|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1043 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 1020 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... orrespondences and the negotiations and its effect. The renegotiation of the entire issue itself means a fresh discussion and negotiation for the fresh MOU and/or such other agreement. The submission that the discussion and/or negotiation was for to continue with the same terms and conditions of the terminated MOU, is also unacceptable. 23 So far as the principle of quantummeruit is concerned, there is nothing pointed out and/or shown that the principles of Limitation Act do not apply to such doctrine. The monetary claims of any nature are definitely governed by the law of limitation, as recorded and the findings so given that the claim is barred by limitation. The alleged survey cost so incurred by the claimant on preproject activities which were prior to 18 April 2001, just cannot be recoverable for this reason itself. This reason is also, in my view, well within the purview of law and the record. 24 Therefore, the Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1019 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icit or procure insurance business for any other person.” It is relevant to note that the liability to pay commission is statutorily recognised under Section 44(1) of the Act and it is in the realm of contract between the parties. In other words it is a statutory contract. When the statutory contract itself fixes an obligation to pay renewal commission and also stipulates conditions under which the said commission shall be paid, it cannot be termed as unconstitutional or in any way effecting the fundamental rights of the person involved. 5. That apart under normal circumstances when an agency is terminated, the agent is not entitled for any future commission. But the statute by virtue of Section 44(1) of Act has recognised such a right. Therefore the restriction imposed by the statute by virtue of proviso (c) is only reasonable cannot termed as illegal. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ petition. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1018 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that the transportation fee receivable by the assessee from M/s. Menio Worldwide Forwarding (India) Pvt. Ltd. is not taxable in India as fees for technical services under section 9(1) (vii)?”.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1017 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dless to say, copies of the undertaking and the Board of Director’s Resolution will be supplied to the respondent. 10. In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned notices dated 11.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 shall remain stayed. 11. Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent, on instructions, says that the respondent shall on their own write to the bankers, whose names are mentioned at page 38 of the paper book, informing them about order passed in court today and the fact that it has arrived at a settlement with the petitioner. 12. A copy of the order passed today will also be furnished to the said bankers. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent says that the Expression of Interest, which is dated 16.01.2013, regarding the sale of equity shares of the promoters company, will be kept in abeyance till further orders of this court. With the aforesaid in place, the writ petition is disposed of. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1016 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h Court in the case of Arulmigu Kamakshi Amman Trust in Tax Appeal No.643/11 dated 25.1.2012 (supra) and directed to grant registration under sec.12AA of the Act, by allowing the appeal of the assessee, which means that this Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee accepting the contention of the assessee that the assessee’s Trust is a Public Charitable Trust and registration under sec.12AA has to be granted as a Public Charitable Trust. Therefore, the direction given by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal is that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) should grant registration under sec.12AA to the assessee as a Public Charitable Trust. In view of the above, we direct the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) to modify his Order dated 6.9.2012 and grant registration under sec.12AA of the I.T. Act to the assessee as a Public Charitable Trust. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Order pronounced on Monday, the 21st of January 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1015 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... shares remained unsold by the assessee. The High Court, therefore, held that no disallowance of expenses was required in relation to dividend from trading shares. Recently, Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. India Advantage Securities (supra), have held that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of CCI Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra), the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. could not be followed and no disallowance could be made of expenses in relation to dividend received from trading shares. In view of this position the order of CIT(A) in relation to disallowance in respect of trading shares can not be upheld. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and deleted the disallowance upheld by him in relation to trading in shares. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1014 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e M.Os I, II and III, namely, aruvals (bill hooks) and dress in the FSL report. It was explained that since these objects were lying on the earth and by efflux of time, no blood was found by the laboratory because of which the same cannot be doubted when the same were duly recovered in the presence of witnesses. 20. In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the trial Court failed to take note of relevant aspects and committed a grave error in rejecting the reliable materials placed by the prosecution. The High Court as appellate court, analyzed the evidence as provided in Section 378 of the Code and rightly reversed the order of acquittal and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code for murdering Ramaiah in pursuance of their common intention and awarded sentence of life imprisonment. We fully agree with the said conclusion. 21. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
-
