|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 925 Records
-
2013 (6) TMI 933
... ...
... ... ..... further allotment to the petitioners and second respondent in proportion to the shares transmitted to the petitioners. Hence I am of the view that 990 shares shown in the register shall be deleted in the name of R-2, if law demands it to be shown as one lac rupees in the company, the same could be shown as allotted to three of them in proportion to their entitlement. 28. As to the reliefs in respect of their mother shares, R-1 Company is hereby directed to delete the name of R-3 holding 5 original shares from the register and rectify the register by transmitting the names of the petitioners and second respondent showing 1/3 each in the 5 shares held by their mother late Smt. Ram Piari Chawla in R-1 Company, as to the allotment of 990 shares shown in the name of R-2, R-1 company and R-2 are hereby directed to delete the entry of 990 shares in the name of R-2, and intimate the same to the RoC concerned forthwith. 29. Accordingly, this Bench allowed this petition without costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 932
... ...
... ... ..... d the submissions made by both sides. The dispute lies in narrow compass that is whether the date of actual payment of duty is relevant or the date of banks stamp on the TR-6 challan is relevant for the purpose of deciding the limitation. This is peculiar case where the duty was deposited on 10-12-2007 and 4-12-2007 and the bank has wrongly stamped the challans with the date stamp of 14-12-2007 and 19-12-2007. Be it as it may be, there is no dispute that duties were actually paid on 10th and 4th December of 2007. As per the provisions of Notification No. 6/2008, refund of SAD has to be made within a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. We cannot change the said relevant date prescribed in the notification and cannot step into shoes of legislation. As such, we are of the view that refund having been filed beyond the period of limitation of one year is barred by limitation. The impugned orders are accordingly upheld and appeal rejected. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (6) TMI 931
... ...
... ... ..... ar 2005-2006. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remand the matter for fresh disposal. 2. We do not find any question of law involved in the matter. Accordingly the Revision Case is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 930
... ...
... ... ..... on record. The assessee has filed petition before the Company Board to save the goodwill and reputation of the business. Though the assessee is not earning any business income from the said company but the other business of the assessee are directly linked to each other, which affects the status of the assessee as a Chairman in M/s. AB Hotels. The dividend income earned by the assessee is used to make investments in many other concerns from where a handsome amount is earned by the assessee is on record as per AO s order. Therefore, any expenditure incurred by the assessee to avoid any adverse effect on its reputation should be allowed as deductible expenditure. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee and reverse the order of ld. CIT(A). Thus, grounds No., 3 4 of the assessee are allowed. 14 In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.211(Asr)/2013 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 929
... ...
... ... ..... t in a case when the regional authority is constituted at one place and the appellate is in another a writ petition would be maintainable at both the places as the order of the appellate authority consists a part of the cause of action. Obviously this does not apply to the facts of the present case. The petitioner did not file any appeal and moreover as pleaded by the petitioner himself only an area office of the appellate authority is located within the State. As such there is no scope to theoretically apply the judgment relied on by the petitioner to the present case where it factually differs from the one we are concerned with. In such view of it I hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Court There shall, however, be order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (6) TMI 928
... ...
... ... ..... rm an integral part of cause of action, the factum of service of such order of dismissal does not require to be proved for giving effect to the order of dismissal. 19. In the result, we are of the view that service of an order of dismissal forms an integral part of the cause of action and since the order is served within the jurisdiction of this court this court has jurisdiction to entertain the Original Petition and hence this appeal is only to be allowed. But in so far the learned Single Judge had not considered the matter on merits, the contentions urged by the petitioner on merit requires to be heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We find that the Writ Petition is maintainable as part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The files shall be placed before the learned Single Judge for disposing the Writ Petition on merits. The Writ Appeal is allowed as above.
-
2013 (6) TMI 927
... ...
