|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 769 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 749 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... on of the lower authorities to the effect that the date of completion shall be taken the date on which certificate is physically issued by the Local Authorities. 8. In view of the above discussion, we restore the matter back to the file of AO and assessee is at liberty to procure the required letter/certificate from the Local Authority clearly mentioning therein the date of completion of the project. The AO is to decide the issue afresh as per law after considering the letter of completion if any furnished by the assessee. We direct accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. In view of the above, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh in terms of our above decision after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes only. This order was pronounced in the open Court on 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 748 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... o establish the genuineness of the gift during the course of assessment proceedings. Affidavits were filed from the donors. The Assessing Officer has not disputed any of these documents and in fact he has not made addition u/s.68. On the contrary, the Assessing Officer has recorded at Page-4 of his order that the assessee has produced documentary evidence to confirm the very high network status of the donor. When it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that an addition could be made u/s.68, the submissions of the learned Counsel on this issue are uncalled for. Thus, grounds Nos.2 and 3 of the Revenue are dismissed.” 7. We find that facts, arguments and circumstances of both the cases are identical. Except the name of the assessee rest all facts, including the addresses of both of the assessee are similar. 8. Respectfully following the order of the coordinating bench, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 747 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ehalf of the Revenue and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD, supra , we are of the view that in the absence of any incorrect, wrong or untrue material or suppression/concealment of materials or non-disclosure of full particulars inspite of demand by Assessing Officer, if the claim made by an assessee is only 'untenable' in view of a prohibition contained in the Act itself, such claim may be held to be 'not permissible' but penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be imposed for making such a claim. If we accept the contention of Mr. Bhatt that even an 'untenable' claim would attract penalty, then no assessee will dare to raise any new question in support of his claim of any benefit available under the Act lest ultimately if such claim is held to be 'untenable', it would lead to imposition of penalty. The appeal is, thus, devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 746 - SUPREME COURT
|
Challenging the summon order passed by Magistrate - the present cases pertain to a property dispute regarding distribution of the assets left behind (of T- Series fame), a handwritten note was executed between the appellants and Respondent No. 2 wherein distribution of certain assets and shares in different companies was provided for. Subsequently, a fresh agreement was entered into between the appellants and the Respondent No. 2 which superseded the handwritten note. disputes arose soon after the second agreement, giving rise to multifarious litigations at the behest of Respondent No. 2 which are presently pending adjudication before the High Court. after 4 years, due to non-materialization of the agreement, the Respondent No. 2 got registered the present FIR u/s 420 IPC against all the other signatories to the said agreement wherein only one of the signatory was a party to it. For quashing the said FIR. the Magistrate summoned the appellants herein. Hence, this appeal.
HELD THAT:- There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order u/s 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.
In the light of the above discussion, we conclude that the petition filed before the High Court u/s 482 of the Code was maintainable. However, on merits, the impugned order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi is confirmed, consequently, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
|
-
2012 (4) TMI 745 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tal Gain can be assessed as admittedly the depreciation has been claimed thereon. The set aside of the order is also necessary for the reason that learned CIT(A) has combined all these issues and has directed the Assessing Officer to allow set off of brought forward long term loss of ₹ 7,98,083/- which can be adjusted only against Long Term Capital Gain computed in respect of sale of land which is non depreciable asset. The same cannot be adopted against the sale consideration of building which has necessarily to be assessed as Short Term Capital Gain in view of section 50 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the entire issue is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to correctly compute the gains arising to the assessee out of aforementioned sale of assets which comprised of land and building. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforementioned. (Order pronounced in the open court on 27/04/2012 )
-
2012 (4) TMI 744 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... nd any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation. 25. With regard to assessee’s claim for set off of carry forward of excess expenditure, the issue has been decided by the I.T.A.T., Indore Bench in the case of Gujarati Samaj (supra) vide its order dated 31.1.2011 and the decision of the Tribunal has been duly approved by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court vide its order dated 8.7.2011 reported at 64 DTR 76, various other judicial pronouncements of Rajasthan High Court reported at 164 ITR 439, Gujarat High Court 211 ITR 293, Madras High Court 242 ITR 20 and 248 ITR 368 also support the view. 26. In view of the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for allowing set off of carry forward of excess expenditure. 27. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 743 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for payments made to CRO’s - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CAT Vs. Kotak Securities ltd.,[2011 (10) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that transaction charges paid by the assessee to the stock exchange constituted fee for technical services covered U/s. 194 (J). It further held that from the year 1995 to the year 2005, the assessee as well as the revenue, proceeded on the footing that the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source and hence no fault can be found with the assessee for not deducting tax at source, as it was under a bonafide belief that no tax need be deducted at source on this payment.
