|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1800 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... after final order of attachment is also a distinguishing factor. 15. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that petitioner being bona fide purchaser of value without notice, is not required to answer the State dues of value added tax. Counsel for the respondents, as already noted, pointed out that Sections 46 to 48 of the Act would materially change the situation, so far as value added tax is concerned. We refrain from making any observations on these aspects canvased by both sides simply because these are not issues arising in the present petition. 16. With the limited scope of the petition, examining the validity of the provisional attachment order, we are satisfied that no case is made out. Petition is therefore, dismissed.” 6. Since on all material aspects, facts are similar and contentions raised before us are also similar; following the observations and conclusions in the said order dated 4.3.2011 passed in SCA No. 14213 of 2010, we dismiss this petition also.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1799 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal 2011(2) SCC 429 following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularize an employee. Merely because some others had been regularized does not give any right to the Respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated. 13. Also, it is well-settled that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla (1991) 1 SCC 691. The Respondent's service was not terminated as a measure of punishment. Hence no opportunity of hearing was necessary for terminating her service. The direction for her reinstatement is not sustainable as she was only a temporary employee and hence had no right to the post. 14. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1798 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... in CIT vs. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises (311 ITR 389) held that printing of paper labels constitute manufacturing so as to entitle the assessee to claim deduction u/s 80IA. The Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Emptee Poly Yarn P. Ltd. (2010) (188 Taxman 188) held that twisting and textrising of partially oriented yarn (POY) by using thermo mechanical process amounts to manufacture in terms of sec. 80IA of the Act. 9. If the aforesaid judicial pronouncements are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal specifically the involvement of manufacturing process as we have discussed in para 5 (supra), we are of the considered opinion that assessee is producing a new and distinct commercially end product from its raw material, therefore, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(3)(ii) of the Act, therefore, we find no infirmity in the stand of the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 2nd March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1797 - ITAT CUTTACK
Entitlement to exemption u/s 011 - it is found that the assessee trust is established under the provisions of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It commenced its operations from 1st Nov., 1967.The service is for the national purpose of acting as a major port of India and helps in earning substantial export revenues necessary for the country and also in import of essential goods. Earlier to 2002, the assessee trust was availing of exemption in respect of its income u/s 010(20) being a 'local authority'. Later on due to insertion of an Explanation to s 010(20), the assessee was excluded from the definition of "local authority". Consequently, it was not entitled to exemption under the said section but the assessee was still entitled to exemption u/s 011 being a "charitable trust". The assessee obtained registration as charitable trust u/s 012A and accordingly registration was granted to it by the order of the CIT, Cuttack.
higher rate of depreciation - from the admitted facts and circumstances of the case, the fixed assets serve some special purpose of the working and thereby they are considered as "plant and machinery" in the working process of the assessee. This claim of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Dr. B. Venkata Rao [1999 (2) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT], Chief CIT (Admn.) & Ors. v. Visveswarayya Iron & Steel Ltd. [1991 (9) TMI 21 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Kalinga Tubes Ltd. v. CIT [1973 (5) TMI 18 - ORISSA HIGH COURT]. In the light of the cases, the assessee's claim is substantiated and hence found entitled to higher rate of depreciation at 15 per cent on the fixed assets as claimed by the assessee.
revenue income of the assessee - Considering the issue of treatment of ₹ 42 crores being interest on investment on capital asset replacement reserve fund and on investment on development repayment of loan and contingency reserve fund, as income of the assessee. we are of the considered view that this is a diversion of the interest amounts at source and thereby the said interest amounts cannot be added to the revenue income of the assessee. Hence, the contention taken by the Department is not sustainable for legal scrutiny. Accordingly, the additions made by the Department are hereby directed to be deleted.
Disallowance of fund recognition - claim of the assessee of ₹ 40 crores and ₹ 2,22,524 to pension provision fund and contributory provident fund respectively, it is found that the disallowance was made on the ground that the "funds" were yet to be recognized by the CIT. the action of the CIT in granting the recognition to the said funds from 3rd Feb 2009 is unfounded and hence, it is to be recognized from the date of application made by the assessee. Consequently for the current period also the fund recognition is applicable. Accordingly, the disallowance made by the Department is not sustainable under law and it is hereby directed to be deleted.
In the result, the assessee's appeal is hereby allowed.
it is found that the AO has taken into consideration all the amounts and added back only those items where understatement of income has been reported by the C&AG of India. On perusal of the said report of C&AG of India, it is found that the AO has completely neglected those items where overstatement of income had been reported. Accordingly the AO's one-sided action is not sustainable under law. The learned CIT(A) having very same opinion has directed the deletion of the additions made by the AO. Hence, we are of the considered view that the action of the CIT(A) in doing so is not at all infirm in any way requiring intervention and the same is upheld finding the issue raised by the Department as devoid of merits.