... ... ..... unt of Rs.2,48,582/- on the ground that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the expenditure. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appelas) has confirmed the same. The assessee submission that no such disallowance can be made is based on generalization. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appelas). Hence we dismiss this ground. 9. Coming to the addition made on account of low withdrawals, we find that the Assessing Officer has made a token addition of Rs.20,000/- as the assessee has shown withdrawals of only Rs.56,000/-. We do not understand how token additions are made in this case. Be it as it may, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the order of the lower authorities does not call for any interference. In the result we dismiss this ground of the assessee. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... s so interlinked with his duties that it would attract Sec. 197. Pukhraj's case, AIR 1973 SC 2591 . (VI) Applicability of bar under Sec. 197 depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Facts and circumstances of the case play substantial part in determining applicability of Sec. 197. 18. In view of above discussion and in the circumstances of the case, it would be erroneous to stall the prosecution. Let the trial be proceeded against the respondent. It is clarified that during the course of trial, if relevant material came on record, then it would be open for the respondent to urge that in absence of sanction for prosecution under Sec. 197, the case against him cannot be proceeded. It is further clarified that trial Court would consider the case independently of the observations made by this Court in this order. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. R. P. be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned so that trial can proceed in accordance with law.
-
2013 (6) TMI 925
... ...
... ... ..... w. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs”. 14. learned DR Shri MH Naik relied on the Order of the ITAT in the case of M/s. Krishnakumar & Others vs. DCIT ITA.No.1164/Hyd/2010, A.Y. 2006- 2007 and the case of ITO vs. Smt. Rohini Reddy (2010) 313 ITR 346. 15. We have heard both the parties. Respectfully following the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gita Duggal (supra), we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. 16. The assessee’s appeal in ITA.No.1235/Hyd/2012 for A.Y. 2006-07 is mutantis mutandis and following the observations made in ITA.No. 1234/Hyd/2012, the appeal in ITA.1235/Hyd/2012 is partly allowed. 17. In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA.No.1234/Hyd/2012 for the A.Y. 2005-2006 and ITA.No. 1235/Hyd/2012 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 924
... ...
... ... ..... alized amount as per the priority like payment of taxes to the Government, BMC, etc. payment to unsecured creditors, etc. This difference is very important. This difference is amply brought out conceptually in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Fisheries Co. vs. CIT (1979) 12 CTR (SC) 4125 1979 120 ITR 49(SC). In the present case, therefore, we are of the view that Section 45(4) is not attracted as the very first condition of transfer by way of distribution of capital assets is not satisfied. In the circumstances,the latter part of Section 45(4), which refers to computation of capital gains under S.48 by treating fair market value of the asset on the date of transfer, does not arise.” 8) In view of the above, we find no substantial question of law arises as the impugned order has merely followed the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT vs. Taxspin Engineering and Mfg. Works (supra). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 923
... ...
... ... ..... for the respondent assessee has relied upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rita Mechanical Works reported on 344 ITR 544. In that case the assessee being a partnership firm revalued its assets on 31 March 1995 and thereafter on 31 March 1995 the partnership firm was converted into a limited company. Following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Taxspin Engg. & Mfg. Works reported in (2003) 263 ITR 345 (Bom.) it was held that no capital gain is payable under Section 45(4) of the Act as on mere revaluation of its assets there is no transfer of capital assets by way of distribution of assets nor is there any dissolution or otherwise of a firm. 9) In view of the above, as the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hind Construction Ltd. (supra) no substantial question of law arises for our consideration, 10) The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (6) TMI 922
... ...
... ... ..... he view that these submissions are only technical. We also find that the major expenses in the profit & loss account is only on account of labour charges, diesel purchase and material purchase. In such circumstances, there was a case for estimation of income of the assessee. The CIT(A) has resorted to a reasonable estimate of the assessee’s income, which is a net profit of 9% of the contract receipts. In this regard, we also find that if the addition made by the AO is sustained, the gross profit of the assessee would work out to 23.4%, which is quite abnormal, considering the assessee’s past history. We are therefore of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the CIT(Appeals) was justified in restricting the addition made by the AO to 9% net profit of the contract receipts. His order does not call for any interference. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 921
... ...
... ... ..... . Therefore, it is necessary that the AO should verify the scheme in question and should also verify whether the subsidy is dependent upon the determination of final amount on completion of project and as to when such completion is done in this case. Therefore, accrual of subsidy in favour of the assessee is a necessary ingredient to be determined by the AO according to the scheme. In the absence of complete details, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of AO with the direction to redecide this issue in accordance with law by giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee may cite the same decisions before the AO as have been cited before us for the purpose of determination of the issue once for all. In the result, grounds No. 4 & 5 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (6) TMI 920
... ...
