|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 876 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1356 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R. DAVE, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1355 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee. The approach of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal cannot be accepted as the deposits which were credited in the accounts of the assessee had not been explained satisfactorily by the assessee, and, thus, it could not be held that the assessee had discharged the onus placed on him to show that it was his income from the sale of land. Once it is held that the onus was wrongly placed on the Department and the assessee had failed to produce any cogent and convincing material to establish that the deposits were on account of sale of land, the addition made by the assessing officer could not have been deleted and the finding as recorded by him could not be held to be perverse. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal were, thus, not justified in reversing the finding of the assessing officer and thereby deleting the addition. In view of the above, the substantial question of law is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1354 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e ESOP Scheme, resulting in benefit to the employees and thus constituting remuneration of the employees was, allowable deduction under Section 37 of the Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was right in proceeding to hold that options discount arising under the stock options scheme was not allowable deduction, thereby ignoring the view taken by the earlier co-ordinate Bench duly placed before the Tribunal, without referring the issue to a larger Bench? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under section 254 of the Act by not confining its decision in the impugned order to be questions arising in the appeal but making out an altogether new case holding that the options discount arising under the stock options scheme was ?notional loss? not eligible for deduction under Section 37 of the Act?? Filing of paper books is dispensed with. To be heard alongwith ITA 767/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1353 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... shall be reduced by the amount of income tax which would be deductible at source during the said financial year under any provision of this Act from any income. By virtue of section 195 all the payments made to the assessee are subjected to deduction of tax at source. Under these circumstances, the assessee cannot be said to have committed any default in not paying the advance tax for which the liability to pay interest u/s 234B could be fastened on it. Our view is fortified by the Special Bench order of the Tribunal in Motorola Inc. Vs. DCIT (2005) 95 ITD 269 (Del.) (SB), which stands impliedly affirmed by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in D.I (International Taxation) VS. NGC Network Asia Ltd. (2009) 222 CTR 86 (Bom). Respectfully following the precedent, we accept the opinion of the learned CIT(A) on this count in ordering deletion of the levy of interest u/s.234B. 4. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1352 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s juncture merely because of non-issuance of notice in form 19. The petitioner may raise all these contentions before the appellate authority by filing an appeal against the order Annexure P/3. (8) In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this matter with following directions (i) The petitioner may file an appeal against the order Annexure P/3(two in numbers) dated 17.6.2010 passed by respondent no. 1 within a period of 30 days from today. (ii) The appellate authority on filing such an appeal within 30 days from today shall entertain the appeal without going into question of limitation and shall proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. (iii) The petitioner may raise all its contentions before the appellate authority including non-issuance of notice in form 19 or premature issuance of notice in form 20, who shall consider grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1351 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he isolated transaction of advance by cheque would have to be treated, to be not a regular business of money lending. It would not be treated to be opposed to public policy and void. The scheme of the Act provides an umbrella to the Respondent as he was not a regular un-licensed money lender. 13. The diminutive scope of interference in Revision also needs consideration. The findings recorded by the learned Judge, while rejecting Exh. 13, do not project illegality or couched with material irregularities. The Hon'ble Lordships of the Apex Court have indicated this position in (1972)3 SCC 195, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway. This is also to be seen in Abdul Rehman Shora v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2009)2 SCC 617, Ram Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2008)10 SCC 73, Shaik Jaffar v. Mohd. Pasha AIR 1975 SC 794. 14. The order does not call for any interference. Civil Revision application is dismissed. The observations are restricted to the Revision application.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1350 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... part of the money borrowed on interest is utilized for making investment in shares or in the house property, Assessing Officer will consider the allowability of part of the interest under the respective heads of income. In this context, we may also observe that in case, assessee failed to furnish the necessary details and also the nexus, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to disallow the deficit of interest keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Virmati Ramakrishna (supra). In view of the above, we set aside the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of Assessing Officer who will readjudicate the allowance of interest afresh in terms of direction given hereinabove after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 28.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1349 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ent Authority, is directed to initiate action against its officers who were responsible for illegally bifurcating civic amenity site No. 12 in Sector 5 of HSR layout (iv) The notice at Annexure 'N' dated 7.8.2008 and the order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner, BDA, in W.P. No. 11102/2008 are hereby quashed. (v) The order passed by the Commissioner, BDA dated 9.6.2009, the notice at Annexure 'G' dated 11.6.2009 and the deed of cancellation at Annexure 'H' dated 11.6.2009 in W.P. No. 16954/2009 are hereby quashed. (vi) The order at Annexure 'A' dated 12.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner, BDA, in W.P. No. 16147/2009 is hereby quashed. (vii) Liberty is reserved to the Bangalore Development Authority to seek cancellation of the sale deeds executed by it in favour of the allottees of the sites in the above writ petitions by filing suits before the competent Civil Court. (viii) Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1348 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... was for acquiring the stock-in-trade. Therefore, the advance made to the Corporation was in the course of carrying on the business of real estate. Accordingly, the loss on forfeiture of the advance is in the revenue field. The assessee has not acquired any capital asset. It has also not obtained any advantage of enduring nature so as to constitute the expenditure to be capital expenditure. Accordingly, it is held that the loss has been incurred in revenue field in the course of business. Therefore, the same is deductible in computing the total income. 