|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1741 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1686 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e case of Alpha garments vs. CCE, New Delhi 1996 (86) ELT 600 (Tri)). 3. As regards the verification of goods exported, learned advocate submits that they have placed on record entire evidence in the shape of stock register as also the other statutory records indicating that the goods manufactured by them even after de-bonding are exported by them. Such documents have not been examined and looked into by the lower authorities. For the said limited purpose, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents maintained by the appellant and to find out as to whether the goods as available on the date of de-bonding were exported by the appellant. If that be so, the appellant would be entitled to refund. The above exercise would be done by the original adjudicating authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in the open Court )
-
2013 (12) TMI 1685 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... received or accruing as a result of the transfer. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the assessing officer to refer the valuation to the DVO whether assessee objects the same before the stamp valuation authority or not. Therefore, we are of the opinion that both the assessing officer and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee’s request. Respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate benches, we are of the opinion that the assessing officer has to refer the issue to the DVO and then only he can adopt the valuation under the provisions of section 50C. For this purpose, we set aside the order of the AO and CIT on this issue and restore the computation of capital gain to the file of the AO with a direction to refer the issue to the valuation officer to consider the objections raised by the assessee and adopt the fair market value accordingly. 10. The appeal considered allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open Court on 06.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1684 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e Income-tax Officer to scrutinize the reasonableness of the expenditure with reference to the criteria mentioned in the section. The Income-tax Officer is expected to exercise his judgement in a reasonable and fair manner. It should be borne in mind that the provision is meant to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to relatives and associate concerns and should not be applied in a manner which will cause hardship in bona fide cases. The AO has not given any finding as to how these expenses are unreasonable and excessive and how this payment has resulted into evasion of tax. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) (P) Ltd.(supra), we direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus, grounds of assessee’s appeal are allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on the date mentioned herein above at caption page
-
2013 (12) TMI 1683 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... holders at the time the allotment was made 10. In the case before this Court, as noted earlier Mr. Davender Kumar Gupta & Mr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta always continued to hold more than 50 per cent shares in the petitioner-Company. Therefore, control of the Company never shifted from them to an outsider. In fact, they along with Smt. Anju Gupta, continued to hold more than 71 per cent shares in the Company and as on today both of them have 100 per cent shares in the petitioner-Company as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Company. Therefore, in the case before this Court, the respondent is not entitled to recover any unearned increase from the petitioner-Company. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner-Company within six (6) weeks from today subject to completion of all formalities, if any, in this regard. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1682 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. If the petitioner violates the building plan without leaving set backs, cellar etc., then certainly it would cause inconvenience to the neighbours. The proposed party is one of the neighbours. Therefore, to safeguard his interest, in view of the fact that he has got some semblance of right, though no relief is claimed against him, he would be necessary and proper party to come on record. That is why the trial Court rightly impleaded him as a party to the suit and I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.” 11 . In our view, the High Court was not at all justified to review the order dated 08.06.2011. 12. The impugned order dated 13.12.2011 is, accordingly, set aside. Appeals are allowed as above. No costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1681 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom all encumbrances. Thus, in case possession of the land has been taken, application for release of land from acquisition is not maintainable. Once the land is vested in the State free from encumbrances, it cannot be divested. (See LT. Governor of H.P. & Anr. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Satendra Prasad Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2517; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3581; and Smt. Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 2962). 14. In view of the above, we do not think it necessary to examine the other issues raised in the petitions particularly, the competence of the Hon'ble Minister to deal with the matter. 15. The petitions are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation as determined under the provisions of the Act 1894.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1680 - ITAT AHMADABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the addition made by the A.O. was purely on ad-hoc basis. The A.O. must give plausible reasons for making addition/disallowance but in that case, no cogent reasons were given by the A.O. to make such addition. The ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that under these heads, personal element of use are always found, therefore, it should be confirmed. At the outset, ld. A.R. supported the order of the CIT(A) and argued that expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes u/s.37 of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) was not right by accepting the assessee’s simple reply without any evidence that there is non-business purposes as assessee’s withdrawal is also very low for household purposes and income also has been shown less. Therefore, we reverse the order of the CIT(A) and allow the Revenue’s appeal. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 17.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1679 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... assessment year and therefore, would not affect the respective rights of the parties for the other assessment years. 6. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of Chat Computers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we respectfully follow the order of the Tribunal passed in that case and delete the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) on account of amount received on allotment of preference share u/s 68. Ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed. 7. Ground no.2 relating to the disallowance of assessee’s claim for business loss treating the same speculation loss and ground no.3 involving the issue of charging of interest u/s 234B are not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us. The same are accordingly dismissed as not pressed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20 /12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1678 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... come is concerned, the ITAT found that the assessee had produced the intikhab-Khatauni (document of title) before the AO, which was not considered by the AO. In the letter dated 23.11.2004 the assessee had stated before the AO that he owned agricultural land measuring 32 Bighas and he has shown the income derived from sale of sugarcane. The total yield of sugarcane in the area is about 50-60 per quintals per Bigha and with the sale consideration of sugarcane being ₹ 90-105/- per quintal (in the relevant year), the income of ₹ 1 lac from agriculture could be reasonably accepted as income from agriculture. 7. In our view the findings recorded by the CIT (A) and ITAT are findings of fact. They have considered the entries in the diary, and the extent of agricultural holdings for the agricultural income. These findings of fact and do not raise any substantial questions of law as framed in the memo of appeal for our consideration. 8. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1677 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... different companies as has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the revision itself and there is nothing on record which could establish that the transferee assessee having so permitted the use of trade mark has excluded itself from its use. In view of above, the 4th and 5th conditions as laid down by the Supreme Court do not stand fulfilled. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the permission to use the trade mark does not satisfy all the five tests as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of BSNL (Supra) to bring it within the ambit of transfer of rights to use the trade marks. Accordingly, the permission granted for the use of the trade mark would only be treated as licence and not as transfer of right to use the trade mark. It would not be covered by Section 3F of the Trade Tax Act. The tribunal as such has not erred in deleting the tax liability for the use of trade mark under Section 3F of the Trade Tax Act. The revisions have no force and are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1676 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 45A of the KGST Act - discrepancy in quantity recorded by the petitioner as transported in trucks - Held that:- In the present case, the petitioner have shown 1,000kgs in the delivery note, whereas he has actually transported 10,000kgs. As against 600 kgs he would have transported 6,000 kgs. and likewise, in respect of all the delivery notes, he had transported 10 times the quantity that is shown as per the delivery note and the books of account.
There is a clear finding that when the vehicle was having a capacity of 6,000 kgs to 10,000 kgs and that too national permit vehiclesowned by petitioner. Hence there is every possibility that the petitioner would have carried at least ten times quantity as shown the delivery note. In fact, the assessing officer had only taken ten times, whereas, it is possible that the petitioner would have even carried the full capacity of the truck involved - In fact, the assessing officer had only taken ten times, whereas, it is possible that the petitioner would have even carried the full capacity of the truck. Under these circumstances,we do not think that the petitioner/appellant is justified in contending that the quantum of penalty is excessive.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1675 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... unt under reference has been confirmed by us as falling u/s. 2(22)(d) to the extent of the transferee company’s accumulated profits and, as such, as dividend within the contemplation of section 115-O. The same is, therefore, dividend referred to in section 115-O and, accordingly, covered by the provision of section 10(34) of the Act. The assessee’s claim per its CO, to the extent the receipt of ₹ 1674.86 lacs is a dividend u/s. 2(22)(d), is, thus, valid in law. The same is liable to additional income-tax u/s. 115-O in the hands of the company paying the same (dividend), and which though follows directly from what has been held by us, is another matter, with which we are not directly concerned with in the present case. The assessee thus also succeeds in part. We decide accordingly. 6. In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on December, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1674 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... there was bona fide belief. In juxtaposition, in this case the penalty notice was issued, the assessee duly filed a detailed reply citing detailed reasons, explanation, case laws including Dharamendra Textile Processors (supra). Ld. CIT has erroneously assumed that it was not considered by assessing officer. In our considered view once the assessee has filed the written reply and attended the proceedings it cannot be held that necessary inquiries were not carried out. 7.3 In view of the facts mentioned above looking from any angle there is no escape from the conclusion that assessee cannot be visited with penalty u/s 271(1)(c). In our view the penalty order dropping penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c), merely because it is cryptic order cannot be held to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It amounts to multiplicity of proceedings on hyper technical issues. In view of the foregoing, we quash the 263 order. 8. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1673 - SUPREME COURT
Eviction on the ground of illegal subletting - Unlawful subletting by the respondent-company - Seeking eviction of the Company in liquidation from the premises - Tenancy rights of the company in the tenanted premises are not the assets for the purpose of liquidation proceedings - rights of the company w.r.t. the landlord or tenants did not change- liberty to mention - Plea of RES JUDICATA- HELD THAT - The suit premises were not required by the liquidator for effective management of the winding up proceedings and the order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the official liquidator and further it was observed that it would be open for the official liquidator to raise all such contentions as permissible in law. The learned Company Judge also took note of the fact that the tenancy right of the company had not been disputed by the plaintiff and no decree could be passed without a full-fledged trial in the suit. Being of this view, he dismissed the application.
