|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1232 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1226 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... the present case. Admittedly, in the present case no cash deposit has been found. There was unexplained expenditure, which is evident from the record and the facts narrated by the ld.CIT(A) in his impugned order and the same are not disputed by the ld.AR of the assessee. These facts clearly shows that there is unexplained expenditure or investment to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- between 1.4.1999 to 21.8.1999 by showing negative balance of Rs,2,47,947/- on 27.8.1999 in its cash books. These facts have duly been highlighted by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is legally and factually correct in confirming the addition of Rs.2,65,668/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act. We are inclined to uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly confirm his order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1225 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, he had submitted that writ appeals have been filed, in W.A.No.824 of 2012 etc. (batch), before this Court, challenging the order, dated 27.2.2012, made in W.P.No.21732 of 2011 etc. (batch) and the said writ appeals are pending before a Division Bench. 5. In such circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondents to release the goods in question, which have already been inspected by the authorized chartered engineers, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and the other charges, if any, as per the relevant provision of law. The petitioner shall also fulfill the necessary conditions prescribed by law, before the release of the goods in question. On the petitioner fulfilling such conditions, the goods in question shall be released, by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1224 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... he judgment dated 26.4.2011 of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s Swayam Consultancy Private Ltd. v. ITO, Tax Appeal No.62 of 2011 and of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court India Del (P) Ltd vs. CIT (2012) 250 CTR (Del) 344 are quite apposite. 7. As evident from the aforesaid discussion, relief u/s 10B is not available record to establish that the goods of specified nature have really been exported out of India by him. The assessee does not therefore satisfy the primary condition of having exported specified goods out of India and is therefore not entitled to relief u/s 10B on the sole basis that it has sold goods of specified nature to 100% EOU or received their sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. In this view of the matter, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be reversed and is accordingly reversed. Resultantly, the order of the Assessing Officer in this behalf is restored. Appeal filed by the Department is allowed. Order pronounced on 28-09-2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... who has to decide as to where the cash should be transferred. The evidence that the appellant had at the time of search itself explained that such cash was out of the cash balance as per the books of Mumbai and it is recorded in the said cash book is sufficient to prove that the cash was duly accounted for. Considering all these aspects, I hold that the addition of ₹ 25 Lacs made by the A.O. deserves to be deleted. This ground of appeal is accordingly allowed.” 4. Against the said order of the CIT (A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has affirmed the findings of the CIT (A) by judgment dated 3.9.2010 and has held that the employee of the assessee who was present at the time of search had explained the details of cash which was belonging to the assessee itself. 5. We do not find that the question proposed by the revenue raises any substantial question of law. This appeal is concluded by finding of facts and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1222 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uo;hire” used in entry No. III (2)(i) of Appendix I to the Income Tax Rules, 1962, only means that the use of the vehicle is not by the owner himself for his own purpose, but is given to another for use for a limited period of that other, for a consideration. The Madras High Court held that there is no qualitative difference between lease of the vehicle for a specified period for consideration and letting the vehicle on hire for short duration on payment of hire charges. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal holding that that it was leasing out its vehicles as a part of its business and allowed the higher rate of depreciation, of 40%. In the circumstances, we find no question of law let alone a substantial question of law falling for consideration in this appeal preferred by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1221 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted principle that eventhough strictly speaking in Income Tax proceedings, the principle of res judicata does not apply, the principle of consistency is required to be followed. Furthermore, the assessee had explained the inventory and differentiation in the figures of stock with satisfactory reasons. 6.1 The findings and conclusion recorded by the Tribunal are proper. It rightly treated justifiability or otherwise of the reopening of assessment to be academic as the addition itself was deleted. Even viewing the legality of action of reopening by the assessing Officer, he acted on same facts and material which was before him and had also raised query on the issue in course of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, he was not justified in assuming the power to reopen the concluded assessment. 7. For the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the appeal is devoid of merits. