for the immediately preceding three years and that too after taking into consideration the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in assessee s own case rendered for A.Y. 1997-98. The judicial proprietary and discipline therefore warrant that the said order of the Tribunal, being the latest one on similar issue and on identical facts, has to be followed. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue involved in this appeal to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh as per the same direction as has been given by the Tribunal in A.Y. 1998-99, 1999-2000 2001-02. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 25th June , 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... ending on 27th Sept., 2007 when a reference was made to the DVO, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and also the decision of the Tribunal, Lucknow Bench referred to above are directly on the point at issue. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the reference made to the DVO was invalid. Thus, the assessment framed on the basis of report of DVO obtained on invalid reference is not sustainable in law and accordingly we quash the assessment. 10.3 Even otherwise also, the reference made on 27th Sept., 2007 to DVO cannot be said to have been made Under Section 142A as the period for which estimate of investment was called for, was not specified therein and consequently, the report dt. 9th Dec., 2008 could not have been made the basis for making the assessment. 11. Since we have quashed the assessment order and therefore, we do not consider it necessary to decide the remaining grounds of appeal. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 901
... ...
... ... ..... hat a transaction had taken place whereas the Tribunal has held that an unsigned document cannot form the basis of the transaction in law. Admittedly, except for the unsigned document, there is no other corroborating evidence to establish any transaction having been taken place, more particularly in relation to the amount stated in the said document. There is no evidence, nor any finding by any authority, that the possession of land was handed over by the assessee as contended by the learned counsel. In this factual matrix in absence of any cogent evidence to treat the amount stated in the unsigned document as the value of the transaction resulting in taxable income the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition and it is not possible to state that it has committed any error in law so as to amount to perversity in law. (6) In the circumstances, in absence of any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, as proposed or otherwise, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 900
... ...
... ... ..... document and consequently, the transfer of title in his favour will not be vitiated by non-registration. But so far as the certificate issued by the Authorised Officer is concerned, it cannot be equated with the certificate issued by the Revenue or Civil Court. As contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the nomenclature given to the document issued by the Authorised Officer may not be relevant for giving exemption from paying the stamp duty since the Sale Certificate issued by the Authorised Officer will not be covered by Article 18 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. In my considered opinion, the judgment delivered by this Court In Re, The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras, 2010 (2) CTC 113 by considering the earlier judgments, has set forth the correct position of law. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the 1st Respondent. In fine, the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 899
... ...
... ... ..... ers were directed to execute bonds, which the petitioners have admittedly executed. The petitioners after execution of the bonds have not imported any goods. The Revenue is sufficiently protected in view of the bonds executed by the petitioners. 8. On this backdrop, considering the parameters for the grant of interim relief, we find that the issue sought to be raised in the petitions needs consideration. The petitioners have made out prima facie case. The interim orders are already operating in their favour since May, 2009. In our considered view, ends of justice would be met by directing the petitioners to furnish additional security by way of bank guarantee to the extent of 50% of the amount covered by the bonds in addition to the bonds already executed by them, which shall also continue to operate during the pendency of the petition. With this slight modification in the interim orders dated 8th May, 2009, both civil applications stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 898
... ...
... ... ..... ly the delay was condoned. But here in the instant case as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) after filing the appeal before the Tribunal in the penalty matter. Therefore, this decision is also of no help to the assessee. 14. It has been held in various judicial pronouncements that an assessee or the department must explain each day of delay for filing of an appeal. In the instant case the appeal has been filed with a delay of more than 1 year and 11 months. The arguments advanced by the assessee that since penalty has been confirmed by the CIT(A), he is now agitating the quantum appeal, in our opinion, is not a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay and thereby not admitting the appeals. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly dismissed. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 4th June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 897
... ...
... ... ..... or adjournment, inspite of notice. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 , we dismiss this appeal filed by the Appellant-assessee as not maintainable. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 896
... ...