5.1 We, however, agree with the findings of the lower authorities that it is not a case of bad debt, covered under sections 36 and 37, because it was not taken into account while computing the income of this year or an earlier year. The amount is deductible as loss on first principle u/s 29 of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above. This order was pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... laying the criminal proceedings. The defence raised that the Managing partner of the Petitioners' firm had issued a blank signed cheque with the seal of the firm cannot be justified as true, as it would not be an act of a reasonable prudent man and that too by a Managing partner of a firm. 25. Considering the order passed by the court below, in the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the court below, in dismissing the petition, so as to warrant any interference of this Court. 26. In the result, this criminal revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose the case, solely on merits, uninfluenced by the finding of this Court, if any, according to law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without causing further delay.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1346 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed had no role to play in the whole occurrence and was made a scapegoat. 27. There are other discrepancies in the statement of prosecutrix, PW7, which totally demolishes the case of prosecution as in her cross she states that she was alone in the house of Raj Kumar in Delhi where as in her examination she had stated that she stayed with Raj Kumar's sister in Delhi. Not only this she also admits that she did want to come back to her house. The most glaring fact is that in her cross examination she states that it is incorrect that she was allured by Raju with the promise of money and marriage in a good family. So, with this statement of prosecutrix the whole prosecution case falls to ground. 28. For the reasons recorded above I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring whom guilt of accused. The present accused-Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him by allowing this appeal. His judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1345 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Revenue. 4.2 With regard to penalty for the assessment year 1996-97 is concerned, as per assessee’s counsel, the matter has been set aside in ITAT’s order in I.T.A. No. 1435/Mds/1999 with respect to sale and lease back in respect of 8 transactions to the file of the ld. CIT(A) at para 23 in page 23 of the compilation filed. In view of the facts and details furnished by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we find it just and appropriate to set aside the orders of both the authorities below for the assessment year 1996-97 and restore the matter back on the file of the Assessing officer with the direction to redecide the same afresh after decision in quantum appeal is taken as directed by the ITAT and while doing so, the Assessing Officer shall give due opportunity to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. As a result, appeal for the assessment year 1996-97 is allowed for statistical purpose and other appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on 03.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1344 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s, then no tax is to be deducted at source. Merely because the claimants have joined together to file a claim petition does not mean that the entire interest payable on the compensation is to be taken into consideration. Before making deduction, the Insurance Company must verify what is the interest income of each individual-claimant and accordingly deduct tax at source. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the petition filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed though on totally different grounds. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of tax deducted at source with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is, however, made clear that on production of this order the insurance company shall be entitled to obtain refund of the tax deposited with the tax authorities, as per certificate Annexure P-2. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Nationalized Insurance Companies and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1343 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion Officer, on 20-12-2010 and the SLAO thereafter, to decide the said issue within a period of six weeks of 20-12-2010. The parties are directed to cooperate in the disposal of the said issue, as the matter has already had a chequred history since the year 1995. The learned AGP to inform the concerned S.L.A.O., and also send a copy of the order to him. 13. In view of the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of Writ Petition No.1912 of 2010 and further seeks liberty to file a fresh petition by deleting the issue covered by the above order. The above petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 14. In so far as the Contempt Petition No.72 of 2010 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions of his clients, who are personally present in the Court states that his clients would not pursue the said contempt petition, and the Contempt Petition accordingly to stand withdrawn in the light of the above order.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1342 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with interest at 6% per annum from 30.6.1994 to date of payment. 12. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed in part as follows (a) The compensation for the land acquired (4 acres 38 cents) is determined as Rs. 9,45,000/- with solatium Under Section 23(2) of the Act. (b) The Respondents will also be entitled to damages of Rs. 4,72,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 94,500/- per annum) for use and occupation, for the period between date of dispossession and date of preliminary notification. (c) The Respondent will be entitled to interest on the amount due under para (a) less the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from 27.8.1993 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the enhanced amount, Under Section 28 of the Act. (d) The Respondents shall be entitled to interest on the amount due under para (b) above, at the rate of 6% per annum from 30.6.1994 (date of award) till date of payment. (e) Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1341 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonour of Cheque - drawing of presumptions - whether the signature found in the cheque belongs to the accused or not? - procrastinating the proceedings - Petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the cheque to the Forensic Science Expert to ascertain the age of the ink - HELD THAT:- On the basis of choosy and discerning performance of researches, the authors have provided procedures and devices, with reference to the names of chemicals and reagents to be utilised, to solve the issue and it is incumbent upon the experts to put the authoritative theories and the latest proved and established technologies to empirical use. They have to take the inventiveness drawing the proven and accepted principles from well settled authorities and the Government have to provide necessary latest infrastructures in the Document Division of the Forensic Sciences Laboratory and also allot necessary funds for the constitution of sophisticated laboratory which is a full-fledged one in this regard.
