|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1036 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1568
... ...
... ... ..... allowance of ₹ 25000/- out of that price of ₹ 3 lakhs per cent. This is somewhat in the nature of an anti climax to the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) himself. It looks like disallowance for the sake of disallowance. Therefore, we find that there is no reason to treat the purchase value of the land at ₹ 2,75,000/- as against ₹ 3 lakhs per cent stated by the assessee. This interference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is set aside and the purchase value of the land in the hands of the assessee-company is directed to the accepted at the rate of ₹ 3 lakhs per cent as conceded by the assessee-company. It is to be seen further, that the directors in turn have declared long term capital gains in their hands. 19. The assessee is successful in its appeal. 20. In result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 20th of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1567
... ...
... ... ..... able to the assessee. The learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation of the assessee and held that the motor car was purchased out of the fund of the assessee-company. The same was used for the purpose of assessee-company. Therefore, disallowance was deleted. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions, we find no merit in these grounds of the Revenue. The learned CIT(A) gave a specific finding that the motor car was purchased out of the funds of the assessee-company and was also used for the purpose of business of the assessee-company. Merely because the registration was in the name of one of the directors would not disallow the claim of the assessee. Decision relied upon by the learned CIT(A) in the impugned order support the findings of the learned CIT(A). We therefore do not find any merit in the ground nos.3 and 4 of the assessee, the same are accordingly dismissed. 7. In result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 21st January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1566
... ...
... ... ..... to India in 2009. But, this is not correct. The very first paragraph of the grounds of detention makes a clear reference to the petitioner’s activities post May 2009 in the following manner - “… Even after his return to India in May, 2009, he continued to engage in the same businesses which he was doing during his stay at Dubai including arranging foreign exchange for Indian parties. S/Shri Manoj Garg, Pooran Chand Sharma, Bimal Jain and Satpal Jain were other members of syndicate active1y associated with Shri Naresh Kumar Jain and assisting him in carrying out his illegal activities in/from India.” Hence, this plea of the petitioner is untenable. Conclusion 33. In view of our decision on Point Nos. 2 and 3 above, the continued detention of the petitioner would be illegal. Hence, this petition is allowed to that extent and the respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in some other case.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1565
... ...
... ... ..... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 14.9.2010, is set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondent may issue separate notices to the petitioner, for the four different assessment years and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the objections raised by the petitioner and taking into consideration the relevant records submitted by the petitioner, at the time of the hearing. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1564
... ...
... ... ..... 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of C.I.T. vs. Multiplan (India) Limited, 38 ITD 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holker vs. CWT as reported in 223 ITR 480 (M.P), we treat these appeals of the assessees as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. The assessees, if so advised, shall be free to move the Tribunal explaining the reasons for non-compliance and for recalling of this order and if the Bench is so satisfied, then this order may be recalled. 3. In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court immediately after hearing on 10. 01.2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1563
... ...
... ... ..... , there was no room for holding that the notice delivered by the Advocate was not a notice delivered by an authorized person. 7. Viewed thus, the finding recorded by the Adjudicating Authority in regard to invalidity of service of mandatory demand notice under Section 8(1) of the ‘I&B Code’ cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority with direction that in the event of the application being complete in all respects, it may, having regard to the key ingredients of debt and default, pass an order of admission or otherwise as warranted under law. However, before passing such order, it may provide an opportunity to the Corporate Debtor to settle the claim of Appellant- Operational Creditor. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Appellant is directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 15th February, 2021. A copy of this order be communicated to the Adjudicating Authority forthwith.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1562
... ...
... ... ..... elonging to Petitioner. 15. Further, regarding the contention that Petitioner herein is not entitled to challenge the notice under SERFAESI Act in this writ petition, in the light of Satyavati Tandon's case this Court hold that the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid decision does not apply to the facts of this case. In the instant case, what is challenged is the right of the Bank to initiate proceedings for recovery of due pursuant to compromise arrived at between the Bank and Principal borrower, as if the said amount is due under original loan transaction which the Bank can recover by initiating appropriate proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the notice issued by the Respondent/bank under Section 13 of SERFAESI Act to the Petitioner herein vide Annexure-E to this petition is without basis on the same is required to be quashed. 16. In the result, the petition is allowed. Notice dated 15.9.2009 vide Annexure-E is quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1561
... ...