... ... ..... the effect to the Appellate Order. The Assessing Officer by letter dated 12.03.2007 asked us to give the details for giving the effect to the order of the learned C.I.T(appeals) to be filed by 28.03.2007. However, the Assessing Officer gave the effect to the order of C.I.T.(Appeals) on 12.03.2007 i.e. on the same day without considering the deduction allowed by the learned C.I.T.(A). It is therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer be directed to give correct deduction given by the learned C.I.T.(A).” 23. This ground of Cross objection does not arise out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) which is under appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. 24. Ground nos.3 and 4 of the Cross objection are general in nature and requires no separate adjudication by us. 25. In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the Cross objection of the assessee both are party allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on this 4th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... as to whether the reasons for non-admission of additional evidence are in accordance with law or not. In the instant case, the ld. CIT(A) completely ignored to take notice of the additional evidence. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that in the interests of substantial justice the matter requires to be sent back to the CIT(A), who is directed to give the assessee a reasonable opportunity of heard. Suffice to say that the ld. CIT(A) should consider the additional evidence in accordance with law. If there are no justifiable reasons for admission of the additional evidence, the ld. CIT(A) has to pass a speaking order so that a superior forum can consider the correctness of the reasons mentioned therein. With these observations, the issue concerning the disallowance u/s.68 of the Act, other than Rs.6,97,688/-, is hereby set aside to the file of CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 4th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 894
... ...
... ... ..... ess for election to the Council of States which is going to be held on 17.6.2010 as indicated above. 6. Accordingly we direct Opp. Party No. 1, Secretary to Government of Orissa, Home Department, Bhubaneswar to issue necessary instruction/direction to Opp, Party Nos. 4, 6, 7 & 10 & the Commissioner of Police, Bhubaneswar-Cuttack, to facilitate transportation of the Petitioner to Bhubaneswar with adequate security & ensure his presence on 17.6.2010 at the time & place of voting to cast his vote. We further direct that after the Petitioner casts his vote, he shall be taken back to the jail, where he was lodged. 7. As there is nothing further to decide in the present Writ Petition, the same is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. A free copy of this order be handed over to Learned Counsel appearing for the State to take necessary steps for compliance of this order. 8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application, in course of the day.
-
2010 (6) TMI 893
... ...
... ... ..... d to this respondent till date. Without necessary document required this respondent is unable to issue fresh pension payment order. 3. From the above statement of the 2nd respondent, it is evident that they are not disputing eligibility of her minor daughter for receiving family pension, but only wants formalities to be complied with. 4. If as a matter of fact, the required formalities are not complied with, the authorities cannot be faulted for non-payment of the family pension to the daughter of the deceased. 5. Having regard to the statement thus made in the statement filed, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to comply with the formalities to enable the respondents to pay family pension to her minor daughter, in which event, family pension will be disbursed along with arrears to the minor daughter of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of receipt of duly lodged claim. 6. This writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2010 (6) TMI 892
Addition on account of unexplained opening capital - unexplained portion of newly introduced capital - addition in the hands of assessee on protective basis - Papers impounded from the premises of Shri Danawala indicated an enhancement in the opening capital of A.Y.2003-04 - admission made by the Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel Group, this is required to be taxed in the hands of Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel substantively alongwith the enhanced capital - HELD THAT:- Assessing Officer, in the assessment order, himself observed that “considering the admission made by the Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel Group, this is required to be taxed in the hands of Mohanbhai Dhanjibhai Patel substantively alongwith the enhanced capital of ₹ 15,00,000/- altogether which works out to ₹ 15,00,000/- an on protective basis in the case of the assessee”. This clearly indicates that the Assessing Officer himself was not sure whether this income of ₹ 15,00,000/- is earned and actually belonged to the assessee. The assessee has filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer. From the perusal of the same and after considering the totality of the facts and reasoning given by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), we are convinced that the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/- on the basis of fictitious entries in loose sheets of paper found from the premises of the C.A. Shri Pankaj Danawala, who had admitted to have created such amounts himself. Therefore, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) is legally and factually correct in deleting the addition of ₹ 15,00,000/-, which was made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee on protective basis. Resultantly, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2010 (6) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... IV to the Act, 1970 is not violative of Article 14 or ultra vires to any of the provisions of the State Act. 44. The instant cases have to be determined strictly in consonance with the law laid down by this Court referred to hereinabove and, particularly, in Ayurvedic Enlisted Doctor's Assn. (supra). The observation made by the Rajasthan High Court to the extent that persons who possessed the certificate upto 1.10.1976 i.e. the date on which the provisions of Section 17 had been enforced in the State of Rajasthan is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in the above referred cases. Therefore, that observation is liable to be set aside. 45. In view of the above, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 21043 of 2008 is allowed and it is held that a person who acquired the certificate, degree or diploma from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayag after 1967 is not eligible to indulge in any kind of a medical practice. All other Civil Appeals are dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... f any provisions of law and is not contrary to any public policy. None of the parties concerned have come forward to oppose the Scheme. 6. Since all the requisite statutory compliances have been fulfilled, the Company Scheme Petition No. 266 of 2010 and 267 of 2010 are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. The Petitioners to lodge a copy of this order and the Scheme duly authenticated by the Company Registrar, High Court (O.S), Bombay with the concerned Superintendent of Stamps for the purpose adjudication of stamp duty, payable, if any, on the same within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. 8. The Petitioners in both the Company Scheme Petitions to pay cost of ₹ 10,000/- each to the Regional Director. 9. Costs to be paid within 6 weeks from today. 10. Filing and issuance of the drawn up order is dispensed with. 11. All authorities concerned to act on a copy of this order along with Scheme duly authenticated by Company Registrar, High Court, Bombay.