In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1796 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Depositories Act and Section 32 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and contended that the provisions of these statutes are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force relating to the holding and transfer of securities. He submitted that securitization under these statutes was only procedural in nature and could not override the substantial law contained in the Contract Act and The Sale of Goods Act. In our view the argument is fallacious and misconceived. There is no sale of shares involved in the present case and, therefore, the Sale of Goods Act would not apply. As regards the Contract Act, we have already noticed above that it entitles a pledgee to invoke the pledge in case of default which is what the banks did. We see no conflict in the provisions of the statutes referred to by the learned senior counsel. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in these appeals and the same stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1795 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(A) on this issue also. 7.2. In the result ground no.1 of the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 7.3. As regarding disallowance on account of foreign exchange fluctuation loss as well as profit on conversion of foreign currency keeping in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra has held that “loss suffered by the assessee in respect of the revenue liability on account of exchange difference as on the date of the balance sheet is an item of expenditure allowable u/s 37(1) in the year of accrual.” Since the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court we find no infirmity in the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and we confirm the same and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7.4. In the result this issue is also decided in favour of the assesee by dismissing the ground raised by the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 29.03.2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1794 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observations made in para 4 of the aforesaid judgment, quoted above, that "if a review petition is filed after the dismissal of the special leave petition, it would be treated as an affront to the order of the Supreme Court" is not a precedent at all. A mere stray observation of this Court, in our opinion, would not amount to a precedent. The above observation of this Court is, in our opinion, a mere stray observation and hence not a precedent. 15. By a judicial order, the power of review cannot be taken away as that has been conferred by the statute or the Constitution. This Court by judicial orders cannot amend the statute or the Constitution. 16. For the reasons given above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, condone the delay in filing the review petition before the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court to decide the review petition on merits in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing the parties concerned.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1793 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Leave granted Hearing expedited.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1792 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pital, unsecured loans, current liabilities and addition to fixed assets. The approach adopted by lower authorities in making these additions is highly unjustified and regrettable. The lower authorities being quasi judicial authorities, are under obligation to be fair and judicious. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the present assessment being excessive, harsh and arbitrary, deserves to be set aside, restored back to the file of AO to reframe the same afresh. Assessee is willing to produce the books of account which are to be considered after affording an opportunity to the assessee. In an eventuality where best judgment assessment is inevitable, then fair and reasonable approach as warranted by law has to be adopted by lower authorities, which the AO will keep in mind while reframing the assessment. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 10-3-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1791 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ules,1963 is accepted in the light of guidelines laid down in the decision of Hon’ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Pari Mangaldas Girdharidas Vs. CIT,(1977) 6 CTR(Guj)647. In these circumstances, we consider it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the issue afresh in accordance with law, in the light of aforesaid additional evidence and of course after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. The ld. CIT(A) is free to undertake any independent enquires, if found necessary and thereafter, may pass such order as he deems proper, in accordance with law . With these observations, ground no. 3 in the appeal is disposed of. 11. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of the residuary ground no.4 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12.In the result, appeal is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court today on 31-03-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1790 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ineness of the expenditure was not doubted by the Assessing Officer rather the amount so paid/claimed was restricted by invoking the provisions of sec. 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The ratio laid down in Shankar Ghosh (214 ITR 349) (Cal) further fortifies the case of the assessee. The provisions of sec. 40A(2) of the Act, by its very nature, is something which the Assessing Officer has to determine by using its discretion, subject to the limitation laid down in the provision. It is always not possible for an assessee to anticipate whether the Assessing Officer would invoke his discretion and shall make a disallowance under the said provision. In the present appeal, neither there is concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate of particulars, therefore, no penalty is leviable u/s 271(1)(c). Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 29th March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1789 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y investigation. 5. An extra ordinary situation requires an equally effective and extra ordinary solution. It is for that reason we propose to interfere with the order even at this stage. 6. Having regard to the extra ordinary circumstances and complexity of the issues involved and the magnitude of the case, we consider it appropriate to authorise the detention of the Respondent/accused herein for his custodial interrogation. 