|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 587 Records
-
2011 (10) TMI 761
... ...
... ... ..... we find that Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shahada Peoples Co-op. Bank, Nandurbar Vs. Director of Income Tax (CIB) (Supra) has accepted the submission of the appellant that the appeal against the order of the Director of Income Tax (CIB), was to be filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per provisions of Section 246A(1)(q) of the Act. Considering this submission, the Bench accepted request of the appellant to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to file appeal before the appropriate authority in accordance with law, if so advised. Respectfully following the aforecited decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal under the similar facts, we allow the appellant to withdraw the present appeal with the liberty to file appeal before the appropriate authority, in accordance with law, if so advised. 5. Consequently, the appeal is treated as dismissed being non-maintainable before the Tribunal. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21st October, 2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such interest may extend upto 6% p.a., but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by Nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions. But the amount which was borrowed by defendant was not a commercial transaction but a hand loan simplicitor. I am of the view that the learned Appellate Judge was not justified in awarding interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of realisation. To that extent, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Hence, the following order. Appeal is accepted in part. 23. The Judgment of decree passed by the learned Appellate Judge stands modified to the extent of grant of interest which shall be at the rate of 8% from the date of suit till the date of realization. The rest of the findings are confirmed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (10) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... e personal appearance of the creditor and their acceptance in respect of their credits appearing in the books of the assessee and the loan was given out of their Bank account. The creditworthiness of creditors are proved by their regular books of account which indicated that all entries in their accounts have traveled through bank account through account payee cheques. The respective deposit in the Bank account was also verified by the Assessing Officer. By filing various details, these creditors have proved their capacity to advance these loans. The detailed finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the Department by bringing any positive material on record, which clearly establishes the fulfillment of all the three ingredients of cash credit. Accordingly, no interference is required in this part of the CIT(A)’s order. 13. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... de creditors and cannot be taxed under section 41 of the IT act. Section 41 will not be applicable in this case. In fact the claimed expenses will be allowable as business expenses under section 37. However since the original assessment has been completed under section 143(3) and the reopening has been held to be invalid and there is no reason to decide this issue on the merit of these additions.” From the above it is clear that Ld. CIT A has clearly observed that debit balance cannot be treated as income u/s.41, though finally he has not adjudicated this issue on merit in view of his decision on reopening of the assessment. In our view, even on merits assessee had a very good case and the amount which was written off could not have possibly treated as income u/s.41 1 . Accordingly, we find nothing wrong in the order of the Ld. CIT A and confirm the same. 7. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 14/10/2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... prior to issue of show cause notice. 2. The question whether in such circumstances the penalty is leviable or not has been considered by this court in CEA No, 2./2 009 and connected matters disposed off on 21st April 2011 wherein it was held it is not leviable. Following the aforesaid judgment/ the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... giving 40% of the developed land in lieu of awarding the cash compensation. Pursuant thereto, the Special Land Acquisition. Pursuant thereto, the Special Land Acquisition, KHB, has also drawn up the list of beneficiaries. The same is contained in his letter, dated 16.7.2011 (Annexure-R2) addressed to the Executive Engineer of the KHB. 2. In view of the subsequent development, nothing survives for any consideration of these writ petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous.
-
2011 (10) TMI 755
... ...
... ... ..... Bharati Shipyard Ltd. v DCIT (Mum.) 11 ITR (Trib) 599 wherein it was categorically held that section 40(a)(ia) as amended by the Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 1st April, 2010 do not have retrospective effect. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as follows - “The amendment to section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2010 has been specifically made retrospectively applicable from the assessment year 2010-2011. It has not been expressly set out that the amendment is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law. The intention of the Legislature as gathered from the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill does not particularly indicate any relaxation in the provision retrospectively from the asst. year 2005-06”. In the light of the above reasoning, the grounds raised by the assessee are rejected. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of October, 2011
-
2011 (10) TMI 754
... ...
... ... ..... Scheme, but it only provides that if the Authority decides to allot Nazul land to the individuals eligible under the 1961 Scheme, then Nazul land shall be allotted at pre-determined rates and not at the rates determined in a public auction. The High Court has taken an erroneous view in the impugned order that Rule 6 of the Nazul Land Rules, which was a statutory rule, laid down conditions for allotment of land under the 1961 Scheme and the conditions for allotment of land under the 1961 Scheme could therefore be amended by only statutory rules under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the Act. In our considered opinion, Rule 6 of the Nazul Law Rules did not stipulate the conditions for allotment under the 1961 Scheme and the 1961 Scheme being an administrative scheme could be amended without a statutory rule made under Section 56 read with Section 22 of the Act. 13. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (10) TMI 753
... ...
