|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 864 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 831
... ...
... ... ..... erve that whether the assessee foundation is contravening any provisions of the Act relating to charities is a matter to be considered subsequent to registration on application of the actual area in which the assessee is operating and the Revenue is having enough safeguard to make such examination from every year to year at the time of assessment. Any contravention of the provisions in future can well be considered in assessment proceedings. Therefore, while eligibility of the assessee for registration u/s 12AA of the Act is examined in the declared objects of the assessee, we find no reason why registration should not be granted. In the light of the above judicial pronouncement, we find that the assessee foundation is entitled for registration u/s 12AA of the Act and direct the DIT Exemptions to grant registration to the assessee society u/s 12AA of the Act. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, 2nd of May, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 830
... ...
... ... ..... sed for the sake of raising the same. An application has been filed by the mother of the plaintiff for suing as a next friend being IA No. 9455/2009 in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 1 CPC, which is pending as on date. It is trite that the permission sought is not an empty formality which could be given by the Court for the mere asking. Such a safeguard is intended to protect the interest of the minor. It is also not necessary that the mother must seek the permission of the Court to act as a guardian of the minor. She can become the next friend of the minor by virtue of the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 4 of the Code, the only caveat being that her interest is not adverse to that of the minor. In the instant case, the interests of the plaintiff and her mother do not appear to clash in the least, rather the interest of the father and the child clash. 32. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present application, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 829
... ...
... ... ..... ts in revenue's contention that even when a leasehold right in "land or building or both" is transferred, the provisions of Section 50C can be invoked. We, therefore, approve the conclusion arrived at by the CIT(A) on this aspect of the matter. 5. There is no dispute that the property transferred in the present case is a leasehold property; it is neither land nor building. Therefore, the provisions to sect ion 50C do not come into play in this case. 6. Respect fully following Tribunal’s decisions in the case of Tejender Singh (supra) and in various other cases by the coordinate Benches, we uphold the grievance of the assessee. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to adopt actual sales consideration of ₹ 30,00,000/ - in computation of capital gains. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court immediately upon conclusion of hearing today on 18t h day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... s the manner is prescribed to take the measurements, alone then can an Investigating Officer, under Section 4 obtain the measurements but strictly as per manner prescribed; but it would be eminently desirable, CRL.A. 804/2001 Page 16 of 16 as per the decision in Mohd. Aman’s case (supra) to follow the procedure ordained under Section 5 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. 33. Relevant would it be to further note that in relation to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, Section 4 of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 would not be applicable because the said provision specifies a prerequisite that the person concerned is accused of having committed an offence which is punishable with a sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards i.e. the sentence must relate to imprisonment for a term and would thus exclude such offences where either capital punishment or imprisonment for life is the sentence contemplated.
-
2012 (5) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... cheme and. purpose of the incentive provisions has to be given.-CIT vs. Lotus Trans Travels (P) Ltd (2007) 207 cm (Del) 105 (2007)290 ITR 1 (Del), Raghubans Narain Singh vs The Uttar Pradesh Government, AIR 1967 SC 465 and Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra & Ors. AIR 2001 SC 3095 applied.” 7. The DR could not bring any material on record to show that the above quoted decision of the Tribunal was reversed in appeal by a higher forum. The facts being identical, respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to reduce the telecommunication charges of ₹ 57,02,457/- from the total turnover while computing the deduction allowable u/s 10B of the Act to the assessee and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 8. No other ground was argued or pressed at the time of hearing. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 11th of May, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 824
... ...
... ... ..... contentions of the assessee in this regard. Accordingly, we uphold the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 14. The next ground relates to the question of rate of depreciation allowable on electrical fittings. The AO restricted the claim of depreciation on electrical fittings at 10%, though the assessee had claimed depreciation at the rate of 15%. The AO has observed that the assessee did not substantiate its claim that the electrical fittings are eligible for depreciation at 15%, i.e., at the rate applicable to Plant & Machinery. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. Before us also, the assessee did not furnish any explanation. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced accordingly on 04-05-2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 823
... ...
... ... ..... igibility" of profits and "deductibility" of profits was not kept in mind section 115JBwould cease to be a self-contained code. (iv) That, therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that that 100 per cent. of the export profits earned by the assessee as computed under section 80HHC(3) was eligible for reduction under clause (iv) of the Explanation to section 115JB”. 3. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we are of the view that the issue raised by the Revenue in the present case is no longer res integra and is covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above. Respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement, the ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 4. In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.5.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 822
... ...
