|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 380 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 326 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... sad, JJ. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 325 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioner as successor to the estate of the deceased person and the relief as sought by the petitioner seeking declaration that he is entitled to 32,280 equity shares is automatically allowed. In other words granting such relief without production of any documentary proof that he is the successor to the estate is impermissible. Considering the above facts, law, and the judgment of the Apex Court, I hereby allow the CA No. 203 of 2011 and dismiss the CP No. 76 of 2011 holding that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the petition. Accordingly the issue is answered. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a petition after obtaining the certificate from the competent authority, viz., succession certificate, probate or letters of administration, etc., holding him to be successor to the estate of his father, i.e., late Sunil Mane. All the interim orders stand vacated. However, this order is suspended for a period of 3 weeks from the receipt of copy of this order.
-
2012 (1) TMI 324 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We find that no error could be pointed out by the ld. DR in the above quoted order of the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee is entitled for carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation allowance available during the assessment year 1997-98 to the assessment year 2003- 04 and claimed the same as set off against the income of the assessment year 2003-04 by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. S & S Power Switchgear Ltd. (218 CTR 701)(Mad). Hence, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is confirmed. The ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. No other point has been urged by the Revenue except the above point. 9. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced at the close of the hearing in the presence of the parties on 18.01.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of remand order - demand of duty jointly upon the offenders and direction to fix separate/individual liability of each of the offenders including the respondent when jointly omission and commission of the offenders in perpetuating the fraud and causing loss of revenue are intermingled - fraudulent availment of rebate - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in remanding case of the respondent back to the adjudicating Commissioner to arrive at finding of liability of individuals as regards the duty is concerned?
Held that:- The Tribunal after detailed consideration of the submission had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority following its own earlier decision in the case of this very respondent assessee - the Commissioner had confirmed the demand against the respondents and others jointly and severally. That was the reason why the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner.
There is no illegality in remand orders - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 322 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 321 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... of both the issues to the file of Assessing Officer and he conceded the position that assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the Act and even CIT(A) has relied on some wrong conclusion. 4. In the interest of natural justice and fair play, as both issues were adjudicated by lower authorities without providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee as is evident from the orders, we set aside these issues to the file of Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate afresh. In respect to commission expenses, the assessee will file documentary evidences to substantiate its claim of expenses and Assessing Officer will decide on the basis of evidences as per law. In respect to share application money, the Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh after taking into consideration the evidences filed by assessee in terms of law. Appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 320 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unexplained investment under section 69 - sale of the shares - penny stocks - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia [2011 (9) TMI 919 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been dismissed.
HC held it is neither the case of the Revenue that the shares in question are still lying with the Assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that the amounts received by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by the Assessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. held that the sale transaction was genuine. ITAT is correct in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69 cannot be faulted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 319 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’?
Held that:- Section 14B is attracted where an ‘employer’ makes a default in the payment of any contribution to the fund. In the instant case admittedly default has taken place. We hold if there is a default in payment of contribution to such a scheme it amounts to contravention of Section 14B and damages can be levied. The High Court, with great respect, erred by coming to a contrary conclusion.
High Court’s interpretation of the expression "so far as may be" as limiting the ambit and width of Section 17(1A)(a) of the Act, in our judgment, cannot be accepted for two reasons as well.
The High Court is guided in the interpretation of the word "so far as may be" on the basis of the principle that statutes does not waste words. The High Court has also relied on the interpretation given to "so far as may be" in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh and another v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 989. It goes without saying that Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is a fiscal statute dealing with penal provisions whereas the aforesaid expression is to be construed in this Act which is eminently a social welfare legislation. Therefore, the parameters of interpretation cannot be the same.
In the instant case, the High Court failed to discern the correct principle of interpretation of a social welfare legislation. High Court missed this well settled principle of interpretation of social welfare legislation while construing the expression "so far as may be" in interpreting the provision of Section 17 (1A)(a) of the Act and unduly restricted its application to the employer of an exempted establishment.
We hold that in a case of default by the employer by an exempted establishment, in making its contribution to the Provident Fund Section 14B of the Act will be applicable.
