|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 964 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... f payment of the TDS is to be taken as 10.10.2007 and the decision relied upon is distinguishable as it has referred to the compilation of Treasury Rules which are not applicable for the year under consideration. Since the appellant had not paid the TDS in time, the interest was correctly levied. Hence, the grounds of appeal No.1 to 8 are rejected and the order of the Assessing Officer is hereby confirmed.” 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, but could not establish as to why the date which appears in the challan should not be taken as the actual date of deposit. We, however, carefully examined the order of the ld. CIT(A) and find that there was delay in deposit of TDS, therefore, the Revenue has rightly levied interest on the delayed period of payment. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), we confirm his order. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.4.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 963 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... by the assessee and used for the purposes of its business. The aforesaid condition is fully satisfied by the assessee and therefore considered in the aforesaid perspective we find no justification for the plea raised by the Revenue before us. 12. In the result, we affirm the order of the CIT(A) in holding that the assessee was eligible for depreciation on the ‘Right to collect Toll’, being an ‘intangible asset’ falling within the purview of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act following the aforesaid precedents. 6. We further find that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the ITAT, Pune in the case of Ashoka Infor Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 44/PN/2007 dated 31-12-2008. We, therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for allowing the claim of the depreciation in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is confirmed. 7. In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 30-04-2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 962 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It is clear and certain that when the entire allegations are based upon the factual details for which documentary evidence is already available with the complainant/ respondent no. 2, there is no reason for filing fresh complaint before the police authority for further investigation as alleged. 22 Therefore, both the petitions are allowed, as prayed for. Thereby complaint being C.R. No. I-1160/2004 pending with the Navrangpura Police Station upon complaint by respondent no. 2 on 18/12/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present petitioners. Thereby, it is made clear that the quashing is with reference to the present petitioners only and that original complainant - respondent no. 2 has right to take action against the company or its Directors even in the first complaint in accordance with law for any other allegation if it constitutes any other offence in any other law including Indian Penal Code. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 961 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ing environment. Thus, without viewing the meaning of the above object from a limited aperture whose simple use of the word ‘religion’ is taken on otherwise is unfortunate. It is the religion which teaches one and all the way of life. How, one could live physically, mentally and socially happy and prosperous, is taught by one and all religion. So, it is religion in that wider sense of its meaning and not in the way of limited meaning of segmentalization of society and creating a divide in the society. Thus, the above object is for public charity and is not limited to a particular class or believer in a particular section. Hence, the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) will not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we direct ld. Commissioner to grant approval to the appellant Trust u/s 80G(5) as it has been claimed by it. 10. In the result, we allow all the appeals. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th April,2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 960 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ; M.P. No. 1 of 2011 dated 1.11.2012 . 5. Per contra, learned A.R. fairly agreed that the issue of pro rata deduction under Section 80-IB(10) as on date stood decided in favour of assessee. 6. We have perused the orders and heard the submissions. Assessee’s claim was denied for a reason that built-up area of two units exceeded 1500 sq.ft. CIT(Appeals) allowed the claim pro rata directed the Assessing Officer to grant the assessee deduction except for two units which exceeded 1500 sq.ft. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanghvi and Doshi Enterprise (supra) has clearly held that proportionate deduction had to be allowed under Section 80-IB(10), where built-up area of some units exceeded 1500 sq.ft. We are, therefore, of the opinion that CIT(Appeals) was justified in giving such direction. No interference is required. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 11th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 959 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... arnal v/s Shr. Amarnath care of M/s Shiv Shankar Rice Mills, Kaithal-ITA No.57 of 2008. (ii) Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh-Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Deepak Kumar-IT appeal No.191 of 2009 38 DTR (P&H) 118. (iii) Punjab & Haryana High Court Chandigarh-Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Shidhartha Enterprises - 322 ITR 80 (P&H) (iv) Income Tax Appellate Bench, Bench SMC-Chandigarh - Sigma Cartons Private Limited Ludhiana V Income Tax Officer, Range V(3) Ludhiana - IT AppealNo.33 REP 89 )ITAT CHD) (v) Madras High Court - Areva T&D India Limited V Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - 287 ITR 555 (Mad). (vi) Delhi High Court - Commissioner of Income Tax V S.Dhanbal 309 ITR 268 (Del). 11. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct AO to compute the income on the basis of revised computation filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. 12. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16th April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 957 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI BENCH
... ...