The scientist can elect non-destructive technique where there is no scope of destruction of disputed document. When the authorities effectively suggest various methods for subjecting a document for this purpose, it is high time for the scientists of this State and the Government committed them in use in practice. When the science has flourished to show enormous, remarkable, striking and much advanced improvements in all other fields, while sufficient ways and means are available in this sphere, they cannot be disregarded and thrown overboard. The State shall take every possible step to provide the justice delivery system to unearth actual evidence available in a case. If the scientists or experts come across any difficulties, they can very well bring to the notice of the authorities concerned. At their request and proposal, the Government shall allocate necessary means.
The expression that there is no scientific method available anywhere in the country or State, more particularly in the Forensic Science Department for scientific assessment of the age of handwriting to offer opinion is far from acceptance. A careful survey of the above authorities would unveil a fact that settled plans of actions for experiments are very much available and when one steps into such experiments, there is further scope for upswing in the technology. It is bounden duty of the official concerned to follow the procedures - The scientists/experts should appear before the Courts with opinionated evidence in this regard, on their successful accomplishment of this assignment.
The advancements in establishing the facts in this field as a science continue through today. The explosion of modern technology has influenced every facet of our lives, from introducing new avenues of written communications to improvements in ink and ergonomic design of writing instruments - since various scientific avenues are available for finding out the age of the ink in a document, it must be subjected to tests as suggested by various scientists.
The disputed document has to be referred to the expert for ascertaining the age of the ink and practical hardships, if any, sustained by the expert shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the Court shall thereafter act according to the settled principles and procedures, in affording appropriate opportunity to the accused to prove his defence. Hence, interference with the order challenged before this Court has become inevitable, which is set aside - Revision allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1340 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ained in the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Insurance Company was duty bound to deduct the amount of Income Tax from the amount of interest paid by it. The Tribunal is, therefore, not justified in directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of T.D.S. which it had deducted from the amount of interest admissible to the payee, i.e., the claimant. 7. The High Court of Gujarat in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mitaben Dharmeshbhai and others (supra) and the High Court of M.P. in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Janki Devi and others (supra), has taken a similar view and this Court fully agrees with the view taken by the Gujarat and M.P. High Courts on this issue. Consequently, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 12-10-2009 passed by the IX Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg in Motor Accident Execution Case No. 175/97 is quashed and set-aside. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1339 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ot refer the relevant facts and therefore, the revenue cannot raise such ground before the Tribunal. As seen from the orders of the revenue, this issue has come up for the first time before us and there is no data on if the assessee was earning any income in the capacity of the MLA, if it is a fact. Basic facts are required to be brought to the records in the interest of the justice. 15. Thus, in our view there are many lacunae in the orders of the revenue and impugned order was passed without bringing basic facts necessary for administration of law judiciously. Therefore, we are of the opinion, all the grounds raised in the appeal of the revenue has to be set aside to the files of the AO. AO shall redo the assessment pro-tanto after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds are set aside. 16. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Orders pronounced in the open Court on 10th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1338 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orce the judicial propriety and to give a complete hearing to the parties on issues raised before the Tribunal we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal with a note of caution, and remit the case and restore the O.A. to its original number with a direction to the Tribunal to decide and dispose it of in terms of the order dated 03.03.2009. 13. We also make it clear that if the Tribunal finds after hearing the parities that the reliefs prayed for and grounds raised in the O.A. are similar to the Special Leave Petition pending in the Hon'ble Apex Court, it can await the outcome of the Special Leave Petition. But in case the grounds and reliefs seem to be substantially different, the Tribunal may hear the matter within a period of two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order in terms of the direction given by the Co-ordinate bench vide order dated 03.03.2009. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1337 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... that was already being manufactured by the assessee. Held, that the assessee which was manufacturing textile goods had set up a windmill after March 31,2002. It was entitled to additional depreciation.” 4. Therefore, by following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court’s decision (supra), we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 5. The other ground of Revenue’s appeal relates to allowance of additional depreciation on windmill. It is an open and shut case because this issue has been churned day in and day out by this Bench. This issue also stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in assessee’s own case wherein additional depreciation on the cost of windmill has been allowed u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Consequently, we cannot allow this appeal of the Revenue and hence dismiss the same. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2010.
........
|