... ... ..... ten. There is no dispute to the settled proposition that even the investment in shares is made with a profit motive and whenever the assessee finds suitable price of shares invested by him, he sells the same and realize increased price thereon. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after discussing the issue in para 4.5 has recorded its finding in para 4.5.3 and held that the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the income from sale of shares is the business income, cannot be sustained. Keeping in view totality of facts and circumstances of the case and respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court as discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in treating the income from sale of delivery based shares held for less than one year as short term capital gain. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 29th May , 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 821
... ...
... ... ..... ance to l/5th of the total expenses of ₹ 2,10,00,000/- claimed under the head 'prior period expenses', as against the disallowance of l/3rd made by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce supporting evidence in respect of the claim and, thus, the AO was justified in taking an adverse view as per Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. 25. The ground raised by the revenue, has been duly considered and adjudicated while adjudicating appeal of the assessee, as is evident from para 10 to 11(i) of this order. These findings are applicable to the ground raised by the revenue. In view of this ground of appeal, raised by the revenue is dismissed. 26. Ground Nos. 3 & 4, raised by the revenue are general in nature and need no separate adjudication. Therefore, the same are dismissed. 27. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th May,2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 820
... ...
... ... ..... ement of the Supreme Court, this court cannot decide otherwise. Hence we dismiss the appeal without any order as to costs.” 6. Once the issue is decided by Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that the amendment in the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 is remedial and curative in nature and TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act, deduction in respect to the amount on which TDS is so paid, is allowable. In the present case the assessee deducted tax in February, 2007 but the same was deposited in May, 2007 for the AY 2007-08 that means the TDS was paid before due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee, hence, we allow the claim of assessee. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 4.2. Respectfully following the same we dismiss the issue raised by the revenue. 5. In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 819
... ...
... ... ..... nue in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the assessee is able to explain that the capital has been introduced by the partner through his own sources. Therefore the initial burden on the assessee firm explaining the capital contribution by one of the partners is discharged. The ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the AO to take action against the partner in his individual case if he was not satisfied about his creditworthiness. The decision cited by the ld. DR is with regard to the cash credit introduced by the partner u/s. 68 of the IT Act which is distinguishable from the facts of the present case, in which the assessee firm received capital contribution from the partner, which is necessary for running of the business of the assessee firm. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decision, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2012 (5) TMI 818
... ...
... ... ..... to suspend or dissolve a society registered under the Act”. 25. I am, therefore, of the view that section 21 of the General Clauses Act could not have been invoked in the facts of the present case by the Registrar to cancel the registration of the society. The inter se disputes between the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 6 with regard to management and control of the society in question cannot be decided in these proceedings. It shall be open to the parties to raise all such issues in appropriate civil proceedings, and in accordance with the law. As above noted, this Court has not gone into the issue of illegality, if any, committed by the deponent of the affidavit, namely, the President of the society in the present case. The said issue may be raised and decided on its own merits, in appropriate proceedings, if and when raised. 26. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Parties are left to bear their respective costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... ons of assessee and treat the sales as bogus. Therefore he requested to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and delete the addition made by them. 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. After hearing a rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record, keeping in view of the fact that the sister concern to whom the assessee has sold the shares has subsequently disposed of the same at a loss and since the companies involved are private limited copy of the valuation report and shares of the four companies by Chartered Accountant has been placed on record. We find no justification in disbelieving the transactions made by assessee to the sister concern. Therefore we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and direct AO to delete the addition made on account of sales. 8. In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 23.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 816
Deduction of Unexplained Expenditure u/s 69C - Contention was that assessee was involved in business of receiving bogus purchase entries so as to inflate its profit for claiming deduction u/s 80HHC - HELD THAT:- To enable invocation of the provisions of section 69C of the Act, the AO needs to be in possession of some material indicating that the assessee has incurred expenditure on purchases which have not been reflected in the books of account. Existence of such material with the AO, in fact, is the sine qua non for invoking section 69C of the Act. However, he ignored the source of the purchases, even though adequately explained by the assessee - Decision in favour of Assessee.
Computation of GP Rate - The GP rate of 14 per cent has been applied by the AO only on the basis of assumptions - Very same AO had, pertinently, himself, accepted the gross profit of 50 per cent under similar cases - HELD THAT:- The GP rate is the difference between the sale value and the purchase value. In the present case, if the AO harboured any doubt concerning the GP rate earned by the assessee, it was well within his rights to investigate not only the rate and the quantity of the sales, but also the rate and quantity of the purchases, and to examine and compare the same with the market rate.
AO has not doubted the sale value declared by the assessee. Rather, he has accepted the same to be genuine. Even so, after having done so, he applied the GP rate of 14 per cent without any basis and computed the value of the alleged unaccounted purchase, without even first ascertaining the market value of such purchases and without discharging his onus to establish that the assessee had paid anything over and above what had been stated in its books of account. The GP rate of 14 per cent was applied ignoring that of 50 per cent applied by himself in the cases noted in the preceding para. He did not even venture to differentiate those cases from the present one.