... ... ..... ems are in the nature of repairs and maintenance. However, the assessee has also purchased pumps, printers, etc., which are capital in nature and the same are not revenue expenditure. One such expenditure is Magnetic Flow Meter purchased on 10.8.2007 for Rs.36,221/-, Dosing Pump Model bought on 11.8.2007 for Rs.61,500/-, Printex bought on 4.10.2007 for Rs.47,773/-, Pump bought on 10.1.2008 for Rs.49,677/-. We direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on the cumulative value of the above said items and the balance expenditure is held to be revenue in nature. We partly uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals). In view thereof, the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is partly allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed and for assessment year 2009-10 is dismissed. The appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... nd that the interest in this case was due on non-performing assets (NPA). As per the RBI guideline in this regard , interest on NPAs is not to be recognized. Accounting standard 9 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India also provides that income is to be recognized only when there is some reasonable certainty about the receipt of the income. We, further, find that this view is also supported by the decisions, as mentioned above. We find that in the case of CIT Vs. Elgi Finance Ltd. 293 ITR 357, Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that interest on non-performing asset is not to be recognized in light of the RBI notification and accounting standard 9 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India. 8. In the light of aforesaid discussion and precedents. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold the same. 9. In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court 21 June, 2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 918
... ...
... ... ..... nt. A.O. Is directed to look into matter and modify his order In view of the decision cited above by appellant of Bangalore Tribunal.” Aggrieved, revenue came in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also gone through the Explanation (1) to section 115JB of the Act, wherein net profit as shown in the P&L account for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section 2 is to be increased by items mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) and items (i) to (viii) of Explanation (1) to sec. 115JB of the Act. We find that none of the items are covered for making these two disallowances. Even other wise, the issue is covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Horizon Capital Ltd. In view of the above, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-06-2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 917
... ...
... ... ..... penalty imposed upon the Appellants is that the securities market is a volatile and pulsating structure wherein events unfold at a staggeringly fast pace. We feel that to compel the Appellants to make a combined public announcement to acquire shares today would be iniquitous and would lead to more harm than good for a mere technical fault, which in our opinion is remissible. Indeed, this Tribunal has taken a view consistently that in such cases of technical violation a monetary penalty could be imposed to serve the ends of justice keeping in view the factuality of a given situation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a monetary penalty of Rs. 25 lac (Rs. Twenty five lac) is imposed on the Appellants for the breach of Regulation 11(1) of 1997 Takeover Code on March 12, 2007, and with this modification the appeal stands partly allowed. The Appellants shall deposit the said amount of Rs. 25 lac with the Respondent within six weeks from the date of this order.
-
2013 (6) TMI 916
... ...
... ... ..... aterial irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of law. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the Order passed by the Trial Court dated 7.9.2010 in LA. No. 3158 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1724 of 2009 is confirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Revision. Consequently, connected M.P. 1 of 2011 is closed. Further, if for any reason, the main Suit O.S. No. 1724 of 2009 is pending on the file of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, as on date, then, in the interest of Justice, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the said main Suit, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Also, the parties are required to render their utmost co-operation and assistance to the Trial Court in disposing of the aforesaid main Suit O.S. No. 1724 of 2009 on its file, within the time fixed by this Court.
-
2013 (6) TMI 915
... ...
... ... ..... r Jana A.Yr.2008-09 Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal held that the entire deposits in the bank account cannot be treated as unexplained investment of the assessee. He held that the only peak balance can be treated as unexplained investment of the assessee. Accordingly he directed the AO to restrict the addition to the peak balance of Rs.4,81,228/- and deleted the balance amount of addition of Rs.24,44,772/-. The ld.DR before us has relied on the order of the AO. He could not point out any specific error in the order of the ld. CIT(A). He also could not bring any material to show that the peak balance determined by the ld. CIT(A) of Rs.4,81,228/- was not correct. In absence of any such material being brought on record we find no good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.06.2013.
-
2013 (6) TMI 914
... ...
... ... ..... he Assessing Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that an assessment cannot be reopened only on the basis of a change of opinion. In the present case, the reopening has been made only on the basis of change of opinion. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) is justified in setting aside the impugned income-escaping assessment. The issue of notice under section 148 and assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment under section 147 are ab initio void. As such, this impugned assessment is liable to be set aside, as done by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals). 11. As the assessment itself has been set aside, the issues raised by the Revenue on the merits of the case and the other issues are just academic. They have become infructuous. 12. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Orders pronounced on Friday, the 21st of June, 2013 at Chennai.
........
|