... ... ..... Special Bench has considered the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the order of the Tribunal is in consonance with the decision of the Delhi High Court and it has only prescribed the quantum limits and the time limit for such quantum, we are inclined to follow the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal and hold that period of 6 years is the time limit for initiating proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the IT Act, subject to the monetary limits prescribed by the Special Bench. Accordingly, we direct the AO to verify the period of limitation in the above cases and where the initiation of proceedings is after 6 years from the end of relevant assessment year, in those cases the proceedings are held to be quashed. In the other cases, the issue on merits is remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 04-01-2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1560
... ...
... ... ..... And, there is no attempt by the defendant to explain away the admission save the bald assertion as to the poor quality of goods or lack of consideration in relation to the cheques. After all, the goods were not supplied subsequent to the ledger accounts being admitted by the defendant or subsequent to either of the cheques being issued. GA No. 1264 of 2010 succeeds. There will be a decree in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of ₹ 1,55,14,191/- which will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from August 12, 2009 until payment. The plaintiff is undeserving of costs on this application. Since nothing further remains in the suit, CS No. 2 of 2010 is disposed of without any order as to costs. The undertaking furnished by the defendant will continue till such time that the entire payment is made to the plaintiff. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1559
... ...
... ... ..... 9 as also by the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron and Engg.Co. 253 ITR 740 (Guj) Following the parity of reasoning, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. This Ground of appeal is allowed. 15. The last issue relates to disallowance of advertisement expenses of ₹ 50,000/-. After hearing both the parties, we find that this issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the decision of our co-ordinate Bench in the case of Indapur SSK Ltd. v. ACIT vide ITA No 597/PN/08 dated 31.8.2009. Following the parity of reasoning, we set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. This Ground of appeal is allowed. 16. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this 25th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1558
... ...
... ... ..... s view of CIT(A) was considered by the High Court and was approved. Further we are of the view that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 649 (Guj), wherein it is held that by paying the entrance fee to the sports club, the assessee had no intention to acquire any capital asset or take advantage for the enduring benefit of the business. By common sense standards, it could be stated that it was for running the business or for bettering the conduct of its business. The amount paid as entrance fee was deductible Considering the above position, and in view of the facts of the assessee’s case, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and this issue of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 54. In the result, assessee’s appeals and that of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above. Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1557
... ...
... ... ..... ndent was duty bound to entertain the informer. According to the Respondent, PW2 had come to him in that very connection. In this regard, it may be noted that PW2 has supported the entire prosecution case except to the extent of demand and acceptance at the time of raid. No suggestion has been given to PW2 that the money brought to the house of the Respondent was earnest money. In view of the legal presumption as envisaged under Section 20, it was the duty of the Respondent to have rebutted the same by cogent evidence. The Respondent has failed to discharge that onus. No doubt as held in Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (5) SCC 86, the statutory presumption cannot be raised for an offence under section 13 (1) (d). However, for an offence under Section 7 this presumption has to be raised. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The Respondent is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1556
... ...
... ... ..... r Sections 80HHC and 80IB of the Act, subject to its gross total income ? (d) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in taking the view that the Appellant was not entitled to the deduction of the Doctor's Sponsorship Expenses in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) of the Act ? 2. In so far as first three questions are concerned, learned counsel on both the sides state that the aforesaid questions of law have already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2011 9 taxmann.com 63/197 Taxman 84/332 ITR 42 (Bom.) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. In so far as fourth question is concerned, learned counsel for the Appellant states that he is not pressing the same in view of the less tax effect. 4. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly with a direction to the Tribunal to re-compute the deduction in the light of aforesaid decision of this Court. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1555
... ...
... ... ..... e value at the value mentioned in the invoice and later on when it actually received the sale proceeds due to change in rate of exchange the assessee received more sale proceeds of exports and thereby earned exchange fluctuation gain. Therefore, respectfully following the above cited decision of the Tribunal, we confirmed the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) and dismissed the ground of appeal of Revenue. 3. The learned DR conceded that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee. 4. On consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that since identical ground is already decided by the Tribunal in the case of the same assessee in preceding assessment year by dismissing the Department’s appeal, therefore, the issue is covered against the Revenue by the above order of the Tribunal, accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 5. In result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 28th January, 2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1554
... ...