CIT(A), while deciding this issue in favour of the assessee, in our considered opinion, has correctly appreciated the full factual as well as legal matrix, as discussed above. We find no error in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in this regard and we hereby confirm the same.
-
2012 (5) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... Rattan, AIR 1973 SC 921. 41. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the present petitions under Section 9 for interim relief and Section 11 for appointment are not maintainable in Delhi Courts on account of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because the petitioners in effect are seeking a relief which cannot be given simply by personal obedience of the respondents. It will require the transfer of possession of the land in question also which is admittedly situated in Amritsar, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. I also do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents are estopped from raising the question of jurisdiction of Delhi Courts having admitted by way of an averment in their written statement originally the Delhi Court as the jurisdiction because there is no estoppel against law. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 03.7.2009 stands vacated.
-
2012 (5) TMI 814
... ...
... ... ..... led only for the purpose of accounting, it could have been filed if the firm is already dissolved but if the plaintiff also seeks dissolution of firm, consequential issue of accounting can also be involved therein. 7. So far as decision of Apex Court in Jagdish Chandra Gupta (supra) is concerned, it is no doubt true that the bar for suit under Section 69 (1) and (2) would apply to arbitration proceedings also but simultaneously the exceptions provided in Sub-section (3) would also apply to the said proceedings as is evident from bare reading of Sub-section 3 of Section 69 of Act, 1932. In the present case having considered the pleadings, the Court below has found that suit was filed for appointing Arbitrator for the purpose of considering the matter of dissolution of firm and for accounting. In my view, it is covered by the exception (a) under Section 69 (3) of the Act, 1932 and there is no legal or otherwise error in the impugned order warranting interference. 8. Dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 813
... ...
... ... ..... vides that a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is a subject-matter of arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration. In the present case, the application being C.A. No. 123 of 2011 was filed in August, 2011 prior to submitting its first statement to the petition. Thus, in view of foregoing reasons, the matter being the same in the petition and the joint venture agreement and the articles of association of the company and in view of the mandatory requirement of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the application filed by the applicant, i.e., respondent No. 5 is allowed consequently C.P. No. 48 of 2011 is dismissed and the matter is referred to arbitration as prayed for. All the interim orders stand vacated and all the applications pending if any as on date stand disposed of. No order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2012 (5) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... himself. The possibility of the information seeker being himself or having acted at the instance of a coaching institute or a publisher and acting with the motive of making commercial gains from such information also cannot be ruled out. The said fact also distinguishes the present from the context in which Shaunak H. Satya (supra) was decided. There are no questions of transparency and accountability in the present case. 21. When we apply the tests aforesaid to the factual scenario as urged by the appellants and noted above, the conclusion is irresistible that it is not in public interest that the information sought be divulged and the information sought is such which on a purposive construction of Section 8 is exempt from disclosure. 22. We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the orders of the CIC directing the appellant to disclose the information and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... ut sale is supported by bank statement. We find that the payments are received through banking channels and assessee’s claim of LTCG cannot be disturbed by the fact that some of the companies were indulged in malpractices at CSE and SEBI. When a query was raised to Ld. Sr. DR whether this particular scrip is put to scanner or not, Ld. DR could not reply and could not confirm that these transactions were under SEBI scanner. In such circumstances, we have no alternative except to uphold the order of CIT(A) and this appeal of revenue is dismissed. 5. In appeal No. 699/K/2010, revenue has raised similar ground as in ITA No. 698/K/2010. Since facts are similar except variance in amount, we have no other alternative but to accept the order of CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue i.e. ITA No. 699/K/2010. We uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 6. In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in open court.
-
2012 (5) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... Five lakhs o p /o p Group 'C' Rs. Three lakhs o p /o p Group 'D' Rs. Two lakhs. o p /o p .... o p /o p 14. The case of the Respondent was rejected by the Appellants in view of the fact that the family of the deceased Anand Kishore Gautam had been given the following terminal benefit excluding the G.P.F. 1. DCRG ₹ 2,48,248.00 2. Leave Encashment ₹ 88,660.00 3. CGEIS ₹ 44,000.00 4. DLIS ₹ 60,000.00 Total ₹ 4,40,908.00 In addition to above, family pension @ 3100/- per month has been authorised to Smt. Rashmi Gautam for a period of 7 years and thereafter @ 1860/- per month plus admissible relief on pension. 15. In view of the fact that, in the instant case the retiral/ terminal benefits have been received by the family exceeding ₹ 3 lakhs, Respondent No. 1 is not eligible to be considered for the Group 'C' post. 16. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgments/orders stand set aside.
........
|
