|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 1059 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... eated such share transactions and income therefrom under the heads Short Term Capital Gains and Long Term Capital Gains under scrutiny proceedings passed under section 143(3). Thus, under these facts and circumstances of the case wherein income arising out of similar pattern of transactions of shares has been held to be income chargeable to tax under the head Capital Gains and not under the head Business Income . We also, consistent with the view taken in the earlier years and subsequent years, hold that income from transactions of sale of shares in case of the assessee is to be taxed under the heads Long Term Capital Gains and Short Term Capital Gains , as declared by the assessee and not as Business Income as held by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) are affirmed. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. 10. In the result, Revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 1058 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arised with regard to transfer of title in respect of the property forming part of the compensation pool put to public auction under Rule 90 of the 1955 Rules in the earlier part of the judgment does not help the Appellant at all because of completion of acquisition proceedings in 1962 much before the payment of full purchase price by the Appellant. In the absence of any title in favour of the Appellant or her husband on the date of acquisition, the challenge to such acquisition could not have been allowed by the Single Judge. The Division Bench rightly set aside the erroneous order of the Single Judge. 48. In view of the above, appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with no order as to costs. 49. It is, however, clarified that Appellant's claim for compensation, refund or any other monetary claim shall be considered and/or decided on its own merits in accordance with law and the present judgment shall have no bearing in relation to such claim.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n should be made 125% instead of 100%. 49. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as per the provisions of law, assessee was entitled to claim of deduction of 125% instead of 100% and, therefore, the same should be allowed. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to examine this issue and allow the claim in accordance with provisions of law. Accordingly, ground No. 7 i.e. additional ground is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. 50. Ground No. 8 (as an additional ground) relates to deduction u/s. 37(1) towards detailed feasibility study expense. This issue has been discussed in detail in assessee s appeal in A.Y. 2001-02 while dealing the similar additional ground. Since facts are similar, therefore, the finding given therein applies mutatis mutandis here also. Thus additional ground is rejected as un-admitted. 51. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat the commission of the offence was preconcerted. 17. The High Court, therefore, committed no error in holding the Appellants guilty especially when the statement of PW-1 Alapati Seshadri who was also injured in the incident was found to be credible. The depositions of PW-1 Alapati Seshadri, PW-2 Sonti Srinivasa Rao S/o Nageswara Rao, PW-3 Sonti Koteswara Rao, PW-4 Sonti Srinivasa Rao S/o Veeraiah, PW-6 M.V. Gopala Krishna Murthy all supported the prosecution version that the deceased was assaulted by the Appellants resulting in grievous injuries to him that culminated in his death. The trial Court had obviously fallen in error in rejecting the testimony of these witnesses on minor contradictions which was not sufficient to shatter their credibility. The acquittal recorded by the trial Court was not thus a reasonably possible view in the matter which the High Court was entitled to reverse while hearing the appeal. 18. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1055 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been liable but not any other, except the contingencies mentioned under Section 141 of the Act (See. Smt Bandeep Kaur v. S. Avneet Singh, (2008)2 PLR 796) 13. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that no case has been made out in the said complaint case filed by the respondent no.1 against the petitioner who is merely a joint account holder in the bank with her husband and she cannot be held liable for the cheque in question which remained unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the said count. 14. The present petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the complaint case no. 150/09 filed by the respondent no.1 qua the petitioner is quashed . This order, however, will not affect the trial of the said complaint case as against the respondent no.2. 15. With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. It is ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1054 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ties, perused the records and considered the rival contentions carefully. The dispute is regarding disallowance of interest proportionate to investments generating tax free income. We find that the same issue has already been considered by the Tribunal in assessee s own case in assessment year 1999-00 in which the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had given a finding that the assessee had own funds to make investments and accordingly held that no disallowance of interest was required. Facts this year are identical. No distinguishing feature has been brought to our notice by the ld. DR. CIT(A) has allowed the claim following the decision in assessment year 1999-00 which has been upheld by the Tribunal. Therefore respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in assessment year 1999-2000 (supra) we confirm the order of CIT(A). 21. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1053 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... efined in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1) (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and under Article 12 of the double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Germany (DTAA)? b) Whether the Tribunal's decision should be vacated in view of the specific Explanation 4 to section 9(1)(vi) as amended by Finance Act, 2012 clarifying the definition of royalty in case of rights in relation to software with retrospective effect from 1st June, 1976?
