|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1806 Records
-
2013 (11) TMI 1772
... ...
... ... ..... consideration paid to the assessee. The copy of the assessment order dated 04.05.2007 (supra) in the case of M/s Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd. for assessment year 2000-01 does indicate a difference in the amount assessed as unexplained cost/expenditure and the unaccounted consideration that has been assessed in the hands of the assessee before us. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set-aside this aspect back to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall re-compute the income from sale of Matunga Property in conformity with the amount of sale consideration considered in the hands of the buyer i.e. M/s. Motta Construction Pvt. Ltd.. Needless to say, while carrying out the aforesaid exercise, the Assessing Officer shall allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and only thereafter he shall re-determine the total income as per law. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1771
... ...
... ... ..... quo;deemed dividend’. The decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hilltop Hotels 217 CTR (Raj) 527 is also in favour of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld CIT (A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed.” 8. The facts of the case are that the assessee is a shareholder of the lender companies. As explained by the said Special Bench decision, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are applicable to the shareholders only and not to the beneficial shareholder like the present assesse. As such, Revenue has not demonstrated how the said Special Bench decision is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, considering the above settled legal position of the issue, we are of the opinion that we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) and confirm the same. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1770
... ...
... ... ..... th Tax was ever filed. No details of any bank account or cash balance with Snehalben S Shah was filed to substantiate the claim of cash received from the mother of appellant's wife. This cash was not utilized for the last 4-5 years, also cannot be accepted. The date of operation of bank locker was also not furnished. In the absence of any kind of corroborative evidence to prove that cash found from locker was received at the time of the death of the mother of appellant's wife, the explanation and the claim of the appellant that cash was received by his wife at the time of death of her mother and kept idle in bank locker for 3 to 5 years, cannot be accepted. So the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1.95 lacs on account of unexplained cash found is confirmed and the Ground of Appeal is dismissed.” 11. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1769
... ...
... ... ..... ith gold business, it is hard to believe that he was keeping .65 Lakhs idle with him for a period of more than nine months, that too, to start business for his brother in gold as explained in the letter. First letter immediately addressed after seizure of the gold becomes very relevant. If he was dealing in the gold business he would have declared so in the said letter. But his explanation regarding the bank account was that he acted only as an agent for transferring funds from Mumbai to Kerala through his bank accounts. 9. In the light of the above stand of the assessee at the earliest point of time there is clear indication that the amount reflected in the bank accounts pertain to the transactions shown in the bank accounts having no connectivity with the cash shown in the hands of the assessee. In these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. All the questions are answered against the appellant assessee. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1768
... ...
... ... ..... 7 Therefore, in view of the above the penalty levied by the AO in respect of the disallowance out of claim for deduction u/s. 80IA amounting to ₹ 34,63,530/- cannot be sustained. In view of this, the levy of penalty on such amount is hereby deleted..” 10. Having heard the submission of both the sides and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that this is a case where a disallowance was made by the AO on the basis of the material facts already on record and the said disallowance has become a subject of controversy. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. We find no force in this ground of the Revenue; hence, the same is hereby rejected. 11. In the result, quantum of appeals for A.Y. 2002-03 filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed that too for statistical purpose, however, the penalty appeal for A.Y. 2002-03 filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1767
... ...
... ... ..... d by the Ministry observing that it is binding on the officers of the department particularly the recommendations made by CVC. 41. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh and Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997, this Court held that the order must be passed by the authority after due application of mind uninfluenced by and without surrendering to the dictates of an extraneous body or an authority. 42. Considering the case in totality, we are of the view that the Appellants have acted in contravention of the final order passed by the Tribunal dated 1.6.2012 and therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellants for passing the order dated 31.7.2012 or any subsequent order. The orders passed by the Appellants had been in contravention of not only of the order of the court but also to the office memorandum and statutory rules. In view thereof, we do not find any force in this appeal. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1766
... ...
... ... ..... uestions of law did arise for consideration in assessee’s appeal for the period anterior to these appeals. Subsequently, in a batch of appeals, this Court had an occasion to consider all the substantial questions of law, which are framed in this case and all the substantial questions of law have been answered relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and various other High Courts. Though these questions did arise for consideration on the date the appeals were admitted as on today all those questions of law are already answered and therefore, over and again answering the said questions does not arise. 3. In that view of the matter, these appeals are disposed of, adopting the finding recorded in the assessee’s appeals in other connected appeals where all these substantial questions of law have been answered in favour of the assessee’s sister concern and against the Revenue. We do not see anysubstance in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1765
... ...
