Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 14810 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 1746
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the petitions.
  2. Legality of the order passed u/s 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
  3. Applicability of section 465 of the Code to the impugned order.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Petitions:

  The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code. It was argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy u/s 397 of the Code. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dhariwal Tobacco Products Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 2 SCC 370, which held that an application u/s 482 of the Code cannot be dismissed solely because an alternative remedy of filing a revision application u/s 397 of the Code is available. Consequently, the preliminary objection was rejected, and the petitions were held to be maintainable.

  2. Legality of the Order Passed u/s 73 of the Code:

  The court examined the application made by the respondents for the issuance of a warrant u/s 70 of the Code. The application stated that the accused were evading arrest and not cooperating with the investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued the warrant, stating it was necessary for the investigation. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, AIR 1997 SC 2494, which held that a warrant of arrest u/s 73 of the Code cannot be issued solely for the production of the accused before the police in aid of investigation. The court found that the impugned order was contrary to this decision, as the warrant was issued solely in aid of investigation, rendering the order legally infirm and unsustainable.

  3. Applicability of Section 465 of the Code:

  The respondents argued that even if the impugned order was erroneous, it could not be set aside unless it occasioned a failure of justice, as per section 465 of the Code. The court analyzed section 465 and concluded that it applies to final judgments and not to ancillary proceedings during the investigation and trial. The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions, including Wille (William) Slaney v. State of M.P., (1955) 2 SCR 1140, and Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516, which emphasized that procedural errors do not vitiate the trial unless they cause substantial prejudice. The court held that section 465 could not be invoked in respect of an order passed u/s 73 of the Code for the issuance of a warrant u/s 70 of the Code. Therefore, the reliance on section 465 by the respondents was misplaced.

  Conclusion:

  The petitions were allowed, and the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, was quashed and set aside. The court directed that the petitioners, who had already been arrested, be treated as having been arrested in exercise of powers u/s 41 of the Code. The request for a stay of the judgment was declined.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1745
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
  2. Reliance on specific documents for determining compensation.
  3. Consideration of the potential and strategic location of the acquired land.
  4. Application of the formula for annual increase in land value.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Enhancement of Compensation:
  The appeals challenge the High Court's judgment dated 20th September 2010, which dismissed the appeals for enhancement of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act). The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had assessed the market value of the acquired land at different rates per acre based on the type of land. Dissatisfied with the LAC's assessment, the appellants sought a reference u/s 18 of the LA Act, leading to the Additional District Judge (ADJ) fixing higher compensation. The appellants, still seeking further enhancement, filed Regular First Appeals, which were dismissed by the High Court, prompting the present appeals.
  
  2. Reliance on Specific Documents:
  The High Court relied on a single document, Ex. P-15, a conveyance deed registered for sale by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) to the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC), to determine the compensation. The High Court found this document most relevant as it was closest in time to the Notification u/s 4 of the LA Act dated 11.1.2001. The appellants argued that the High Court erred in relying solely on this document and ignoring other relevant documents showing higher land values.
  
  3. Consideration of Potential and Strategic Location:
  The appellants contended that the acquired land was strategically located near various commercial establishments and had significant future potential. They produced site plans and government documents indicating higher land values. The Reference Court had acknowledged the industrial, commercial, and residential potential of the land, stating that it was not merely agricultural land. The appellants argued that the High Court failed to consider these aspects adequately.
  
  4. Application of Annual Increase Formula:
  The Supreme Court referred to its judgment in Asharfi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, where a formula of 12% per annum increase in land value was applied. The Court noted that from 1993 to 2001, there was a period of attrition in land rates. Therefore, it applied the 12% increase formula for only four years instead of the entire period, resulting in a valuation of Rs. 770/- per square yard in 2001. After deducting one-third, the net valuation was Rs. 514/- per square yard. The Supreme Court found this increase reasonable and fixed the compensation accordingly.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were allowed to the extent of fixing the compensation at Rs. 514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the appellants.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1744
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Incorrect version stated by PW-18 during Test Identification Parade.
  2. Role and rights of the informant/victim in criminal proceedings u/s 301 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
  3. Powers of the trial court to recall and re-examine witnesses u/s 311 CrPC.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Incorrect Version Stated by PW-18
  The appeal concerns an alleged incorrect version stated by PW-18, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, during the Test Identification Parade on 05.01.2009. The Appellant, a Catholic Nun, claimed she was brutally assaulted and gang-raped by the accused. PW-18's testimony conflicted with Exhibit-8, the official record of the identification parade, leading to a serious grievance for the Appellant. The Appellant contended that the prosecution failed to confront PW-18 about this discrepancy, which could prejudice the case.
  
