|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 999
... ...
... ... ..... twenty years for all purposes; nor does the amended section which substitutes the words ‘imprisonment for life’ for ‘transportation for life’ enable the drawing of any such all-embracing fiction. A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life.” 11. The said principle was followed subsequently in Mohd. Munna Vs. Union of India and Ors. - (2005) 7 SCC 417. Applying the above decisions, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant deserves to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life meaning thereby the end of his life subject, however, to remission granted by the appropriate Government satisfying the conditions prescribed in Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further substantiate check under Section 433A of the Code by passing appropriate speaking orders.
-
2013 (1) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... llow set off of carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation against the incomes of AYS 2005-06 and 2006-07 have been remitted back to the file of the AO for a fresh look (supra), we are of the considered view that the issues raised by the assessee in respect of re-opening of the assessment by the AO and also objecting to the invoking of the provisions of s. 154 of the Act to be remanded back on the file of the AO with a direction to address to the grievances of the assessee and to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act after affording an opportunity to the assessee to put-forth its views on these issues. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result (i) the revenue’s appeals for the A.Ys 2005-06 and 2006-07 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes; & (ii) the assessee’s appeals for the AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced on the 28th day of January, 2013 at Bangalore.
-
2013 (1) TMI 997
... ...
... ... ..... sessed as capital gain. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern Citicorp Banking Corporation, Bahrain ( supra ) we hold that gains arising from early settlement of forward foreign exchange contract has to be treated as capital gain. We accordingly set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and allow the appeals filed by the assessee.” Since no contrary decision has been brought to our notice, we respectfully follow the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, and hold that the income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee are treated as partly allowed. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... ervisor is concerned the Assessing Officer will verify the particulars of payments and if it is the part of salary paid to the Supervisor the same will be subject to deduction only u/s.192. The same can be verified and the addition deleted if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct. 14. As regards site engineering charges the assessee had submitted that the site payments were not made to any outsiders for rendering the work and the charges were incurred by the assessee in the process of verification of the site. The purpose of this expenditure will also be verified by the Assessing Officer to decide whether tax has to be deducted at source or not. 15. With the above direction the issue of disallowance of expenditure on account of non deduction of tax at source of ₹ 37,92,350/- is remitted back to the files of Assessing Officer. 16. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 04/01/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 995
... ...
... ... ..... ervisor is concerned the Assessing Officer will verify the particulars of payments and if it is the part of salary paid to the Supervisor the same will be subject to deduction only u/s.192. The same can be verified and the addition deleted if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct. 14. As regards site engineering charges the assessee had submitted that the site payments were not made to any outsiders for rendering the work and the charges were incurred by the assessee in the process of verification of the site. The purpose of this expenditure will also be verified by the Assessing Officer to decide whether tax has to be deducted at source or not. 15. With the above direction the issue of disallowance of expenditure on account of non deduction of tax at source of ₹ 37,92,350/- is remitted back to the files of Assessing Officer. 16. In the result, the appeal of the department is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 04/01/2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 994
... ...
... ... ..... stock statement prepared during the course of survey was finally provided by the AO to him only in the month of February, 2008 and immediately thereafter the accounts for the year consideration were got audited in the month of March, 2008 and the physical copy of audit report was submitted on 15-04-2008. In our opinion, these assertions made by the assessee on oath in the affidavit are sufficient to show that there was a delay in getting the copy of stock statement prepared during the course of survey from the Department and this delay constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee in getting the accounts audited in time and furnishing the report of such audit within the period prescribed u/s 44AB. In that view of the matter, we cancel the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) u/s 271B and allow this appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 993
... ...
... ... ..... P No.67/2013 Securitisation Act specifically says that no act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall be called in question in any Court or before any authority. Securitisation Act does not provide for appeal or revision as against an order made under section 14 of the Securitisation Act. Hence, the aggrieved party can approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC, which is identical to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I answer the points for consideration. 9. In the result, I pass the following order. Revision Petition is rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioner to take such course of remedy available in law. Since Revision Petition itself is rejected as not maintainable, I.A-I/2013 for stay does not survive for Crl.RP No.67/2013 consideration for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed off. Registry is directed to return the necessary papers to the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
-
2013 (1) TMI 991
... ...
... ... ..... ot; Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Balbir Singh v. CIT 2011 334 ITR 287/196 Taxman 339/ 2010 8 taxmann.com 202 held that when the assessee could not prove gift, the assessment under s. 68 is valid. 8.1 Considering the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee failed to prove her relation with the donor and his creditworthiness. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More (supra) and in the case of Smt Sumati Dayal v. CIT 1995 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC) held that "the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidences before them by applying the test of human probabilities after considering the surrounding circumstances". If the said test is applied in this matter, it is clearly established that the assessee has failed to prove genuine gift in the matter. We, accordingly, do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... assessee could not be denied by the Revenue. We being in agreement with the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Ahmedabad in American steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the purchase of goods being from same party, “RRR”, wherein the addition of 20% of the purchase amount was directed to be made as income in the hands of the assessee, we hold that ends of justice shall be met, if the addition on account of purchase made from “RRP” is sustained to the extent of 20% of the total purchases made from “RRP” as income in the hands of the assessee and the appeal of the assessee for both the assessment years before us are partly allowed and the grounds of the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are partly allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (1) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... hich has been filed on 04.03.2011. The ITAT in assessee’s own case in ITA Nos.-2130/Del/2009 and 2131/Del/2009 has observed that the assessee is in process to take suitable steps in the matter with the CBDT for condonation of the delay and matter was restored to Assessing Officer to re-examine and decide afresh. Now, the assessee has already filed the application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Income-tax Act on 04.03.2011. In the interest of justice and equity, we are inclined to agree with the prayer of the learned AR to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh.” 7. The facts and circumstances of the present case are same as in earlier year. Therefore, following the above Tribunal’s order, we deem it fit to remit the case to the office of AO for fresh adjudication. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... this sum from the company, M/s Medimark Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee was a Director, as loan during the year. We find that on the above facts, the CIT(A)’s order has been passed after following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Baroda Tin Works(supra) and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai, ‘E' Bench, in the case of Sunilchandra Vohra vs ACIT, in I.T.A.No. 4963/Mumbai/2006. The CIT/DR could not point out as to why the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Tribunal are not applicable in the instant case. No specific error in the order of the CIT(A) could be pointed out by the CIT/DR. We, therefore, do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 987
... ...