2013 (1) TMI 1013 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... on in its proper perspective, after verifying all the bank accounts, withdrawals in the earlier years, the possible expenditure which could have been incurred by the assessee out of such withdrawals; and further, whether the assessee had any running account in the company in which he is a Director; and considering all the facts, to decide the addition, if any, warranted. The assessing officer is also directed to keep in mind the legal principles on the issue. Needless to add, the assessee should be given proper opportunity and assessee is free to make his submissions in support of the various contentions raised before the authorities. With these observations, the issue of addition on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account, is restored to the file of the assessing officer, by setting aside the orders of the Revenue authorities on this issue. 9.In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 11.1.2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 1012 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... th retrospective effect. In view of the above disallowance of ₹ 2,67,300/- is confirmed. In result the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is reduced from ₹ 14,20,678/- to ₹ 2,67,300/-.” 11. The issue has already been discussed by us while dealing with Revenue’s grounds for deletion of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), since entire amount of TDS was deposited by the assessee before the last date of filing return, no disallowance was warranted. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 2,67,300/-. 12. In so far as reopening is concerned, we found that the detailed reasons have been recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for upholding the reassessment proceedings. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 14th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1011 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... nacting the provisions is very clear to treat the date as well as cost of acquisition of capital asset of the previous owner to be the date and cost of acquisition of the assessee for the purpose of computing capital gain in terms of s. 48 - If Expln. (iii) to s. 48 is interpreted in the way sought by the Departmental Representative by taking the date on which the capital asset received by the assessee under a gift becoming his property for the purpose of working out the indexed cost of acquisition, it will certainly not be in consonance with the scheme of the Act and will also defeat the very purpose of introducing the concept of "indexed cost of acquisition" 18. Following the above, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee because the property was purchased by the previous owner in 1968-69. Accordingly, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this respect. 19. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 18.01.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1010 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... ticulars of its income and in the absence of detection from the Department, there was all possibilities that such claim would have gone unnoticed causing undue loss to the Revenue. At the same time, the assessee has not established its bona fide at any stage. The assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars with intention to conceal its income, therefore, the conclusion drawn in the impugned order is reversed. The appeal of the Revenue is, consequently, allowed. 7. So far as the cross-objection, filed by the assessee, is concerned, in which reliance has been placed upon the decision in Reliance Petro Products (supra) as per discussion made hereinabove, the facts are distinguishable from the facts of instant case. Since we have reversed the order of the ld. CIT(A), it has become infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 31.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1009 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e the soft drink is subject matter of an outright sale. It is clear that the assessing authority ignored the terms and conditions between the parties and the fact that tax can only be levied on the transaction as it existed between the parties and not on what is presumed by him without any basis. Therefore, the Writ Petitions are allowed and the assessment order dated 15-09-2005 impugned in W.P.No.21115 of 2005, the assessment order dated 08-12-2005 for September, 2005 impugned in W.P.No.856 of 2006 and the notice dated 27-11-2007 of the Assistant Commissioner (CT) (LTU), Saroornagar division, Hyderabad u/s. 29 of the Andhra Pradesh VAT Act, 2005 are set aside and the respondent therein is restrained from taking any action pursuant to his notice in form VAT 305-A dated 8-12-2005 for October, 2005 and from issuing any notices for the months of November, 2005 onwards contrary to our decision in these cases. 48. Therefore, the TREVCs and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1008 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... for computing the tax payable on the said income SAS BV had not claimed any benefit under Treaty between India and Netherlands. In the quantum proceedings FAA had also held that the agreement between the appellant and SAS BV was based on commercial considerations. In these circumstances, confirming the order of the FAA we cancel the penalty levied by the AO for the AY. 1998-99. As the facts for the AY 1999-2000 are same as that of the earlier AY., so confirming the order of the FAA we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO Ground no1.(A to D)are decided against the AO. As a result two appeals filed by the assessee(ITANo.3708/Mum/2004 AY 1998-1999 and ITA No.3709/Mum/2004 AY 1999-2000)stand allowed, whereas five appeals filed by the AO(ITA No.4081/Mum/2004 AY 1998-1999, ITANo.4082/Mum/2004 AY 1999-2000, ITA No. 5704/ Mum/2004 AY 2000-2001,ITANo.2454/M/2006 AY1998-1999,ITANo.2455/M/2006 AY 1999- 2000.)stand dismissed. Order pronounced on the in the open court on 23rd January,2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1007 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... material so as to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) about the steam received and its cost. We also notice that in the above said case law as well, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in an issue pertaining to special deduction under section 80IA of the “Act” that the concerned assessee is entitled to claim deduction qua the value of the steam used for captive consumption. Nevertheless, in modern day technology, ‘steam’ is also an asset carrying value for the purpose of computing profits. In this view of matter and more so, when there is no record rebutting the findings of the CIT(A) qua valuation of steam, we observe that assessee’s claim has been rightly accepted by the CIT(A). Hence, we see no reason to interfere. 