... ... ..... f Companies, Hyderabad alleging similar allegations as made in the petition cannot be treated as different proceedings with distinctive averments. The reliefs in the present proceedings are basing on the averments in the instant petition which are same as in company petition for winding up and plaint in the suit. In short, the averments, allegations are common. It is evident that the petitioners lodged a complaint with the CCS Police, Hyderabad under various provisions of the IPC and the Information Technology Act and it appears that the investigation is in progress. When the investigation is pending in those matters it is not proper to come to a conclusion that the respondents have committed the acts of forgery, fabrication of records, minutes, etc. Even otherwise this Bench does not have the powers to enquire into those allegations. In view of the reasons as stated above, C.P. No. 82 of 2011 is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. All applications stand disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 956 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be exercised by the appellate court; (iv) Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate such a factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside, by filing an independent suit. (v) A person aggrieved may maintain an application before the Land Acquisition Collector for reference under Section 18 or 30 of the Act, 1894, but cannot make an application for impleadment or apportionment before the Reference Court. 33. The instant case has been examined in light of the aforesaid legal propositions. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and is hence liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order impugned herein are set aside. The Respondents are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, by resorting to appropriate proceedings, as permissible in law.
-
2013 (4) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce order cited by the learned Senior Counsel would not assist the appellant in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, the particular issue now canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents was never an issue nor was dealt by this Court in the aforesaid decision. 16. This Court in Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa, has categorically observed that once the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn without obtaining appropriate permission to file a special leave petition once over again after exhausting the remedy of review petition before the High Court, the same is not maintainable. 17. The issue raised in this appeal is identical with the issue raised and considered by this Court in Vinod Kapoor v. State of Goa. Therefore, while accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent, we hold that the petition filed by the appellant is not maintainable. 18. Accordingly, we dismiss this civil appeal without going into the merits of the case. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 954 - SUPREME COURT
Writ Petition - Complete ban on mining - large scale illegal mining at the cost and to the detriment of the environment - encroachment into forest areas by leaseholders and ongoing mining operations without requisite statutory approval - Central Empowered Committee ("the CEC") was asked to submit a report on the allegations of illegal mining in the Bellary region of the State of Karnataka - two lessees have sought upgradation from "C" to "B" Category - restricted six mining leases granted in favour of M/s. Bellary Iron Ore Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Mahabaleswarapa & Sons, M/s. Ananthapur Mining Corporation and M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. -
HELD THAT:- We accept the findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by the orders of this Court and the boundaries of each of the leases determined on that basis. We further direct that in supersession of all orders either of the authorities of the State or Courts, as may be, the boundaries of leases fixed by the Joint Team will henceforth be the boundaries of each of the leases who will have the benefit of the lease area as determined by the Joint Team. All proceedings pending in any court with regard to boundaries of the leases involved in the present proceeding shall stand adjudicated by means of present order and no such question would be open for re-examination by any body or authority.
Whether categorization on the basis of percentage of the encroached area qua the total lease area is an arbitrary decision - Arbitrariness in the adoption of a criteria for classification has to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and not on the subjective notions of availability of a better basis of classification. The basis suggested i.e. total encroached area has the potential of raising questions similar to the ones now raised on behalf of the lease holders.
The only caveat in this regard is in respect of category 'C' mines. The Federation had suggested that the said mines be also allowed to reopen subject to similar or even more stringent conditions and, alternatively, for reopening of 39 total out of the total of 49 category 'C' mines by adoption of certain more liberal criteria than those recommended by the CEC. In the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the categorization suggested by the CEC in its Report dated 3.2.2012 should be accepted by us.
There is nothing in the preconditions or in the details of the R&R plans suggested which are contrary to or in conflict or inconsistent with any of the statutory provisions of the MMDR Act, EP Act and FC Act. In such a situation, while accepting the preconditions subject to which the Category 'A' and 'B' mines are to be reopened and the R&R plans that must be put in place for Category 'B' mines, we are of the view that the suggestions made by the CEC for reopening of Category 'A' and 'B' mines as well as the details of the R&R plans should be accepted by us, which we accordingly do. This will bring us to the most vital issue of the case, i.e., the future of the Category 'C' mines.
Illegal mining apart from playing havoc on the national economy had, in fact, cast an ominous cloud on the credibility of the system of governance by laws in force. It has had a chilling and crippling effect on ecology and environment. It is evident from the compilation submitted to the Court by the CEC that several of the Category 'C' mines were operating without requisite clearances under FC Act or even in the absence of a mining lease for a part of the area used for mining operations.
