|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 774 Records
-
2009 (2) TMI 866 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... Bench in the case of TAFE Ltd. (Tractor Division) v. CCE, Bangalore - 2007 (79) RLT (Tribunal-Bangalore) enunciated the correct position of the law. The issue is thus, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 23. Before we part, we observe that this order is passed without going into the submission of the ld. Advocate that the Notification No. 10/2007-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2007 inserted sub-rule (3) to Rule 11 of Rules 2004, is a specific provision for reversal of credit because such issue was not in the referral order. 24. The reference having thus been answered, the records may be placed before the Regular Bench for final disposal of the appeals.” 5. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in M/s. HMT Ltd. (supra), we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (2) TMI 865 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e question of law open, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed on facts.
-
2009 (2) TMI 864 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... inclined to interfere in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 130E of the Customs Act. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 863 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... concealment of income. Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable if the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The scheme of the Act is that when assessee furnished all particulars of income, it is the duty of the AO to compute total income as per law. The AO while computing total income as per law, which may different than the amount declared by the assessee. While making assessment, the AO is to point out exact failure of the assessee for which penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable. The AO has failed to point out any such default. In fact, the assessee has furnished necessary explanation which has been substantiated with the necessary evidences and the same were not found false by the AO. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable, therefore, we cancel the penalty of ₹ 1,61,943 levied by the AO. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 862 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 6 is regarding addition on account of prior period expenditure while computing the book profit. The Assessing Officer had added the prior period expenses to the net profit while computing the book profit but in appeal CIT(A) has allowed the expenses related to the year ending March, 98 which were debited in the immediate succeeding year. We have already considered this issue while deciding the ground No. 9(a) of the appeal of the assessee and in view of our decision vide para 2.10.2 of this order, we hold that addition could not be made on account of prior period expenses debited in the profit and loss account prepared under the Companies Act while computing the book profit. The order of CIT(A) is therefore set aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. The appeal of the revenue on this point thus stands dismissed. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas that by the revenue is dismissed. 5. The order was pronounced in open court on 25.02.2009.
-
2009 (2) TMI 861 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 860 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on in CIT vs. Vikramaditya and Associates P. Ltd.,287 ITR 268 no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 859 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Oppression and mismanagement - Rights issue of shares - shareholding of the Petitioners had been diluted - no notices were given for the meetings pertaining to the rights issue - shifting of the registered office, also, no notice for the same is given - appointment and removal of directors - Directorial disputes -
HELD THAT:- The finding of the Company Law Board that the several resolutions alleged to have been passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors on various dates cannot be held to be validly convened or passed and the decision rendered by the Company Law Board in that regard requires no intervention.
The petition is therefore well founded and the grievance seeking for intervention of the Company Law Board u/s 397 and 399 are, therefore, tenable in law. Hence, the persons who were admittedly the Directors of the Company as on 29.10.2005 were entitled to be served with due notices on every share holder found mentioned on the Register of Companies as on that date before taking any decision. It shall be open for the appellants to take such action in his personal capacity as transferee of shareholding of Ajmer Singh to give notices in the manner required by the law and take appropriate decisions after due notices in the manner sanctioned by law.
The entitlement or otherwise of Zora Singh to obtain transfer of shares pertaining to 25% held by Amrik Singh will be decided in the Civil Suit which is pending before it and no observation made by this Court shall be construed as constituting any remark in favour of or against either of the parties to contend that one way or the other about the respective merits of the case before the Civil Court.
From the discussions made above and the findings rendered for the points raised in appeal by capturing them under relevant sub- headings, the following is summary of the conclusions:-
(a) The MOU dated 09.11.2005 did not involve or contemplate transfer of asset of the company. It was an instrument to transfer the shares of the company to the parties to the document and a chosen medium for total control over the affairs of the company to one of the parties to the document. It did not operate to transfer the assets of the company to either of the parties. The fidings rendered by the Company Law Board, and found expressed in para 51 of the impugned order are set aside.
(b) The actual payment of consideration under MOU and the entitlement to obtain transfer of all the shares of the company to Zora Singh including the shares of Amrik Singh and Malkiat Singh to give a valid discharge on behalf of Amrik Singh (the respondent No.1 herein) shall be matters which shall fall adjudication only in the civil suit pending between the parties and nothing mentioned in this judgment nor the Company Law Board will operate to be final against the respective interests of the party.
(c) The findings rendered by the Company Law Board that Amrik Singh had no due notice of the meetings of the Board of Directors and the notices alleged to have been sent to him for meetings on 09.05.2006, 11.05.2006 and 19.05.2006 are confirmed and consequently the resolutions alleged to have been passed on the respective dates are set aside. Amrik Singh cannot be imputed with constructive notices of the meetings to be bound by any of the decisions in the said meetings.
(d) The effect of non-services of the notices on Amrik Singh, admittedly, a 25% shareholder and the purported decisions to appoint additional directors, removal of existing directors, including Amrik Singh and his son and increase in share capital shall constitute oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the company, actionable before the appropriate forum.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (2) TMI 858 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... s held that exemption u/s 10A is to be allowed without set off of loss of non 10A units. ............. ............. Keeping in view the discussion as contained in earlier paragraphas, it is held that learned CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction u/s 10A without setting off brought forward and current year losses of non 10A unit." 9. The decisions of Hon'ble Tribunal (referred supra (2) and 3) on which the assessee placed strong reliance, had occasion to deal with similar issues and decided in favour of the respective assessee. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Tribunal cited supra, we decide the issue in grounds Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the assessee." As the facts of the case are similar, we apply the same and annual the order of the learned CIT dated 13.12.2007 passed u/s 263 of the IT Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2009.