-
2012 (1) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2A and B of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Held that:- No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted. Preventive detention involves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him/her from committing certain types of offences. But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the detenue may have committed. After all, preventive detention in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial. Accordingly, while following the three-Judge Bench decision in Rekha's case (2011 (4) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20th July, 2011, and also quash the Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, issue by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.
-
2012 (1) TMI 317 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ourt in the case of S.A. Builders (supra), the expression ‘commercial expediency’ is of wide import and even advances for the purpose of business of the sister concern are required to be treated as for business purposes. The Assessing officer was thus clearly in error in resorting to the disallowance on the short ground that while the assessee has borrowed the money on interest, it has given an interest free advance to the sister concern. That approach certainly constitute a very superficial view of the matter, and the CIT(A) was justified in reversing the disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer. We approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.” 5 Therefore, following the order for the earlier year of the Tribunal, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6 In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 11th, day of Jan 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 316 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nth of the financial year, albeit for the services rendered by him in the month of March of the preceding financial year would amount to exercising his option of not to avail the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. is to be considered. This in our view is not free from doubt. As the wordings of the notification do not indicate that the appellant’s action of payment of service tax in the first month of the financial year for the services rendered in the preceding financial year should not be considered as an option for exercising the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. seems to be an arguable issue. We direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 25,000/- within a period of four weeks from today and report compliance on 7-2-2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 315 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in absence of any direct and positive evidence establishing charges of clandestine removal by Messrs Chetna Zarda Company in connivance with Messrs Kripa Tobacco Marketing, it found no substance in the version of the Revenue and it held the order-in-original to have been based on surmises and conjectures. 8. The order of levying of penalty on the partner and others was consequential in nature. When the very basis on which this penalty was levied is demolished by not believing the clandestine removal by Messrs Chetna Zarda Company without any invoice and the sale is believed to have been made officially, the consequential order of penalty shall need to be quashed. Moreover, as can be noted from the discussion hereinabove, there is hardly any question of law arising in this appeal. Further, in absence of any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 314 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... confiscation. 7. As the Tribunal did not find these allegations having been proved against M/s. Chetna Zarda Company and others, imposition of penalty qua this agency is also deleted. The impugned order, though has been challenged by the Revenue by way of the present tax appeal, there is nothing pointed out to assail such an order of the Tribunal. As can be also further noted, there is no whisper as far as the present assessee-respondent is concerned in the evidence which were discussed by the Tribunal. Again, as can be noted from the orders of the adjudicating authorities, the role attributed to the assessee-respondent has not been believed by the Tribunal, for want of requisite material. 8. The entire issue is in the realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is before us for it to entertain the present tax appeal. Resultantly, the present tax appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of deletion of penalty requires no interference.
-
2012 (1) TMI 313 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Contribution for Compensatory Afforestation - Captial or Revenue Expenditure - Allowable u/s 37(1) or not? - The respondent had paid some amount towards contribution for compensatory afforestation. The assessee relying upon decision of Supreme Court, contended that this is an expenditure incurred for the purposes of business and allowable u/S 37(1).
According to AO -The assessee was permitted to carry out mining activity for the year under consideration only in the already broken up area out of total area and remaining area was undisturbed. As per the Mining Plan the assessee will first carry out mining only in Block A. Which will last for about 7 years and then block B will be taken up for mining activity. Hence the entire payment cannot be said to be an expenditure for the said financial year. Accordingly the said amount of expenditure is restricted to 1/14th
HELD THAT- CIT (A) while confirming the order of assessing authority said that the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax. The amount was incurred as a revenue expenditure and is directed to be allowed in the year it has been incurred.