The satellite imageries placed before the Court with regard to environmental damage and destruction has shocked judicial conscience. It is in the light of the above facts and circumstances that the future course of action in respect of the maximum violators/polluters, i.e., Category 'C' mines has to be judged. While doing so, the Court also has to keep in mind the requirement of Iron Ore to ensure adequate supply of manufactured steel and other allied products.
Once the result of the survey undertaken and the boundaries of the leases determined by the Joint Team has been accepted by the Court and the basis of categorization of the mines has been found to be rational and constitutionally permissible it will be difficult for this Court to visualize as to how the Category 'C' mines can be allowed to reopen.
There is no room for compassion; fervent pleas for clemency cannot have even a persuasive value. As against the individual interest of the Category 'C' lease holders, public interest at large would require the Court to lean in favour of demonstrating the efficacy and effectiveness of the long arm of the law. We, therefore, order for the complete closure of the Category 'C' mines and for necessary follow up action in terms of the recommendations of the CEC in this regard, details of which have already been extracted in an earlier part of this order.
In so far as settlement of the inter-state boundaries between the States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka is concerned, both the States have agreed to have the boundaries fixed under the supervision of the Geological Survey of India. In view of the agreement between the States on the said issue we permit the States to finalize the issue in the above terms. The operation of the 7 leases (Category B1) located on or near the inter-State boundary is presently suspended. Until the boundary issue between the two States is resolved resumption of mining operations in the 7 leases cannot be allowed.
The CEC has provisionally categorised M/s. S.B. Minerals and Shanthalakshmi Jayaram in Category "B" though the encroached area under illegal mining pits has been found to be 24.44% and 23.62% respectively. According to the CEC, it is on account of "the complexities involved in finalizing the survey sketches and in the absence of inter-village boundary" that the said leases have been placed in Category "B" instead of Category "C".
We cannot agree with the tentative decision of the CEC. On the basis of the findings of the survey and the categorization made, both of which have been accepted by the Court by the present order, we direct that the aforesaid two leases, namely, M/s. S.B. Minerals and M/s. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram be placed in Category "C". Necessary consequential action will naturally follow.
The CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has placed the cases of M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons and M/s. Hothur Traders (placed in Category "C") for final determination by the Court. The CEC has reported that the encroachment by M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons is only in respect of the overburden dumps and exceeds the percentage (15%) marginally, i.e., by 0.17% which could very well be due to the least count error used by the Joint Team.
In so far as M/s. Hothur Traders is concerned the CEC in its Report dated 28.3.2012 has recorded that according to the lessee it has carried on its mining operation for the last 50 years in the lease area allotted to it which may have been wrongly identified in the earlier surveys and demarcations by taking into account a wrong reference point.
In the result, we summarize our conclusions in the matter as follows:
(1) The findings of the survey conducted by the Joint Team constituted by this Court by order dated 6.5.2011 and boundaries of the leases in question as determined on the basis of the said survey is hereby approved and accepted.
(2) The categorization of the mines ("A", "B" and "C") on the basis of the parameters adopted by the CEC as indicated in its Report dated 3.2.2012 is approved and accepted.
(3) The order of the Court dated 13.4.2012 accepting the recommendations dated 13.3.2012 of the CEC (in modification of the recommendations of the CEC dated 3.2.2012) in respect of the items (A) to (I) is reiterated. Specifically, the earmarked role of the Monitoring Committee in the said order dated 13.4.2012 is also reiterated.
(4) The order of the Court dated 3.9.2012 in respect of reopening of 18 Category "A" mines subject to the conditions mentioned in the said order is reiterated.
(5) The order of the Court dated 28.9.2012 in all respects is reiterated.
(6) The recommendations of the CEC contained in the Report dated 15.2.2013 for reopening of remaining Category "A" mines and Category "B" mines (63 in number) and sale of sub-grade iron ore subject to the conditions mentioned in the said Report are approved.
(7) The recommendations contained in paragraphs VI and VII (Pg. 56 to 57) of the CEC Report dated 3.2.2012 are accepted, meaning thereby, the leases in respect of "C" Category mines will stand cancelled and the recommendations of the CEC (para VII Pg. 56) of Report dated 3.2.2012 with regard to the grant of fresh leases are accepted.