-
2010 (6) TMI 889
... ...
... ... ..... ellant has been able to find any ground to explain the delay as has been stated in the petition. 36. According to my findings above, the applicants in this proceeding are bound by the above findings in the earlier proceedings. They are squarely abound by the finding that they had constructive notice if not actual of this fraud. The Court was for the first time approached nearly three years after the order dated 16th January 2003. Further, there was no impediment to filing a substantive application by the applicants herein. Some of them need not have filed affidavits supporting Ambika Prasad Modi. Therefore, this particular application has been filed some six and a half years after the order dated 16th January 2003. This goes to show that these applicants had acquiescenced in such fraud. Further, there is uncondonable delay of about seven years in approaching the Court. 37. Therefore, on this solitary ground I would dismiss this application. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 888
... ...
... ... ..... specifically pleaded that the appellant suffered a decree in the hands of the father of Pratap Reddy, and that the 1st respondent filed RCC 12 of 1999 for eviction, and that the suit was filed as a counterblast. None of these issues was referred to. No one has spoken about the writing on Ex.A-1. The trial Court assumed to itself, that the writing was also of Pratap Reddy. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Section 73 of the Act empowers a Court to undertake comparison of the disputed writings and signatures, by itself. As observed earlier, an exercise of that nature can be undertaken only when the Court has undisputed signatures and writings before it. Such is not the case here. The findings recorded by the trial Court are perverse and not based on any evidence. The lower Appellate Court has corrected the errors committed by the trial Court. No question of law arises for consideration in this Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 887
... ...
... ... ..... struments Act. Then the question is regarding the sentence. The cheque is for ₹ 22,690/- and was issued on 2.6.1997. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be met if first respondent is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant/complainant and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. Appeal is allowed Order of acquittal passed by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla in C.C. No. 1049/1997 is set aside. First respondent/accused is found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act He is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of court and a compensation of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid to the appellant/complainant and in default, simple imprisonment for two months. Appellant is directed to appear before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thiruvalla on 10.08.2010. Magistrate is directed to execute the sentence.
-
2010 (6) TMI 886
... ...
... ... ..... y taken note of this fact that the revisionist-company cannot availed two statutory remedies simultaneously. Thus, there is substance in the findings recorded by the Trial court that the revisionist-company itself has waived/abandoned said arbitration clause in the agreement dated 10.11.1992. The judgment rendered by the Trial court is a well considered, reasoned and speaking order. There is no error of law or infirmity in the judgment of the Trial court. 36. In view of the discussions made above, no interference is required by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the revision fails and is dismissed. 37. No order as to costs. 38. Before parting with the case it is noteworthy that Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Revisionist has put-forth his submissions and has made great endeavour to pursuade the Court to agree with his point of view. His efforts are praiseworthy and the Court appreciates his passion.
-
2010 (6) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... 63 of 2010. In this case vide order dated 17.3.2010 it has been held that the law laid down in the Dilip Sheroff case 291 ITR 519 (SC) as to the meaning of word ‘concealment’ and ‘inaccurate’ continues to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon’ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the AO for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 8. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedents, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,40,000/-. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18/06/2010.
........
|