7. We, accordingly, authorise the detention of the Respondent/accused in the custody of the authorities of Enforcement Directorate. He shall, accordingly, remain in the custody of the authorities of the Enforcement Directorate for a period of four days. 8. There shall be an order accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1788 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ischarged. TAX APPEAL No. 1713 OF 2007. In light of the judgment rendered today in Tax Appeal No. 638 of 2006 between the same parties, this Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. TAX APPEAL No. 1047 OF 2008. It is not possible to read provisions of Section 27 of the Act in unamended Section 18 of the Act as it stood upto 12.7.2006. The Tribunal was therefore in error in applying the principle of unjust enrichment. The Appeal is accordingly allowed for the reasons stated in judgment of even date rendered in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. in Tax Appeal No. 638 of 2006.” We find that subsequently also in decision in case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hindalco Industries Ltd. reported in 2010(262) E.L.T. 106 (Guj.), this view has been followed by this Court. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law is arising for our consideration. Tax appeal is therefore, dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1787 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that he is willing to go to the High Court provided all issues that are raised in this appeal are kept open to be urged before the High Court. We see no impediment in allowing the said prayer of the appellant. We dispose of this petition with the liberty to the Appellant to approach the High Court with appropriate appeals, which shall be filed within six weeks. The present appeal is disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1786 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idered opinion, the view expressed under Section 197 of the Act is a prima facie opinion and that should not affect the assessing officer at the time final assessment. The colossal grievance that Mr. C.S. Aggarwal would raise is that the Department on one hand is not granting the relief under Section 197 of the Act and on the other hand on the plea of limitation is not framing the order of assessment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed that the order of assessment for the financial year 2008-09 be passed by 15th June, 2011. Mr. C.S. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel fairly submitted that the assessee shall extend the fullest cooperation and, therefore, the assessing officer must perform his duty and pass the assessment order as result of which the controversy on the score of TDS shall be put to rest. We appreciate the submissions put forth at the Bar. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1785 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... accompanied by proper bill and the fact that it was not declared at the border checkpost is only an omission on the part of the truck driver. However, Government Pleader submitted that after crossing the border checkpost the goods passed through internal checkposts and nowhere the goods were declared. His further contention is that drivers of parcel service are familiar with the sales tax procedure and the theory of omission in their part is unacceptable. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal and lower authorities that since goods were not accounted at the checkpost by production of documents, there is likelihood of evasion of tax. Consequently penalty is rightly levied and confirmed by the Tribunal. We therefore dismiss the Revision Petition. However, since counsel for the petitioner submitted that huge addition is made in the turnover on account of levy of penalty, it is of course a matter to be contested by the petitioner in the challenge against assessment.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1784 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... In the light of the settled legal position, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against them. The High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings so that the Appellants who were not remotely connected with the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. should not have been compelled to face the rigmaroles of a criminal trial. 72. As a result, the charges under Section 306 I.P.C. against the Appellants are quashed. 73. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2687 of 2010 filed by the Appellants is allowed and disposed of. Crl. Appeal No. 611 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP Crl.) No. 2550/2010 74. In view of the decision in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2687 of 2010, this appeal is also allowed and disposed of.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1783 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... own the proposition that no penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is leviable by holding that “merely making of an incorrect claim does not amount to concealment of particulars of income.” Following the above said ratio, we are in conformity with the order of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 7. The second plea raised by the assessee before CIT(A) was that the claim of deduction u/s 80IB was made on the basis of certificates issued by Chartered Accountant and hence the claim of deduction was made in a bonafide manner not attracting levy of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, is also upheld in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. S.D. Rice Mills 275 ITR 206 (P&H) . We uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard also and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 10th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1782 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ssessable under the head ‘business’ and other two sums under section 69. The business income including application of section 40(b) has to be considered accordingly. For calculation of income in view of our above observations, we restore the matter to the file of AO.” Thus in the above case it is held that excess stock should be treated as part of the business as it does not have any separate physical identity. 5. Since the only issue involved in this appeal is whether excess stock should be treated as from business or as deemed income and other consequences would follow, we hold, following the decision in the case of M/s Fashion World vs. ACIT (supra), that excess stock so found and having no separate physical identity would be undisclosed business income. Accordingly, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 25/3/11.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1781 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... and would also apply to amended provisions. The simple reason for that being that when no longer there is any provision to assess a minor in his individual capacity, the entire heart and soul of the provision has changed and the principle, if any, laid down by the Hon’ble Court in relation to repealed sections therein would not be relevant for the present scenario. Hence, we hold that the income of this minor cannot be assessed in the hands of alleged representativeassessee, at all, under the existing law, as conditions laid in section 160(1)(ii) & (iii) are not satisfied. Accordingly, respectfully following the Tribunal orders in question as well as in view of our foregoing observation on the provisions of section 160(1)(ii)/(iii) of the Act, we cannot allow these appeals of the Revenue. Accordingly, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. 5. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 25.3.2011
........
|