... ... ..... which are found to have been maintained on day-to-day basis and the same are audited by the Chartered Accountants and the return is supported tax audit report under section 44A(2)(b) and when the AO neither detected any defect nor discrepancies in the accounts of the assessee when the learned CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have deleted the aforesaid disallowance of ₹ 4,22,95,871/- and when the learned ITAT has directed to compute the income at 7.5% on gross receipt, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court. We are of the opinion that the reasoning given by the learned CIT(A) as well as the ITAT. It cannot be disputed that the estimation of proper rate is permissible and is, accordingly, done by the learned ITAT. As such no question of law much less substantial question of law arise in the present appeals. 7. In view of the above, both these tax appeals deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1764
Seeking grant of regular bail - offences punishable u/s 9A, 25A and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS' Act) - recovered and seized 100 kgs of Pseudoephedrine - controlled substance as defined u/s 2(vii) (d) of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- It was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the present case since as per the prosecution 100 kgs of Pseudoephedrine was recovered which is a controlled substance. Pseudoephedrine is not a narcotics drug as envisaged under Section 2 (vii) (a) of the Act.
Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 15th December, 2011, he is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court. Petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Trial Court and shall not leave the country without the permission of the concerned Trial Court. He is further directed to furnish his current address to DRI and in case of any change in address, DRI be informed immediately.
The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1763
... ...
... ... ..... best be said to be tentative or expected amount. This can not be treated as a conclusive proof. It is also not the case that on money transaction is proved on the basis of the registered sale deed. It is also not the case that circle rate or the value of the stamp duty of the impugned property is more than what has been disclosed. It is also not the case of that unaccounted cash have been found and to be paid by the assessee and received by the seller. In these circumstances, ratio from the Hon’ble Apex Court from the decision of the KP Varghese vs. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) and also from the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. PV Kalyansundaram in 294 ITR 49 (SC) are applicable. Accordingly, respectfully following the precedents as above, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 29/11/2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1762
... ...
... ... ..... roposition. 5.1 As per the recent Tribunal order rendered in the case of Satsang Developers (supra), this issue was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by following the Tribunal decisions Sl.No(s) Decision in the case of.... Reported in.... 1. DCIT vs. SMR Builders (P.)Ltd. (2012)24 Taxman.com 194 (Hyd.) 2. M/s.Vardhman Builders and Developers vs. ITO ITA No.559/Ind/2010 dated 09/05/2012 3. Raghava Estates Vs. Dy.CIT ITA Nos.248 & 49/Vizag/2009 dated 04/08/2011 5.2. Before us in the present two appeals also, reliance was placed on these tribunal decisions only. Respectfully following the Tribunal decision in the case of Satsang Developers (supra) and other Tribunal decisions which were followed by the Tribunal in that case and cited before us also, we decide the issue in the present two appeals also in favour of the assessee. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned on caption page.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1761
... ...
... ... ..... ancy rights. The Assessing Officer has given a categorical finding about the quantum of qualifying investment of ₹ 1,96,03,685. In view of these discussions, we are of the considered view that the assessee did not have any taxable capital gain in respect of receipt of ₹ 1,59,50,000 on account of surrender of tenancy rights. The relief granted by the CIT(A), therefore, deserves to be upheld.” 5. We find from the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Tejinder Singh (supra) that the issue is squarely covered and revenue has not denied that this is not surrender of leasehold rights. Once this is a fact that consideration received is on account of surrender of leasehold rights the property cannot be subject matter of section 50C of the Act as discussed in the Coordinate bench decision. Respectfully following the same we allow the appeal of assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2013
-
2013 (11) TMI 1760
... ...
... ... ..... ecessary parties, it is open to the petitioner and first respondent/bank to approach the Tribunal and place all relevant material records for passing appropriate final orders in accordance with law. As and when appropriate counter statement is filed by the petitioner and the sixth respondent in the Original Application and the Interlocutory Application, the Tribunal is directed to take up the matter expeditiously and dispose of the same preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such counter statement. 11. It is always open to the first respondent/bank to seek modification of the garnishee order as against the sixth respondent based on their claim in the Original Application and the subsequent liability that may arise consequent to enforcement of bank guarantees, if any, and in such event, the defendants in the original application will be entitled to make their objections on merits. This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1759
... ...