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1220 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the petition as to the non availability of the documents at the time when the applications were argued before the learned Single Judge. The reasons given by the second respondent for producing the documents at a belated stage are not acceptable and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the second respondent on this aspect are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The applications are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. However, dismissal of the above petitions shall not preclude the second respondent from producing the documents in the suit subject to the proof and relevancy of the same. 62. In these circumstances, we confirm the common order passed in O.A.Nos.977 and 978 of 2009 in C.S.No.832 of 2009 and both the appeals stand dismissed. M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2012 are also dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petitions i.e. M.P.Nos.1, 1 and 2 of 2010 are closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cial Purpose Vehicle and the drawing up and implementation of the Comprehensive Environment Plans for Mining Impact Zone is perhaps the most essential part in the process of reclamation and rehabilitation of the area devastated by illegal mining. In order to pass suitable directions in that regard, we need further inputs. We, accordingly, direct the CEC to submit a detailed report in regard to the larger reclamation and rehabilitation programme to be undertaken by the SPV, the phased manner in which the programme is aimed to be implemented and the total period over which the programme would be fully implemented, its estimated cost, both on the phased and the overall basis, and the sources from which the money required for implementation of the programme should come. The Report may be filed by October 10, 2012. The CEC is at liberty to forward the representation dated January 15, 2012 received by it from M/s. Laxmi Narayan Mining Company to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1218 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... devoid of legally sustainable basis. Once Assessing Officer does not challenge genuineness of a transaction, it cannot be open to him to alter the date of purchases, as claimed by the assessee, and once this date remains unchallenged, there is no basis for hearing the capital gains as a short-term capital gain. There is not even a whisper of an allegation about genuineness of the transaction even though it is a case of, what is commonly known as, penny stock and the value of the shares has gone up almost 40 times within one year. On these facts, the Assessing Officer does not question or probe genuineness of transaction and yet claims that these gains should be treated as short-term capital gains. We leave it at that. 5. For the reasons set out above, we approve the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(Appeals) and decline to interfere in the matter. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court today on 14th Sept., 2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1217 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal and cross-objection was filed by the applicant. The Tribunal by the order dated 30-5-2003 has allowed the Department’s appeal and has held that the applicant is not entitled to Modvat credit. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely perused the record of the case as well as the order dated 30-5-2003 passed by the Tribunal. In our considered opinion following question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal - “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the capital goods in question were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted final products so as to attract the mischief of Rule 57R of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?” 5. Accordingly, we allow the application filed under Section 35H(1) of the Act and direct the Tribunal to refer the aforesaid question to this Court in terms of Section 35H of the Act. 6. The MCC is accordingly disposed of.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1216 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ietor of the trademark 'EXIDE' and the defendant No. 1 cannot infringe the trademark of the plaintiff and sell its goods or have a trade name with having the trademark 'EXIDE' of the plaintiff or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. Plaintiff is also the prior user of the trademark in India and, therefore, owner of the trademark 'EXIDE' in India inasmuch as defendant No. 1 has failed to plead and prove existence of special circumstances. The selling of goods by the defendant No. 1 under the trademark 'EXIDE' and also the proposed sale thereof by use of the trademark 'EXIDE' is illegal, and therefore, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are injuncted from in any manner selling their goods or having their trade name with the trademark 'EXIDE' of the plaintiff or any other name/mark deceptively similar thereto. The suit and counter-claim are accordingly disposed of. Decree sheet be prepared. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... AO to decide the same afresh in the light of our observations hereinabove and according to law including the recent decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in Asian Star Co.Ltd. (supra) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s J.V. Electronics Pvt.Ltd.(2011)16 taxmann.com 319(Del) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly al lowed for statistical purposes.” 25. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for an earlier assessment year, and following the precedence, this ground is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer and direct him to decide the same in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal as aforesaid an accordingly, this ground is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th September 2012
-
2012 (9) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er of Income Tax vs. Bhari Information Tech. Sys. P. Ltd., reported in 2012 340 I.T.R. 593. No order as to costs. S.L.P. (C) No.24659/2011, S.L.P. (C) No.28760/2011 and S.L.P. (C) No.28762/2011 In view of the afore-stated order passed by us today in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.22881 of 2011, these special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1213 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Determination of Territorial jurisdiction of magistrate - Dishonor of cheque - discharge of legally enforceable debt or blank cheque issued for the purpose of security - rebuttal of presumption - accused is guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act or not? - Application u/s 482 CrPC for Quashing complaint - plea of the petitioner is that the entire business transaction including the taking of the loan and deposit of security cheques took place in Kolkata, respondent cannot create jurisdiction of the Gurgaon Court simply because depositing the cheque (for encashment) at a place, other than the place of its issuance.
Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- keeping in view of principle of law laid down in K. Bhaskaran's case [1999 (9) TMI 941 - SUPREME COURT], it is held that complaint is maintainable within the territorial jurisdiction of Gurgaon as the complainant company (respondent herein) has its corporate office at Gurgaon and the collecting bank with regard to the cheque in question is situated at Gurgaon. The criminal courts at Gurgaon have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.
Regarding Security Cheque - There can be no doubt regarding the fact that the security cheque is an integral part of the commercial process entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent/Complainant. The security cheque is not only a deterrent for the drawer against dishonoring his financial commitment but can also be legally and validly utilized towards the discharging of the liability of the Drawer.
In the considered opinion of the Court, a security cheque is an acknowledgment of liability on the part of the drawer that the cheque holder may use the security cheque as an alternate mode of discharging his/its liability. Thus, the argument of the ld counsel for the petitioner that on dishonoring of a security cheque no offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out.
Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1211 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 02-03. The question of law sought to be urged by the Revenue relates to the determination of the quantum of income attributed to India in respect of the assessee; the question of law sought to be urged by the assessee pertains to its chargeability to tax on the ground that it carries on business activities in India. The Tribunal followed the previous order made by it in respect of the present assessee for the years 1995-96 to 1998-99. The appeals against that order were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25.02.2009 in ITA 1048/2008, 1049/2008, 1050/2008, 1051/2008, 1052/2008, 1053/2008, 1054/2008 and 1055/2008 and connected cases. It is not in dispute that appeals are pending by special leave before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 25.02.2009, in Special Leave Petition No.35621/2009 and 25628/2008. The factual matrix being the same and the questions of law also being identical this Court disposes of these appeals in terms of the said judgment dated 25.02.2009.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uct entitled to exemption. The only grievance of the Revenue herein is that the assessee had not discharged his burden. The said contention, we find is without any substance. The Tribunal applied the Commissioner's understanding as well as applied the decision reported in 19 STC 533 KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, to the case on hand. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, where the Revenue seeks a restoration of assessment, it must have followed the procedure. Raising a ground through written submission per se would not be a ground to accept the Revenue's plea for restoring the assessment on the levy of tax on gutkha. In any event, considering the decision of the Apex Court reported in 19 STC 533 KOTHARI PRODUCTS LIMITED v. GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH, holding that 'gutkha' is also a tobacco product, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. 5. Consequently, the above Tax Case (Revisions) are dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1209 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... mar, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. For the Respondent None ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1208 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he impugned orders of Assessment have not considered and analysed the petitioners objections and recorded reasons, the orders are perverse and liable to the quashed. Accordingly, while granting liberty to the first respondent to pass fresh orders of Assessment, duly considering the objections of the petitioners submitted in response to the show cause notices issued, the impugned orders of Assessment, both dated 23.04.2012 are quashed. Since the first respondent has passed wholly unreasoned and perverse orders of Assessment, we consider it appropriate to allow the writ petitions with costs of ₹ 1,000/- in each writ petition to be paid by the first respondent by way of a deposit to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of this order shall also be marked to the Secretary, A.P. State Legal Services Authority for information. The writ petitions are allowed as above with costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1207 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... rror in treating the amount as trading receipts. The amount was disbursed to the assessee in pursuance to the Government order dated 29.6.1999. The undisbursed amount has been adjusted by the Government towards payment of Students Concession subsidy to be paid to the assessee in accordance with the Government instructions vide G.O.Ms No.44 dated 24.3.2009. The assessee has been appropriating the amount as per the directions of the State Government. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that by no stretch of imagination the undisbursed amount of ₹ 7.29 crores received by the assessee in the year 1999 towards the terminal benefits of the employees can be treated as trading receipts in subsequent assessment years. 7. We, therefore, for the reasons recorded above, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 25th day of September, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that context, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that by making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. 13. If we apply the above decision as well as the decisions discussed hereinabove to the facts of the case before us, we are of the considered view that the levy of penalty in the case of the assessee is not justified merely because the claim of the assessee has been rejected by the department. We are of the considered view that the assessee has stated all the details of the loss claimed and the assessee has made only an incorrect claim bonafide and this cannot tantamount to furnishing any particulars of income by the assessee. Therefore, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. Accordingly, we cancel the levy of penalty by allowing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 14. the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. In Order pronounced in the open court on 28th Sept., 2012 .
........
|