... ... ..... nditure by the AO of ₹ 68,859. The AO disallowed the expenditure of ₹ 68,859/- by treating the same as capital expenditure. 20. On appeal, the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. 21. We have heard the learned AR and learned DR and considered the relevant record. We note that the AO in paragraph 8.3 recorded the details of expenditures as under i Fire extinguisher ₹ 4,950 ii carpet ₹ 24,127 iii Ceiling fans ₹ 13,125 iv Fabricator-grills, etc ₹ 21,157 v Fabricator-grills etc ₹ 5,500 Total ₹ 68,859 22. From the details of the above expenditure it is clear that the said expenditure was incurred by the assessee for acquiring certain articles which are capital in nature. Therefore, the expenditure cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the authorities below qua this issue. 23. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 07.1.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1553
... ...
... ... ..... ld. D.R. has not disputed the above findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). There is no dispute to the fact that the said amount is shown under the head “loans and advances” since assessment year 2001-02 and has also been shown in the Balance-sheet pertaining to the assessment year under consideration. We agree with the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that when the liability is appearing in the Balance-sheet for the past several years, it cannot be presumed that the liability has ceased to exist simply because the address of the old loan creditor was not furnished by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity in the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the said amount of ₹ 10,56,750/- added by the Assessing Officer. We uphold his order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Department. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.01. 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1552
... ...
... ... ..... he requested information, other than the RC numbers of the case, will make the Appellant privy to the extremely confidential information which was meant for the exclusive use of the CBI for the purpose of prosecution. It can be sufficiently concluded that such information clearly falls well within exemption contemplated in Section 8(1)(h) given the fact that the process of "prosecution of offenders" will be impeded if that very information is provided by the CBI at this stage. Thus, the FAA was just and right in refusing to disclose the information sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. In any case, the FAA has taken initiative to furnish some information to the Appellant even though that information was not exactly sought by the Appellant in his original RTI Application dated 28.11.2008. We find no hesitation in upholding the Order of the FAA, with the modification of the order of CPIO, in the present appeal. 12. The Appeal is rejected.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1551
... ...
... ... ..... the outskirts of Gadag-Betegeri within a distance of one kilometer from Gadag Railway Station and the bus stand; and that there were several residential colonies and colleges in the surrounding areas. Therefore though the lands were agricultural, they could be classified as lands having urban development potential. Having regard to the partial access to infrastructural facilities, we are of the view that a deduction of 40% towards cost of development would meet the ends of justice. On the facts and circumstances, the cut of 53% applied by the Reference Court is too high and the cut of 33% applied by the High Court is low. On applying a cut of 40%, the rate per acre for the acquired land as on 6.2.1992 would be ₹ 2,95,476/- (rounded off to ₹ 2,95,500). 11. Accordingly we allow these appeals in part and reduce the compensation awarded from ₹ 4,42,875/- to ₹ 295,500/- per acre. The Respondents will be entitled to all statutory benefits as already awarded.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1550
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of Amway India Enterprise (supra), we therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @60% on the amount of ₹ 54,89,280/- which was paid for getting SAP software. In the result, ground No. 1 is allowed.” 5. Since the present disallowance is also on similar facts and findings in AY 2004-05, respectfully following the same we direct the A.O. to allow depreciation at 60% as claimed. Ground No. 1 is considered allowed. 6. Ground No. 2 is with reference to the claim of 80IB on export incentives like DEPB. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee fairly submits that this issue stands covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in Liberty India vs. CIT (2009) 317 ITR 218. As the issue stands covered against the assessee by the decision cited supra, ground No. 2 is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on at the time of hearing on 17th January 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1549
... ...
... ... ..... n the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations. As the export were completed and so was the contravention of the non realisation of the corresponding proceeds, prior to the FEMA came into force, the provisions of Section 7 of FEMA were also held inapplicable. 12. The facts dealt with in the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred lo supra are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case which are presented in the instant case. The principle of law laid down by the Delhi High Court referring to two judgments of the Apex Court is very much applicable lo the facts and circumstances of the present ease. Therefore I do not have any hesitation to hold that the show-cause notice under challenge is issued without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 13. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice is quashed. Consequently the proceedings initiated and continued pursuant to the show-cause notice shall stand quashed.
........
|