  Issue 2: Role and Rights of the Informant/Victim u/s 301 and 311 CrPC
  The High Court ruled that the informant had a limited role in the trial and could not file a petition to recall witnesses u/s 301 CrPC. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court should have considered invoking Section 311 CrPC to rectify the error. The Court noted that the victim, being the actual sufferer, should have her grievances addressed adequately. The Court highlighted the participatory role of the trial court in ensuring justice and not merely acting as a passive observer.
  
  Issue 3: Powers of the Trial Court to Recall and Re-examine Witnesses u/s 311 CrPC
  The Supreme Court criticized the trial court and the High Court for failing to use their powers u/s 311 CrPC to recall PW-18 and correct the erroneous testimony. The Court emphasized that the trial court should have taken proactive steps to ensure that the evidence was accurate and just. The Court referred to various precedents, including Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, to underline the importance of the trial court's active role in criminal proceedings.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the trial court and the High Court, directing the trial court to recall PW-18 and allow the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding the conflicting statements. The trial court was also instructed to permit the Appellant to file written arguments u/s 301 CrPC. The trial court was directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously within three months. The appeal was allowed on these terms.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1743
  
  Issues involved: Appeal u/s 68 of Punjab Value Added Tax Act against penalty under Section 51(7) (b) for clerical mistake in documents and failure to establish tax evasion, and failure to follow own judgment on similar issue.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal was filed against a penalty imposed under Section 51(7) (c) and Section 51(12) of the Act due to a clerical mistake in documents related to the transportation of goods. The appellant, a private limited company, sent goods to its Ludhiana branch but faced detention as the address was wrongly mentioned. The penalty was upheld by the Tribunal, leading to the present appeal.
  
  The appellant argued that the mistake was unintentional and there was no attempt to evade tax, citing the submission of relevant invoices. The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on a previous judgment involving similar circumstances where the dealer was not held liable for a penalty.
  
  After considering the submissions, the Court found merit in the appellant's explanation. It was noted that the mistake in the documents was inadvertent, and there was no intention to evade tax. The appellant had voluntarily produced the necessary documents, including invoices and a GR, which indicated compliance. The Court emphasized that there was no tax liability at the entry stage in Punjab, and the Tribunal's deviation from its previous decision lacked justification.
  
  Consequently, the substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1742
  
  Issues:
  The issues involved in the judgment are the Service Tax demand upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise, the Appellant's submission regarding registration and regular payment of service tax, the contention on the demand being barred by limitation, and the applicability of the extended period for demanding service tax.
  
  Service Tax Demand Upheld:
  The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the Service Tax demand of Rs.13,53,077/- along with interest and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The Appellant, a security service provider, was issued a show cause notice for service tax not paid for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was upheld on appeal. The Appellant challenged this order in the present appeal.
  
  Registration and Payment of Service Tax:
  The Appellant contended that they have been registered with the Service Tax department since 14.09.2000 and have been regularly paying service tax. They claimed to have filed returns on the taxable value received by them and provided security services mainly to Government agencies. Despite some agencies refusing to pay service tax, the Appellant maintained they promptly deposited the collected tax in the Government account. They argued that the demand was unjustified as they did not suppress any information and the extended period for demanding service tax was not applicable.
  
  Barred by Limitation and Extended Period:
  The Appellant asserted that the entire demand was barred by limitation since the show cause notice was issued on 11.11.2005 for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04. They argued that as they did not suppress any information and the extended period could not be invoked, the demands confirmed in the impugned order were not sustainable on the ground of limitation. The Appellant was found liable to pay service tax for the normal period of limitation without any penalty due to the absence of intent to evade tax payment.
  
  Conclusion:
  The CESTAT Kolkata observed that the Appellant, despite being registered and paying service tax regularly, was liable to pay service tax on the taxable services provided to Government agencies. However, as the Appellant did not suppress any information and the extended period was deemed inapplicable, the demands confirmed in the impugned order were not sustainable. The Appellant was directed to pay service tax, if any, along with interest for the normal period of limitation, with no penalty imposed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly on 19.12.2023.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1741
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Disallowance of interest expenses in Dera Bassi unit.
  2. Estimation of notional interest on capital work in progress.
  3. Estimation of notional interest on additions to fixed assets.
  4. Estimation of notional interest on funds in the name of Baddi trading unit.
  5. Capitalization of web/software development expenses.
  6. Reduction of claim u/s 80IC by shifting/allocating expenses.
  7. Wrong calculation of deduction u/s 80IC.
  8. Disallowance of carried forward depreciation loss.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of Interest Expenses
  The assessee, engaged in drug formulation with units at Dera Bassi and Baddi, faced disallowance of Rs. 31,06,069/- in interest expenses for Dera Bassi unit due to alleged fund diversion to Baddi unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed disallowance based on 10.75% interest rate. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute disallowance using the average cost of debt, considering mixed funds, following the ratio in CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. and DCIT Vs MTZ Polyfilms Ltd.
  