-
2009 (2) TMI 857 - KERALA HIGH COURT
-Levy of service tax or VAT - whether SIM cards attract sales tax as sale of goods? - Section 72 of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act
-
2009 (2) TMI 856 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants was also present as the representative of the industry. Hence, it was no longer open to the appellants and the petitioners to question those circulars. We are once again unable to accept the submission, Mr. Shah might have been present in the meeting and he might or might not have voted for the graded scheme for grant of additional TDR but that would not authorise the municipal authorities to override or supersede the statutory provisions by issuing circulars in the nature of executive instructions. 49. In light of the discussions made above we find that the stand of municipal authorities is contrary to the law as it stands today and the view taken by High Court is unsustainable. The judgment and order dated October 18, 2005 passed by High Court of Bombay in W.P.(C) No.323 of 2000 and other analogous cases is accordingly set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. 50. In the result, the appeals and the writ petition are allowed but with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (2) TMI 855 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... efore the Assessing Officer nor before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), the assessee furnished cash flow statement/ bank account through which investments were made. Before us, the ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the same can be produced before the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, set aside the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and restore this issue to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction that the assessee shall furnish the cash flow statement/ bank account through which investments were made. The Assessing Officer will verify the same and re-adjudicate the addition of ₹ 2,88,678/- afresh in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is also at liberty to consider the alternate contention of the assessee to work out the addition under section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. The Order was pronounced in the Court on 24.09.2010
-
2009 (2) TMI 854 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... v., MS. Anil Katiyar, adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Delay condoned. No merits. The special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 853 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er year and the same cannot be disallowed in the subsequent year when the same has been determined and crystallised. In view of the judicial principles established the amount which was crystallised during the year has to be allowed even though it pertains to a transaction of earlier year. Further the turnover fees/charges payment to SEBI is covered by the provisions of section 43B which can only be allowed in the year of payment. In that context also the assessee's claim is an allowable expenditure in this assessment year and the Assessing Officer's action in disallowing the same as prior period expenditure is not correct. Consequently assessee's ground No. 3 is also allowed. Since assessee's case is covered on merits the issue raised in ground No. 1 becomes academic in nature. Consequently we do not intend to deal with the same in an elaborate manner. 11. In the result,, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2009.
-
2009 (2) TMI 852 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as not a security cheque but was issued to repay the loan, which was to be encashed only after 90 days of the loan. iii. The question of the petitioner being not a registered money lender is an issue which requires evidences. In any case the point raised is mala fide as it has been raised after 4 years of the passing of summoning order, obviously to avoid the repayment of loan amount. iv. In any event it is not a case where the issuance of summons on the complaint of the respondent has caused any miscarriage of justice or can be said to be abuse of process of the court calling for any interference by this Court in exercise of its powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 24. In these circumstances the petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at this stage itself with cost of ₹ 50,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with Delhi High Court Mediation Cell within a period of 15 days from today.
-
2009 (2) TMI 851 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appropriation.” We have perused the order of the Tribunal and felt satisfied that there is no finding either by the Commissioner in his order dated 2-2-2004 or of the Tribunal showing that the respondent-assessee has committed any fraud or mis-appropriation within the meaning of Section 11A of the Act. In the absence of any such finding, it is not possible to accept the submission that such a question of law would arise because question of mis-appropriation or fraud, are pure questions of fact and various ingredients of the offences of fraud and mis-appropriation are required to be satisfied. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. Dismissed.
-
2009 (2) TMI 850 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seizure of goods - the declaration form was not duly filled and some of the columns were left blank deliberately
-
2009 (2) TMI 849 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... sment. In this view of the matter, the refund claims have been rightly rejected in the light of the Apex Court’s decision in Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (120) ELT 285 (SC); and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC), which have been followed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva vs Eurotex Indus. & Exports Ltd., 2007 (216) ELT 137 (T-LB). The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 5th day of February, 2009)
-
2009 (2) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... .T. 145 has decided as to what constitute final product. The ratio of this decision applies to the present case even though the Supreme Court was interpreting the provisions of Notification No.217/86-C.E. We hold that the final products in the present case are motor vehicles/parts and since they are not exempt from payment of duty, the appellant is entitled to take credit of duty paid on the inputs that have gone into the manufacture of intermediate goods (machine parts) which have been captively consumed." We also note that in the assessee's own case reported in the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending MODVAT credit on parts and components of co-generation plant. 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned order by which credit of ₹ 7,11,18,829/- has been disallowed and penalty of equal amount imposed, and allow the appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2009 (2) TMI 847 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the assesse had proved the possession of the jewellery or diamonds at the time of declaration. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer was given an opportunity to produce any material in his possession to hold to the contrary. The Assessing Officer failed to comply with the said direction. In these circumstances, CIT(A) proceeded to pass the order which order came to be subsequently affirmed by the ITAT. The tribunal in the instant case has held that the assessee had disclosed the diamonds in his possession at the time of VDIS declaration which was accepted. Once that be the case and the consideration received from the purchaser which has not been doubted, The fact that there is doubt about the second sale, cannot result in making addition, in the hands of the assessee. 6. In our opinion, considering the findings of facts in the case, this is not a fit case where questions of law as framed would arise. There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, appeal dismissed.
........
|