-
2013 (1) TMI 1052 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... isfied, that all the steps delineated by this Court in Rajiv Thapar's case (supra) stand-satisfied. All the steps can only be answered in the affirmative. We therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding, that judicial conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material available before it, while passing the impugned order, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused-Appellant, in exercise of the inherent powers vested with it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, based on the conclusions drawn hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the first information report registered under Sections 328, 354 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant-accused, and the consequential chargesheet dated 28.6.2007, as also the framing of charges by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 1.12.2008, deserves to be quashed. The same are accordingly quashed. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms
-
2013 (1) TMI 1051 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... No.13288 of 2012, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1050 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e purpose of filing this petition is achieved and, therefore, the petition is disposed of. However, in case there is no progress in the investigation by the C.B.I. in reasonable time, the petitioner will be free to approach this Court but should not hurriedly approach this Court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1049 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom the stage of negotiation. That being the position, the decision in Hridya Rajan Pd. Verma and Ors. (supra) which is commended to us by Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel, to which we have adverted to earlier, does not really assist the Respondents and we say so after making the factual analysis in detail. 32. In view of our aforesaid analysis we allow the appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. However, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case one way or the other and our observations must be construed as limited to the order taking cognizance and nothing more than that. The learned Magistrate shall decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of our observations as the same have been made only for the purpose of holding that the order of cognizance is prima facie valid and did not warrant interference by the High Court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1048 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and compensation amount received by the assessee ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the profit of the sale of TDR and cash compensation are chargeable to tax in AY 2003-2004 on substantive basis and not in a year under consideration on approval basis ?” 2. It is not disputed that the respondent has been assessed to tax for the assessment year 2003-2004. In view of the above, advocates on both sides state that the issue arising in all these appeals stands covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Chembur Trading Corporation in Income Tax Appeal No. 3179 of 2009 dated 14th September 2011. Consequently, no occasion to sustain the additions in the assessment years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 can arise. 3. Consequently, questions of law as proposed are not being entertained. Accordingly, all the three appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1047 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... ing his mind on it. If the AO did not make any enquiry on any of the pertinent issue, it will result in lack of application of mind. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd (supra) that the assessment order passed without application of mind will be rendered erroneous. In the instant case, the AO, apparently, did not discuss about the issue pointed out by the Ld. CIT. Further, the issue pointed out by Ld. CIT would have implication on the tax computation, in which case the impugned assessment orders passed by the assessing officer are also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the revision order passed by Ld. CIT. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee in ITA No.303/Coch/11 is treated as allowed and the other appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 22-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1046 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... a, Adv., Ms. Pooam Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,Adv. ORDER Heard Dr. Rakesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. Special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1045 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Ld. CIT(A) for providing opportunity of hearing to assessee. 6. We have considered the submissions of both parties and perused the record of the case At page 2 of his order, Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out that on various dates of hearing either assessee or Shri Rakesh Sharma, CA filed adjournment application. A notice was sent on 13.07.2010 fixing the date of hearing on 30.07.2010. However, none appeared. In the affidavit of Shri Ashok Sharma and Shri Rakesh Kumar, it is averred that the adjournment request was not accepted. Before that as it may, we consider it in the interest of justice that in order to impart substantial justice to assessee, the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for providing one more opportunity to the assessee. We direct accordingly. The assessee is directed to cooperate in the proceedings before Ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1044 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ate the genuineness of the payment. Therefore, according to ld.DR on this basis the entire disallowance should have been confirmed by ld.CIT(A). We are not in agreement with this argument of the Revenue Department. We have discussed in detail the facts and circumstances of the case. If on one hand, the Revenue Department has not doubted the deduction of TDS at source and the tax collected under the ‘TDS head’ was acceptable to the Revenue Department, then there was no reason for disbelieving the genuineness of the payment on which admittedly the TDS was deducted by the assessee. As far as the applicability of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the same has also been duly considered by us in the light of the precedents cited supra. We therefore hold that the ground raised by the Revenue has no legal as well as factual force, therefore dismissed. 11. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed, whereas Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1043 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... ...
... ... ..... ed, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties.” The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. It is hoped that the appellant will take a careful note of the above observations and refrain from misusing the provisions of the RTI Act.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n that backdrop not possible to countenance a situation where addition of Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria as an accused to the case at hand would lead to an indefinite suspension of trial and eventual recall of 134 witnesses already examined against the applicant who has been in jail for over six years now. There is, therefore, no reason for a blanket stay against the progress of the trial before the courts below qua other accused persons. 19. In the totality of the above circumstances, therefore; we are inclined to modify our order dated 17th December, 2008 by which further proceedings before the trial Court were brought to a halt. We make it clear that while the trial against Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria the Petitioner in SLP No. 9184 of 2008 shall continue qua the said Petitioner, the trial court shall be free to proceed with the trial qua the other accused persons. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 20502 of 2008 and 24292 of 2011 are allowed in part and to the above extent.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1041 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ther, in a decision of CIT vs. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 2012 21 Taxman.com 159(Guj.), the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held that once the assessee has established that the money was taken by way of account payee cheques and the lenders are subject to income-tax, whose PAN have been disclosed and that their confirmations were produced, then the initial burden u/s.68 was discharged. The Hon’ble Court has opined that it was the duty of the AO to ascertain from the AO of those lenders, whether in their respective returns they have shown the amount of loan. The AO can decide to examine the lenders. If the AO is satisfied with the explanation, then there should not be any question to disbelieve the genuineness of the loan transaction and the AO had no authority to dispute the correctness of the loan transaction. Resultantly, we hereby reverse the findings of the authorities below and direct to delete the addition. 7. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1040 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n even after the transactions were brought on record is suspicious, even if that there was a complete silence about any such transaction in the complain, is ignored. 19. The conclusion of the magistrate that the defence of the accused was probable, is proper, legal and correct. 20. Even otherwise, it is well settled that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, this court ought not to interfere in the matter, even if two views of the evidence adduced before the trial court are possible and the trial court has taken one of them. It is impossible to hold that the view taken by the magistrate is not a 'possible view' of the matter. It is not that the magistrate has ignored relevant and admissible evidence, or has based his conclusion on inadmissible evidence. 21. Since the view taken by the magistrate is undoubtedly a possible view of the matter, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal has no merit. The same is dismissed.
........
|