In the case on hand, the assessee paid charges for testing at laboratories of CRO which used their own skills and equipments etc., to prepare the report. The Tribunal came to conclusion that there is no parting of skills or know-how by CRO and hence the service is not technical in nature, but was only a commercial service. Consisting with the view taken therein, we up-hold the finding of the first appellate authority and dismissed this ground of revenue. In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed in part.
Thus, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed and that of revenue is allowed in part.
-
2012 (4) TMI 742 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ind the A.O in his remand report after making necessary enquiries had reported that low quality of raw material was used as compared to the immediately preceding Assessment Year. So far as the issue relating to suppression of sales is concerned, we find nothing has been brought on record to suggest that assessee has received any extra money over and above what has been shown in the audited books of account. The Ld. D.R. also could not controvert the findings given by the Ld CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) has decided the issue on the basis of remand report of the A.O and since the Ld. D.R. was unable to point out any mistake in the order of the CIT(A), therefore, in absence of any contrary material brought to our notice, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and accordingly, uphold the same. The grounds by the revenue are accordingly dismissed. 8. In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 26th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 741 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... Revenue is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 15th June, 2011.” If the totality of facts is analysed we find that since for the assessment year 2006-07 the net profit rate was directed to be applied at the rate of 1.77% on the disclosed turnover of the assessee, therefore, unless and until different facts are brought on record, there is no reason to deviate from that net profit rate. In the impugned order the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the net profit rate of 1.43%, therefore, the order of the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is modified to this extent resulting into partly allowing the appeal of the revenue. Finally, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 11.4.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 740 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t this obligation of charging sales tax on the goods sold is removed if the purchaser, as a purchasing dealer, submits to the selling dealer the prescribed declaration. Since there was nothing on the face of it, to indicate the petitioner that the declaration submitted by the Maihar Cement was either valid or it was not entitled to give such declaration, the petitioner was not expected to get the certificate or the eligibility investigated. Admittedly, on identical facts and circumstances of the case, a Division Bench of this High Court vide order dated 24.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.1033/2007 has already quashed similar orders imposing liability upon the petitioner. The Division Bench has also held that section 21 of the Act 1994 itself castes liability upon the purchasing dealer. We too, therefore, quash the orders under challenge. But we make it clear that this order will not exempt the purchasing dealer from liability if same exists in law. The petition is allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 739 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... urnment in spite of notice. In these circumstances, the stay petition is dismissed for non prosecution. The applicants are directed to deposit the dues as per the adjudication order within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance on 18.6.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 738 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) For redetermination of the seniority of Income Tax Inspectors, the respondent No. 3 shall circulate a tentative seniority list giving opportunity to file objection by affected persons including the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 to 13. The exercise of redetermination of the seniority shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this judgment before the respondent No. 3. (5) The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall take all consequential actions as per re-determination of seniority in accordance with law. (B) Writ Petition No. 56072/2010 is allowed. The order dated 27.8.2010, of the Tribunal is partly set-aside insofar as it dismisses the O.A. No. 1084/ 2010. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 23672/2006, no direction needs to be issued to the Tribunal to proceed to decide O.A. No. 1084 of 2010 afresh. The O.A. No. 1084/ 2010 having become infructuous is disposed of accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 737 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r for decision of the Petition on merits. 11. Thus, in conclusion we are not in agreement with the learned single Judge that the present arbitration Petition needs to be automatically allowed because the award of the arbitrator was passed after the period stipulated in the agreement had come to an end without looking into any other aspect. Having considered the facts narrated above, we find that the conduct of the respondent is such that a clear inference can be drawn that it had waived the time limit stipulated in the agreement and the objection regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge dated January 13, 2012 in Arbitration Petition No. 430 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned single Judge for consideration of the Petition on merits. We make it clear that we have not observed anything on the merits of the case of both the parties in the Arbitration Petition.