... ... ..... hat this direction shall not be applicable in those cases where the development is being carried on in accordance with the earlier Master Plan of the Greater NOIDA duly approved by the National Capital Regional Planning Board. 6. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State to appoint officers not below the level of Principal Secretary (except the officers of Industrial Development Department who have dealt with the relevant files) to conduct a thorough inquiry regarding the acts of Greater Noida (a) in proceeding to implement Master Plan 2021 without approval of N.C.R.P. Board, (b) decisions taken to change the land use, (c) allotment made to the builders and (d) indiscriminate proposals for acquisition of land, and thereafter the State Government shall take appropriate action in the matter. 483. All the writ petitions are decided accordingly. No costs. 484. Let the original records be returned to the learned Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Authority.
-
2011 (10) TMI 752
... ...
... ... ..... ank of Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Director of Survey and a Senior Officer of the Mines Department to be nominated by the Secretary. The Secretary shall be free to nominate any other official or officials whom he considers suitable for the purpose of identification and demarcation of boundaries of the areas covered by the mine held by the Appellant. (2) The Secretary shall monitor the progress made by the Committee from time to time. A suitable order based on the report and other material, if any, placed before the Secretary shall then be passed by him after affording to each party an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The order so passed shall supersede the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Director (Mines). (3) The above directions shall be carried out by the Secretary expeditiously but not later than six months from the date a copy of this order is received/served upon the Secretary to Government by the parties. (4) The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2011 (10) TMI 751
... ...
... ... ..... under the cover of their letter dated 15-2-2011 on the ground that impugned order stand passed by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the jurisdiction will lie before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 8-3-2011 along with COD application. 2. Inasmuch as the wrong remedy was pursued by the appellant before the wrong forum and inasmuch as the appellant filed the appeal before the Tribunal immediately on papers being returned by Revisionary Authority, we consider the same as sufficient reasons for the delay. Accordingly, we condone the same and allow the COD application. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2011 (10) TMI 750
... ...
... ... ..... Haryana as under (i) They are punished to pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/- each and in default, they shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; (ii) We impose exemplary cost of ₹ 50,000/- on the State of Haryana, which amount, at the first instance, shall be paid by the State but would be recovered from the salaries of the erring officers/officials of the State in accordance with law and such recovery proceedings be concluded within six months. The costs would be payable to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. (iii) In view of the principle that the courts also invoke contempt jurisdiction as a tool for compliance of its orders in future, we hereby direct the State Government and the respondent/contemner herein now to positively comply with the orders and implement the scheme within eight weeks from today. Copy of this order be circulated to the Chief Secretary/Competent Authority of all the States/U.T.s. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (10) TMI 749
... ...
... ... ..... making investment and the fact that investment which have yielded dividend were made in the earlier years namely April 1997, and the total investment on 01.04.2006 and 31.03.2007 was ₹ 9072.17 crores. In these facts which stand uncontroverted on record the request of the Ld. D.R. to restore the issue to the file of the A.O. cannot be acceded to. The A.O. can be directed to find a reasonable estimate to calculate the probable expenditure incurred where the facts show that some expenses may have been incurred but whereas the facts of the assessee eminently demonstrate that no expenses were incurred and the investments pertain to the earlier years, the occasion to restore the issue does not arise. Being satisfied by the reasoning arrived at in the impugned order, which stands uncontroverted, the ground no.2 raised by the department is dismissed. 20. In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 748
... ...
... ... ..... ind that the CIT(A) had followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and also decision of the Tribunal, wherein it has been held that as per amended law, it is no longer required that the assessee has to prove that the debts has become bad and it is sufficient that the same have been written off in his books of accounts. However, from the orders of the AO as well as the CIT(A), we find that the details filed by the assessee have not been considered and verified by the authorities below. In view of the same, we deem it fit and proper to remand the issue also to the file of the AO with a direction to verify if the bad debts written off in the books of accounts of the assessee and if it is found that the same are written off then it has to be allowed. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of being heard. 11. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 31st October, 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 747
Reopening of Case u/s 147 - AO passed the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) without serving the mandatory notice u/s 148 as per law - HELD THAT:- The reopening was also not done on account of change of opinion as prior to reopening of the assessment the case was only processed u/s 143(1). There is a live link between the information which was available with the AO and his formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. Sufficiency of such information cannot be gone into while deciding the issue of validity of reopening. The AO also cannot make any enquiry as no proceedings were pending before him for the relevant assessment year. In the above view of the matter, we are in agreement with the finding of the Ld CIT(A) that the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act was valid.