(8) The proceeds of the sales of the Iron Ore of the 'C' Category mines made through the Monitoring Committee will stand forfeited to the State. The Monitoring Committee will remit the amounts held by it on this account to the SPV for utilization in connection with the purposes for which it had been constituted.
(9) M/s. V.S. Lad & Sons, M/s. Hothur Traders, M/s. S.B. Minerals (ML No. 2515) and M/s. Shanthalakshmi Jayaram (ML No. 2553) will be treated as "C" Category mines and resultant consequences in respect of the said leases will follow.
(10) The operation of the 7 leases placed in "B" category situated on or nearby the Karnataka-Andhra Pradesh inter-State boundary will remain suspended until finalisation of the inter-State boundary dispute whereupon the question of commencement of operations in respect of the aforesaid 7 leases will be examined afresh by the CEC.
(11) The recommendations made in the paragraph VIII of the Report of the CEC dated 3.2.2012 (pertaining to M/s. MML, Pg. 57) is accepted. The recommendations made in paragraphs IX, X, XII (in respect of confiscated iron-ore) XIII and XIV of the said Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 57-60) will not require any specific direction as the same have already been dealt with or the same have otherwise become redundant, as may be.
(12) The recommendations made in paragraph XI (grant of fresh leases) and paragraph XII (in respect of pending applications for grant of mining leases) of the CEC's Report dated 3.2.2012 (Pg. 59) are not accepted. In view of the discussions and conclusions in para 44 of the present order, this Court's order dated 02.11.2012 placing an embargo on grant of fresh mining leases need not be continued any further. Grant of fresh mining leases and consideration of pending applications be dealt with in accordance with law, the directions contained in the present order as well as the spirit thereof.
(13) Determination of the inter-State boundary between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in so far as the same is relevant to the present proceedings, as agreed upon by the two States, be made through the intervention of the office of Surveyor General of India.
We also direct that all consequential action in terms of the present order be completed with the utmost expedition. The writ application filed by Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and IAs shall stand disposed of in terms of our above stated conclusions.
-
2013 (4) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... where the age of the deceased is above 15 years, there is no necessity for the Claims Tribunals to seek guidance or for placing reliance on the Second Schedule in the 1988 Act. (iv) The Claims Tribunals shall follow the steps and guidelines stated in para 19 of Sarla Verma17 for determination of compensation in cases of death. (v) While making addition to income for future prospects, the Tribunals shall follow paragraph 24 of the Judgment in Sarla Verma17 . (vi) Insofar as deduction for personal and living expenses is concerned, it is directed that the Tribunals shall ordinarily follow the standards prescribed in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 of the judgment in Sarla Verma17 subject to the observations made by us in para 38 above. (vii) The above propositions mutatis mutandis shall apply to all pending matters where above aspects are under consideration. 41. The reference is answered accordingly. Civil appeals shall now be posted for hearing and disposal before the regular Bench.
-
2013 (4) TMI 952 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside. The claimant shall be entitled to a total compensation of ₹ 22,81,320 with interest @ 7.5% p.a from 26-11-2007 till realisation. The third respondent Insurance Company is directed to pay 50% of the enhanced compensation by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered at the address given by her in the claim petition within three months. Demand drafts for the balance amount in equal proportion, after deducting the amount, if any, already paid, shall be prepared in the name of the three minor children and the mother and the same shall also be delivered to the parties at the respective addresses given in the claim petition within three months. The amounts in the share of the minor children shall be deposited in the nationalised bank where the amounts as awarded by the Tribunal have already been deposited, till they attain majority. There is no order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 951 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d on 25.3.2004 for ₹ 9.34 lakhs. The counsel submitted that the assessee had large agricultural holding. The assessee had sufficient source of income to meet educational expenses of the daughter. Apart from agriculture income, the assessee has income from business. We are satisfied that the assessee has been able to explain source of expenditure on the education of his daughter. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the ground raised in the Cross Objection is allowed. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 25. In the result, ITA Nos.1978,1979,1981 & 1982/Mds./11 of the Revenue are dismissed & appeal of Revenue in ITA No.1980/Mds./11 is partly allowed and Cross Objection Nos.85, 86, 88, 89 & 90/Mds/2011 are partly allowed. C.O.No.87/Mds/2011 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 29th day of April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 950 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rns, 105 ITR 633, single/isolated venture, are not excluded and where the initial intention is to make profit by resale, transaction is a business venture, even single transaction can be held transaction and adventure in nature of trade, CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC) . The appellant had shown substantial investment in land as the investment but the nature of investment is to be decided on the basis of intention and frequency. In balance sheet, the assessee had shown advance towards the land as ₹ 3.24 crore which shows the intention of the assessee to trade the land. Therefore, we have considered view that the assessee was in trading of land and activity of the assessee held adventure in nature of trade. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in open Court on 30.04.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 949 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration to the rival contentions, in the backdrop of the facts stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the precise question involved in the appeal is as to whether the assessee, who has raised rental income etc. by providing infrastructure facilities in an industrial park is entitled for deduction under section 80IA No.2123/M/ 2123/M/11 /M/11 (4)(iii) or not. Proceeding to decide this question, we find from the case law cited by the assessee in CIT vs. Elnet Technologies Ltd (supra) that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has settled the very issue in favour of the concerned assessee and against the Revenue in its arguments. No distinguishing features have either been pointed out by the Revenue nor they emanate from the facts of the case. Accordingly, we confirm the findings of the CIT(A) under challenge. 8. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 2nd of April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... observing that it is improbable. 23. We cannot approve the manner in which the courts below dealt with the case. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. Thus, the judgments of the courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the Trial Court to decide afresh on the basis of the evidence/material on record. 24. In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Trial Court will hear the arguments advanced from both sides, and deal with each and every piece of evidence, taking into consideration the defence taken by the accused persons, in their respective statements under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and record findings, in accordance with law. The case shall be decided by the Trial Court within a period of 3 months from the certified copy of this order. However, before parting with the case, make it clear that no observation made in this order shall be taken into consideration by the trial Court, as we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the case.
-
2013 (4) TMI 947 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... xtools Co. Ltd. (supra) the contribution made towards gratuity of the employees cannot be disallowed on the ground that it has not been paid to the approved gratuity fund but has been directly paid to the LIC. It is further pertinent to mention here that though the assessee has been regularly making payment to LIC towards gratuity of the employees, the same has never been disallowed by the department in the earlier assessment year as well as in the subsequent AY i.e. 2005-06. Though principles are resjudicata does not apply to a taxing statute but nevertheless rule of consistency is also required to be maintained. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we hold that the payment of ₹ 1,82,22,000/- to LIC towards gratuity of the employees is an allowable deduction and accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to allow the same. The ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 19th April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 946 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce granted by MoEF. Needless to say that while taking the final decision, the MoEF shall take into consideration any corrective measures that might have been taken by the Alumina Refinery Project for rectifying the alleged violations of the terms of the environmental clearance granted in its favour by the MoEF. 62. The proceedings of the Gram Sabha shall be attended as an observer by a judicial officer of the rank of the District Judge, nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Orissa who shall sign the minutes of the proceedings, certifying that the proceedings of the Gram Sabha took place independently and completely uninfluenced either by the Project proponents or the Central Government or the State Government. 63. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Communicate this order to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Gram Sabhas of Kalahandi and Rayagada Districts of Orissa and the Chief Justice of High Court of Orissa, for further follow up action.
-
2013 (4) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as the same provides for mitigation of sentence in the event that a charge or finding thereon is found to be invalid, as the respondent could not have been tried by a GCM for the offences that had been committed by him as a juvenile, keeping in view the provisions of Rule 65 thereof. Thus, considering the nature of service of the respondent, the gravity of offences committed by him after attaining the age of 18 years and the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that grant of relief to the respondent, even on the principles of “justice, equity, and good conscience”; was not permissible. 28. In view of the above, the appeal succeeds, and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the High Court impugned herein, is set aside and the order of conviction recorded by the GCM is restored. However, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence imposed by the GCM is reduced to five years. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 944 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal on the ground that when income of the assessee has been directed to compute @ 0.25% on total turnover of ₹ 1,08,76,86,861/-, which was worked out at ₹ 27,19,217/-. The ld. CIT(A) had allowed all the expenses claimed by the appellant by relying upon the decision in case of Bharat A Master vs. ITO in ITa No. 177/Ahd/2003 dated 29.02.2008 and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Poona Electric vs. CIT 57 ITR 521(SC). After considering the orders of the A.O. and submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) has directed to compute the income on the basis of 0.25% on total turnover and no benefit of any expenditure would be allowed. Thus, we also confirm the order of the CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, Revenue’s appeal on this ground is dismissed. 8. In the result, the Assessee & Revenue’s appeals for both assessment years are dismissed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 05.04.2013
........
|