... ... ..... ondent(s) Mr.R.P.Bhatt, Ms.Sadhna Sandhu, Mrs.Gargi Khanna, Mrs Anil Katiyar, ORDER Leave granted.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1758
... ...
... ... ..... indal Global University (supra) held that at the time of granting approval for exemption u/s 80G, object of the trust is required to be examined and application of funds can be examined by Assessing Officer at the time of framing assessment. The only reason given by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order for rejecting the application of the assessee-trust u/s 80G(5) is that the assessee-trust has failed in making expenditure to the extent of 85% of its income. Keeping in view the ratio of judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. O.P. Jindal Global University (supra), the recognition u/s 80G(5) cannot be refused on this ground. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of ld Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-I and direct him to grant the recognition u/s 80G(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to the assessee-trust. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. This order pronounced in open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1757
... ...
... ... ..... Global Logistics Limited vs. DCIT (2012) 137 ITD 217 (SB)(Mum.) has also held to the same extent. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no exception can be found to the view taken by CIT(Appeals) for deciding this issue in assessee’s favour. 6. Before parting with this matter, we want to make it clear that our decision is based in the backdrop of the facts that the deduct ion under sect ion 80IB could not have been tinkered with because no incriminating material was found during the course of search on this issue when original assessment granting deduct ion on this issue was completed under sect ion 143(3). We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case about the allowability or otherwise of deduct ion under section 80IB on interest income arising in the present facts and circumstances. 7. In the result, the appeal f i led by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14th day of November, 2013.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1756
... ...
... ... ..... has been passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all other concerned persons by assigning cogent reasons and the order communicated to the petitioners reflects that the procedural requirement of s. 127(2) stood satisfied. It is not the case of the petitioners that opportunity of hearing was not granted to them nor the reasons were communicated to them and, therefore, keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the reason "for effective and coordinated investigation" for transferring of assessment cases was neither vague or ground sufficient and, therefore, in the totality of the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the impugned order has rightly been passed by the respondents in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 127 of the IT Act, 1961 and no case for interference is made out and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1755
... ...
... ... ..... t expressing any opinion on the question whether appeal would be maintainable. If any appeal or application for condonation of delay is filed, the same will be dealt with and decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law and we express no opinion on that. The interim order granted on 7th May, 2013 shall continue for a period of one week. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1754
Validity of Sanction order passed by competent authority at stage of inquiry or at pretrial stage for Prosecution - CBI manual - Disproportionate assets by Finance officials - Money laundering - The Appellant, CBI registered a preliminary enquiry against the Respondent for disproportionate assets. After conclusion of the preliminary enquiry, a regular case was registered. During the course of investigation, it came to light that disproportionate assets was 7615.45 times of his known sources of income. It further surfaced that the Respondent was involved in money laundering; and for channelising his ill-gotten wealth, had established a number of companies wherein his family members were the founding Directors. The Central Vigilance Commission after examining the said case advised the Ministry of Finance to grant sanction for prosecution. Hence, the sanction order was issued under the seal and signature of the Under Secretary (V and L), Ministry of Finance.
HELD THAT:- The stage of examining the validity of sanction is during the trial and court do not propose to say that the validity should be examined during the stage of inquiry or at pretrial stage. It is to be kept in mind that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Therefore, it is not an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to the government servant against frivolous prosecution. Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent, though not a shield for the guilty. If the sanction order on its face indicates that all relevant material i.e. FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and other materials on record were placed before the sanctioning authority and if it is further discernible from the recital of the sanction order that the sanctioning authority perused all the material, an inference may be drawn that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law.
-
2013 (11) TMI 1753
... ...
... ... ..... rshad Ahmad, Mr. Gagan Gupta, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Manju Jetley. ORDER We are convinced that the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by this Court has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. In such circumstances, we direct that the Sahara Group of Companies shall not part with any movable and immovable properties until further orders. We further direct that all the alleged contemnors shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court. List on 11.12.2013 at 2.00 P.M., for further arguments.
........
|