21. In view of our above discussion, all the three appeals I.T.A. Nos. 635/Mds/2010, 791/Mds/2012 and 816/Mds/2012 are dismissed being devoid of merits. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 17th of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1006 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Income Tax Act. It had urged that the supporting materials disclose that there was STP clearance/approval under Section 10A and that such approval was sufficient to entitle it to the benefit of Section 10B. By judgment, this Court negatived the plea with regard to the approval vis-?-vis Section 10B and has ruled that separate regime exists. The applicant contends that the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had, in the present case, not gone into the merits of the alternative claim for entitlement under Section 10A. This fact is apparent from a reading of the order of CIT(A) as well as that of the Tribunal in the order impugned. In the circumstances, the Tribunal shall consider the relevant documents on the basis of the claims and ascertain whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 10A, as claimed. The judgment and order of this Court dated 17.09.2012 is accordingly modified; the Tribunal shall proceed to pass appropriate orders after hearing both parties. Order dasti.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1005 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the case in the year under consideration, i.e. 2008-09, are identical to A.Y. 2007-08, I follow the order of I.T.A.T., Agra Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No.138/Agra/2012 and in the light of that I confirm the order of Revenue Authorities applying N.P. rate of 8%. However, the interest income of ₹ 3,37,886/- separately added by the A.O. is deleted. Accordingly orders of the Revenue Authorities to that extent are set aside and modified and I direct the A.O. that no separate addition on account of interest income be made in the year under consideration. The assessee allowed relief of ₹ 3,37,886/-. 9. Before parting from the matter, it is to clarify that by deleting this addition of separate interest income of ₹ 3,37,886/- the assessed income must not be less than the income declared by the assessee in the return of income. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. (Order pronounced in the open Court).
-
2013 (1) TMI 1004 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he overall circumstances of the case we estimate the profit at 5% of ₹ 1,52,36,179/- as against 8% upheld by the learned CIT(A). Ground No. 1 is therefore partly allowed. 10. Apropos ground No. 2 the facts of the case are that the assessee has shown unsecured loan of ₹ 19,607/- stated to have been taken from his friend, Shri Kamalkant Hirve. Since the amount is below ₹ 20,000/- confirmation letter was not furnished. In the absence of proof of identify, genuineness and creditworthiness of Shri Kamalkant Hrive the AO added the same under section 68 of the Act and the learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 11. Even before us no material was furnished to prove the identity of the creditor. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned CIT(A) in this regard. Therefore ground No. 2 is rejected. 12. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 1003 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ient time was not available to record the information in writing and send it to the superior officer and in the face of it, we are of the opinion that any oral evidence of the police officer will not be in compliance with the provisions of Section 42 (2) of the Act. 17. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Babulal 2009 (3) Criminal Court Case 514 S.C., the documents required to prove the receipt of oral information were not brought on record, in absence of that Hon'ble Apex Court declined to interfere in the order of acquittal. 18. As such, in view of the discussion made above, this appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Judgment and order dated 4.11.1992 passed by IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barabanki is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 19. Office is directed to send back lower court record forthwith to the court concerned. Order Date 7th January 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 1002 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee has simply stated that entry in regard to this payment though appeared in the incriminating Book No.C-1has not been incorporated in the regular books. No other explanation worth the name was offered by the assessee. In our considered opinion in the absence of any plausible explanation given by the assessee for not incorporating the payment of ₹ 37,000/- made by bank draft in the regular books of account, necessary inference is that he has concealed particulars of his income. The amount having been added under Section 69A of the Act nonetheless is to be treated as income of the assessee and the burden was upon the assessee to prove that there was no concealment of income. The Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in deleting the penalty only on the ground that the addition was made under Section 69A of the Act which is a deeming provision. 8. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assesse
-
2013 (1) TMI 1001 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... He noted that lodging and boarding expenses were unusually high. He, therefore, disallowed 10% of ₹ 8,52,696/- being the expenses in connection with lodging and boarding. He, accordingly, disallowed ₹ 85,269/-. 44. Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance. 45. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. It is not disputed that the foreign visits were undertaken for business purposes. Therefore, all the expenditure incurred in course of this visit was to be treated for business purposes only. No disallowance could be made on ad-hoc basis out of lodging and boarding expenses because they were incidental to the foreign visits for business purposes. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A). 46. In the result, this ground is allowed. 47. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/01/2013
........
|