We, therefore, held that It is not in dispute that the said payment was made as contribution for compensatory afforestation as per the directions of the Supreme Court. It is not permissible for the assessee to make phase-wise payment. Order of CIT is thus sound and proper - Decision against Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 312 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .2011 and 11.04.2011 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10660/2010, we feel that it would be appropriate that the parties seek a clarification from the Supreme Court as to whether this court can proceed with the hearing of this writ petition. In order to enable them to do so, we are holding this matter over till the next date. Renotify on 16.02.2012. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2012 (1) TMI 311 - ITAT DELHI
Royalty and Fees for Technical Services u/s 9 - Double Taxation Relief u/s 90 - Assessee has derived income from providing telecommunication services to various customers in India as well as outside India. The AO treated income from Indian customers as royalty and held that such payments are taxable.
HELD THAT:- Facts are similar in the own case of M/S INTELSAT CORPORATION, C/O S.R. BATLIBOI & CO. VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), NEW DELHI [2011 (3) TMI 1707 - ITAT DELHI], where it was held that, assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable. However, there is no need to go into the provisions of the DTAA because of the provision contained in Section 90(2) of the Act. This provision provides that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall applied to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. It has to be granted the benefit of the Act under which no liability to tax can be fastened on the assessee. This decision was further confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION VERSUS INTELSAT CORPORATION [2011 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Thus, income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 310 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pondent. 4. This Court had earlier issued notice for final hearing. Both the learned advocates for the parties have taken this Court through the various documents and the orders passed by all the three adjudicating authorities. Learned counsel, when apparently questioned with regard to the legal issue involved in the matter, has fairly pointed out the discussion made by the Tribunal based on the order of the CIT(Appeals). This Court in a cognate matter being Tax Appeal No.1042 of 2009 has upheld order of remand. Considering the entire gamut of facts and the reasons as well as discussion of the Tribunal, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no error or perversity in the order of Tribunal of remand and as the matter is decided basing essentially on the facts and applying concerned provisions appropriately with no question of law arising for the determination of this Court, resultantly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.” In the result Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IA - eligible business - Held that:- In Section 80IA(8) of the Act what is required to be ascertained is the market value of the goods transferred by the eligible business, when such transfer is by eligible business to another non eligible business of the same assessee and the consideration recorded in the accounts of the eligible business does not correspond to market value of such goods. Term “Market Value” is further explained in explanation to said subsection to mean in relation to any goods or services, price that such goods or services will ordinarily fetch in the open market. To our mind sum of ₹ 4.51 per unit of electricity only represented cost of electricity generation to the assessee and not the market value thereof. It is not in dispute that the GEB charged ₹ 5 per unit for supplying electricity to other industries including non eligible unit of the assessee itself.
Tribunal therefore, while adopting the said base figure and excluding excise duty therefrom to work out ₹ 4.90 as the market value of the electricity generated by the assessee, to our mind, committed no error. It can be easily seen that if the assessee were to supply such electricity or was allowed to do so in the open market, surely it would not fetch ₹ 4.51 per unit but ₹ 5 per unit as was being charged by GEB. Since the excise duty component thereof would not be retained by the assessee, Tribunal reduced the said figure by the nature of excise duty and came to the figure of ₹ 4.90 to ascertain the market value of electricity generated by the eligible unit and supplied to non eligible business of the assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 308 - ITAT JAIPUR
Treating the rent received from letting/renting of shops/offices in the commercial complex as well as from letting/renting of space on roof and space on walls for advertisement - ‘Income from business’ OR ‘Income from house property’ - denying deduction claimed under section 24(a) of the Act being 30% of annual value - Held that:- In the present case undisputedly the properties are not rented out temporarily or for a short period and, therefore, in our considered view, there was no reason to hold that this is a business income and not income from house property. Accordingly, we hold that AO and ld. CIT (A) were not justified in holding that income of the building was income from business and not from house property. Accordingly, we allow the ground of the assessee and the AO is directed to allow deduction as per provisions of law applicable under the head Income from house property.
-
2012 (1) TMI 307 - SC ORDER
Stay of judgement - the decision in the case of VVF LTD. & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 [2010 (3) TMI 1191 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] sought to be stayed - Held that: - we direct that operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders, subject to the petitioners' releasing to the respondents 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the impugned judgment on the respondents' furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner, within four weeks of their furnishing the said surety - petition disposed off.
............
|