-
2012 (4) TMI 736 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e meeting. 12. That the value of each unsecured creditor shall be in accordance with the books of the Company and, where the entries in the books are disputed, the Chairman shall determine the value for the purpose of the meeting. 13. And it is further ordered that the Chairman do report to this Court the result of the said meeting within 14 days of the conclusion of the meeting and the said report shall be verified by his affidavit. 14. Considering the averments made in Paras 21 and 23 of the affidavit filed by Pradyuman Ambalal Soni on behalf of the applicant as well as the affidavit filed by K. Sethuraman and considering the affidavitcumundertaking filed by the Transferee Company as well and more particularly, Paras 6 and 7 of the said affidavit, the Transferee Company is not required to file a separate application/petition for obtaining sanction to the present Scheme. With the above directions, the Company Application is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 735 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case has drawn attention of this court to a number of judgments 'M/s L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. M/s Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. CS (OS) No. 2711/1999; and Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr., 1999 PTC 578. Counsel has also placed reliance on Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastavaand Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) where apart from compensatory damages of ₹ 5 lakhs, punitive damages have also been awarded. Justice R.C. Chopra, has set out in Time Incorporated's case (supra) that punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice. 37. For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree as prayed in the plaint. Accordingly, the order dated 24.12.2010 is confirmed and the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of para 33 (i), (ii), (iii) & (v) of the plaint with costs and damages to the tune of ₹ 5.00 lakhs. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 734 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and Company Appeal Nos.40 of 2011, 41 of 2011 and 42 of 2011 pending before this Court be disposed of in terms of the said Agreement. The Agreement dated 16th April 2012 is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. The Suit No.1937 of 2008 and Company Appeal Nos.40 of 2011, 41 of 2011 and 42 of 2011 are disposed of in terms of the Agreement marked ‘X’.
-
2012 (4) TMI 733 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants fall into those categories of amendments approved by the Supreme Court in the above two decisions. One more point needs to be decided. That is the question of delay. I am satisfied with the submissions made by Mr. Mitra that knowledge of a substantial part of the subject matter of the amendment application was gained by the appellants from the balance-sheet of the respondent company and the return of allotments of paid-up capital filed in Form No. 2 by the respondents with the Registrar of Companies both filed subsequent to the filing of the company petition. Therefore, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order of the Company Law Board dated 17th April 2008 is partly set aside. The order of the Company Law Board dated 27th July 2007 is reinstated. I am told that the company petition was amended in accordance with that order. Those amendments are according to the table above. Therefore, those amendments are affirmed. Stay application, if any, stands disposed of.
-
2012 (4) TMI 732 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nsel. We also hold that the adjudicating officer was right in providing the appellant with the material relevant to the investigation and not the entire trade logs relating to the transactions in the scrip of the company. In any investigation procedure, justice can be rendered if the person is provided with the material relevant to him and which is proposed to be used against him for which he should be given reasonable opportunity of defence. In the present case, no useful purpose would have been served by providing the appellant with details of all the transactions concerning the scrip of the company. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the adjudicating officer has brought on record sufficient material to show that the appellant’s wrong doing falls under regulation 4 of the FUTP Regulations. The quantum of penalty imposed, is just and reasonable in the facts of the case. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 731 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ho reiterated the stand of the revenue as reflected in the grounds of appeal. We have considered his submissions and we find that under the provisions of section 244A (2) of the Act, if AO wants to exclude from the period for which interest is payable under section 244A(1) of the Act, he has to seek the opinion of the Chief Commissioner. The AO has not done so. The revenue cannot therefore, question the jurisdiction of the CIT(A) not to exclude the period for which interest has to be granted under section 244A of the Act. For this reason and also for the reason that the amount in question was tax deducted at source and there was no delay on the part of the Assessee, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) should be sustained. We order accordingly. 24. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 25. In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 20th day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 730 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are proposed to be passed, the AETO will have to afford adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He should also examine the facts and the sponsorship agreements before passing orders, keeping in view our observations in paragraph 16 above. 23. In these writ petitions, interim directions were issued for deposit of tax as condition for issue of NOC for holding the events. The events were permitted to be held as the petitioners deposited the tax as directed by this Court. In the assessment orders to be passed under Section 15 of the Act, pursuant to the disposal of the writ petitions, the AETO may raise demands including interest, subject to appropriate/ suitable adjustments for tax already deposited, and subject to the petitioner being given reasonable opportunity of being heard. 24. In the result W.P.(C) 1145/2010 and 1169/2010 are allowed to the extent indicated above and all other writ petitions are dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