Income from unexplained source u/s 68 - AO did not accept the claim of the assessee that some amount was received by her as gift from donor as donor was never produced for examination, also relationship of donor with assessee was not proved. During re-opening assessee claimed that the copy of statement of Shri Deepak Gupta in which Shri Gupta allegedly admitted that bank account of donor was maintained and operated by him for providing bogus accommodation entry was never provided to the assessee and no opportunity to cross examine the said party was also provided.
HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the facts that the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 and the fact that the revenue has not produced any evidence that the statement of Shri Deepak Gupta was confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings, we deem it fit to set aside the orders of the authorities below on this issue and remit the matter back to the file of the AO with the direction that the assessee be given further opportunity to produce Shri Ashok Bindal and the assessee should also be given opportunity to cross examine Shri Deepak Gupta.
A fresh order be passed as per law after complying with above directions of ours and giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard - Matter restored back
-
2011 (10) TMI 746
... ...
... ... ..... the present case has to be upheld. The remand period in the third case when he was already undergoing life imprisonment consequent to his conviction in the second case cannot enure to his benefit in terms of Section-428, Cr. P.C That is the latest dictum of the Apex Court after noticing all the earlier case in the case of Atul Manubhai Parekh, (AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 429) (supra). 30. In view of this recent judgment of the Supreme Court by which we are bound, it is not necessary to refer to the two Division Bench judgments of this Court being in the case of Shambhu Nath Singh (supra) and in the case of Hari Shankar Sah (supra) which followed the judgment in Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali (supra), which has been considered by the Apex Court in the recent decision namely Atul Manubhai Parekh (supra) aforesaid. 31. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner for an early release merits no consideration. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 32. Petition dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 745
... ...
... ... ..... for the revenue and on closely examining the orders of all the adjudicating authorities, it appears from the record that the Tribunal upheld the order of CIT A which in terms held that there was no ground for levying the penalty as is done by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also was of the opinion that only if there is a wrong claim, or excess claim for deduction is made which is not found sustainable by the authority, that cannot furnish the sole reason for imposing penalty. Here also, the Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited, reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) . When there being no fault in the reasonings of the Tribunal, where it has rightly upheld the order of CIT A and quashed the order of the Assessing Officer, no question of law, much a substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present Tax Appeal. Resultantly, this Tax Appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2011 (10) TMI 744
... ...
... ... ..... llants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. The above substancial question of law in similar facts regarding payment made towards supply of shrink wrap cassettes/ CDs purchased by the respondent i.e., payment made by the respondent to the non-resident supplier of software has been held to be a royalty by answering the 'substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee in ITA No-2808/2005 and connected cases, decided on 15-10-2011. Following the detailed reasons assigned therein, we hold that the order passed by the ITAT impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside and we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assesses. 5. Accordingly- we pass the following ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the ITAT dated 29-11-2007 in ITA No. 1000/Bang/2007 is set aside and the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order passed by the assessing officer is restored.
-
2011 (10) TMI 743
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee has questioned the action of the Ld CIT(A) in directing the A.O. to verify as to whether the assessee has incurred any expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt and if so, compute interest expenditure in relation to exempt dividend as per formula provided in clause (ii) of Rule 8D. The grievance of the assessee shown in the ground is that these directions have been given by Ld CIT(A) to the A.O without giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of our finding hereinabove on the issue raised in Ground Nos. 1 to 3, we find that grievance of the assessee has been satisfied as the issue raised in Ground Nos. 1 & 2 has been remanded back to the file of A.O to decide it afresh affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground No. 4 is accordingly rejected. 12. In result, appeal is partly allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 21st October 2011.
-
2011 (10) TMI 742
... ...
... ... ..... question of law. 3. On having heard learned counsel Mrs. Mauna Bhatt and on having considered the orders of all the adjudicating authorities, this Court finds no infirmity in the approach adopted by the Tribunal in addressing the issue proposed before this Court. The question is no longer res integra, as rightly held by the Tribunal that when the Apex Court has decided the issue that in the event of share application money received by the assessee company from the alleged bogus share holders and if credentials of persons could not be established, then the department was free to proceed against the share holders but the share application could not be regarded as undisclosed income of the Company. In the instant case, this decision has been aptly applied to the facts which were at large before the authorities. Issue since has been materially decided, requires no further consideration by this Court. We therefore, uphold the order passed by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
........
|