... ... ..... ered the rival submissions and are of the view that simply because the assessee was a working partner in M/s Anand Transport Company, it cannot be held that income earned by partnership firm M/s Anand Transport Company belonged to the assessee. No other material or evidence has been brought on record by the Assessing Officer for treating the income earned by firm as income of assessee in his individual capacity. Without bringing sufficient evidence on record, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. As the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition on substantive basis in the hands of partnership firm M/s Anand Transport Company, we, therefore, confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) and accordingly dismiss this common ground of appeal for all the assessment years involved. 48. Finally, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove whereas appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. This order was pronounced on 31.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 986
... ...
... ... ..... he orders and heard the submissions. The Tribunal had, for assessment year 2006-07, confirmed the view taken by the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the payments effected by the assessee to M/s Abaqus Inc., were not royalty. Finding of the Tribunal was that what was acquired by the assessee was only a right of use a copyrighted software and not copyright in a software. In the assessment order itself, the A.O. has mentioned that the disallowance was being made despite Tribunal’s ruling in favour of the assessee for keeping alive the issue. However, learned D.R. was unable to show any order of any higher authorities which would make the Tribunal order for assessment year 2006-07 inoperative. We, therefore, find no error in the order of CIT(Appeals) applying the Tribunal order for assessment year 2006-07 and ruling in favour of assessee. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Tuesday, the 22nd of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 985
... ...
... ... ..... e., section 234D came into operation on and from June 1, 2003, which is well prior to the completion of the regular assessment, certainly, the assessee is liable to pay interest on the excess refund amount received and enjoyed by him all these years as contemplated under section 234D of the Act.”. 10. From the above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court it is very clear that sec. 234D is applicable from the date it came into the statute book, i.e. from 01-06-2003 and therefore the assessee is liable to pay the interest from the date on which the amended provision of law came into operation. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court we reverse the finding of the CIT(Appeals) and allow the ground raised by the Revenue. 11. In the result, the Revenue’s appeals in ITA Nos. 992, 994 and 995/Mds/2012 are dismissed and the appeal in ITA No. 993/Mds/2012 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 31st of January, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 984
... ...
... ... ..... he case of CIT v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. ignoring the fact that the said decision has not been accepted by the department and SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the facts and in law?”. 2 Counsel for the parties state that the above question of law stands answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of IncomeTax v/s. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. reported in 330 ITR 175. Thus, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. 3 In view of the above, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 983
... ...
... ... ..... t and that the addition is made by following the stand of the revenue in the earlier years to keep the issue alive. The first appellate authority applied the decision of the tribunal and deleted the addition. We see no infirmity in the same. In fact, ground 1B of the revenue appeals states that the ground is taken because the department has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, we respectfully apply the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for earlier years and dismiss the ground taken by the revenue. In view of the same, ground of appeal No.1 is rejected.” 5. As no distinguishing facts have been brought on record by the Ld. Departmental Representative, we have no hesitation in following the decision of the Tribunal (supra). Accordingly, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.1.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 982
... ...
... ... ..... y the CIT(A) as unexplained deposits and rejected the assessee’s ground. ITA No.1303/Mds./12 10. In this appeal as well, the assessee is one of the Directors/shareholder of M/s.Shree Velu Builders Private Ltd. Referring to the grounds raised in the appeal, both learned representatives are in unison that our findings in ITA No.1300/Mds./12 also cover the instant case as well. After having considered the above submissions in detail, we find this appeal also involve question of applicability of Sec.2(22)(e) which we have decided in favour of the assessee in ITA No.1300/Mds./12 herein above. In the light thereof, we accept this appeal in part and delete the addition under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 11. To sum up, all appeals filed by assessee ITA Nos.1300/Mds/12, 1301/Mds./12, 1302/Mds/12 & 1303/Mds./12 are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals ITA Nos.1335/Mds/12 & 1337/Mds/12 are dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 29th January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 981
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Delay condoned. Appeals admitted
-
2013 (1) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... RATH, J. For orders see ITA No. 50 of 2012, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana v. M/s Vardhman Holdings Ltd, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana.
-
2013 (1) TMI 979
... ...
... ... ..... stries Limited & Ors. (2008) 13 SCC 678, the Supreme Court held that High Court can take into consideration the documents of unimpeachable character for the purpose to find out as to whether continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court. 20. In the instant case, the notice dated 27.04.2012, which is admitted by the Respondent and which has been held by me to be a legal notice under Section 138 of the N.I.Act would clearly show that the complaint was barred under Section 142(b) of the N.I.Act, as the same was not filed within a period of one month after the expiry of 15 days of receipt of the notice dated 27.04.2012. 21. In the circumstances, the continuance of proceedings in the complaint case against the Petitioner would be an abuse of process of Court. The complaint dated 05.07.2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012 passed therein are quashed. 22. The Petition is allowed in above terms. 23. Pending Applications stands disposed of.
........
|