The official liquidator had no objection for releasing the premises in favour of the landlord and as the sub- tenant was the only contesting party, and accordingly granted leave. The principle of res judicata debarring the appellant to file an application for grant of leave and further the observation “liberty to applicant to apply” does not enable the appellant to get out from that legal labyrinth because it does not confer a right on a party to re-agitate the matter.
It operates at the successive stages in the same litigation but the basic foundation of Res Judicata rests on delineation of merits and has at least an expression of an opinion for rejection of an application. In order to attract it, it must be manifest that there has been conscious adjudication of an issue. A plea of res judicata cannot be taken aid of unless there is an expression of an opinion on the merits. It is well settled in law that principle of res judicata is applicable between the two stages of the same litigation but the question or issue involved must have been decided at earlier stage of the same litigation
The appeal was allowed and the order of set aside was passed by the Division Bench and restore that of the learned Company Judge. The first respondent is directed to pay ₹ 50,000/- to the appellant towards costs of the appeal.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1672 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ates received on various dates prior to the date of survey had remained to be entered in the books of account. It was stated that on account of this item, the physical goods were already received and the bills were also received earlier but remained to be entered, an amount of ₹ 34,72,238/- should be taken as explained. The assessee also provided a copy of C & F agents and the carriages evidencing the receipt of goods and bills prior to the date of survey. In this background, CIT(A) found the claim of assessee as genuine and since an amount of ₹ 34,72,238/- remained to be entered in the books of account, CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to credit of the same. Again this reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) need no interference from our side, whereby he has deleted the addition of ₹ 34,72,238/-. We uphold the same. 11. In the result, all appeals of revenue are dismissed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court on the day of 31st December 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1671 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncluding the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court, Mumbai, and of Hon’ble Tribunal and by not following the decision of Coordinate bench in case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE Jaipur - I 2013 (293) ELT 311 (TriDelhi) on the same issue the Hon’ble Tribunal has committed an error by ordering the pre-deposit of 50% of duty to the Appellant which results into undue hardship ? 4. So far as interim relief is concerned, the appellant, without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by him in the appeal, shall deposit the amount equivalent to 50% of the duty amount which comes to around ₹ 2.5 Lacs, in this Court, within a period of six weeks from today. On condition of deposit of amount as specified above, we direct the tribunal to proceed with the pending appeal without insisting on predeposit of amount before the tribunal. Subject to condition as recorded above, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘C’.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1670 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t with the order of the Tribunal. " Considering the binding nature of the judgment, we direct the AO to quantify the disallowance in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.” 8. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the AO should be directed to restrict the disallowance to 2% of the total exempt in come in the line sof the discussed by the Hon’ble High Court in the above referred cases. AO should grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee while quantifying the disallowance and applying the said judgment in the case of M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd (supra). Accordingly, ground no.2 of the Revenue and ground no.1 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1669 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the view that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in any particular Bench, what they are expected to do is to put up a note in the order sheet, bringing the said fact to the notice of the learned Judge and list the Writ Petition before the Court for preliminary hearing. It is the learned Judge alone who has the jurisdiction to decide the question of maintainability of the Writ Petition. The learned Judge may in his or her discretion decide the question either before ordering notice or after the appearance of the respondent. Therefore, the Registry cannot raise the said office objection and call upon the petitioner to satisfy them before the Writ Petition is listed for preliminary hearing. Hence, the office objection is unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is over ruled. We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance given by the learned Advocate General Prof. Ravivarma Kumar as well as Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel, in rendering this judgment.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1668 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... oresaid decision on the basis that KUIDFC was engaged in welfare activities to transform Bangalore to a mega city, whereas the assessee was engaged in trading of agricultural produce. In our view, this distinction sought to be made out by the CIT(A) cannot be accepted. The assessee as well as KUIDFC are engaged in welfare activity wholly owned by State Government. KUIDFC is also a company. The assessee is also engaged in welfare activity and formed for the purpose of helping the agricultural produce and procession of export. Therefore the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of KUIDFC (supra) will clearly apply to the facts of the present case also. In that view of the matter, we hold that the interest income in question cannot be brought to tax as income of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. 22. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1667 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2(iv) above, will apply to those constructions where plans are still not approved, or where the Commencement Certificate (CC) has not yet been issued. All authorities concerned are directed to ensure strict compliance accordingly. (4) The Government of Maharashtra shall issue the necessary notification within four weeks of this order, reconstituting the 'Technical Committee for the High-Rise Buildings', as directed in paragraph 56, including the additional terms of reference, as mentioned in paragraph 57 above. The Appellant is directed to render assistance and provide the required honorarium, as mentioned in paragraph 58 above. (5) In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, as well as Part-I order dated 25.7.2013 mentioned in paragraph (1), and the determination on the four additional issues as in paragraph (2) above, no further order is required on this appeal, and the appeal stands disposed off accordingly. (6) The parties will bear their own costs.
........
|