  Issue 2: Notional Interest on Capital Work in Progress
  The AO observed that interest on capital work in progress should be capitalized. The Tribunal agreed but directed the AO to apply the average cost of debt for disallowance computation.
  
  Issue 3: Notional Interest on Additions to Fixed Assets
  The AO noted that interest on fixed assets additions should be capitalized. The Tribunal found no merit in disallowance if assets were put to use within the year, allowing the assessee's claim.
  
  Issue 4: Notional Interest on Funds in Baddi Trading Unit
  The Tribunal directed the AO to consider only the opening balance for disallowance computation and apply the average cost of debt. The total disallowance should not exceed Rs. 31,06,069/-.
  
  Issue 5: Capitalization of Web/Software Development Expenses
  The AO capitalized web/software development expenses, allowing 60% depreciation. The Tribunal upheld this, citing the amendment to include computer software as tangible assets under Rule 5 of Income Tax Rules, 1962.
  
  Issue 6: Reduction of Claim u/s 80IC by Shifting/Allocating Expenses
  The AO allocated common expenses among units, reducing the deduction u/s 80IC. The Tribunal directed the AO to consider turnover and expenses of all units, avoiding double disallowance.
  
  Issue 7: Wrong Calculation of Deduction u/s 80IC
  The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the deduction u/s 80IC, ensuring no double addition.
  
  Issue 8: Disallowance of Carried Forward Depreciation Loss
  The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was partly allowed, with directions for recomputation and consideration of average cost of debt for interest disallowance, proper allocation of expenses, and avoidance of double disallowance.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1740
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) regarding deduction of tax at source on warehousing charges.
  2. Valuation of closing stock of Soyabean for assessment purposes.
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) regarding deduction of tax at source on warehousing charges:
  
  The appeal by the Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) on warehousing charges. The Revenue contended that tax should have been deducted at source on the warehousing charges paid. The CIT(A) had held that since no amount was outstanding at the year-end as "payable," no disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) could be made. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A)'s decision was not in line with a previous Tribunal decision and should be reversed. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that even if no amount was "payable" at the end of the year but was debited to the profit and loss account without tax deduction at source, Section 40(a)(ia) applied. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and allowed the Revenue's appeal for this issue. However, the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the applicability of Section 40(a)(ia) to the facts of the case, so the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for further consideration.
  
  Issue 2: Valuation of closing stock of Soyabean for assessment purposes:
  
  The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to adopt an average value of closing stock of Soyabean at a lower rate compared to the Assessing Officer's valuation. The Assessing Officer had determined the closing stock value based on market rates obtained from APMC, Latur. The CIT(A) upheld an addition to the closing stock value, considering the market price information and average value per quintal. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be reasonable and reasoned, as it was based on the information provided by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal regarding the interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) on warehousing charges but remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for further consideration. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the valuation of closing stock of Soyabean, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1739
  
  The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled that submitting ARE-2 is mandatory to avail duty rebate. Failure to file ARE-2 deprives the applicant of benefits under the scheme. The court upheld this requirement based on previous decisions and dismissed the writ petition.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1738
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the issue of recalling a final order passed in a criminal case without hearing the victim, invoking the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Recalling of order without hearing the victim
  The petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed to recall the final order transferring a Sessions Trial from one court to another without hearing the victim, who is the complainant in the case. The core question was whether the victim is required to be heard before such a transfer order is passed.
  
  Issue 2: Importance of victim in criminal proceedings
  The concept of "victim" was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure through amendments in 2009, recognizing the importance of victims in the criminal justice system. The victim has been defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C., and various provisions have been introduced to protect the rights of victims in investigations, trials, appeals, and revisions.
  
  Issue 3: Victim's rights and recognition
  The victim, being the ultimate sufferer in a crime, has been given recognition as an aggrieved party in the criminal justice system. The victim's rights are now protected from the occurrence of the incident through trial, appeal, and revision, ensuring their participation in the legal process.
  
  Precedents and Legal Standpoints:
  The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of hearing the complainant or victim before passing orders favoring the accused. Various decisions have highlighted the necessity of giving the victim an opportunity to be heard, even before the statutory recognition granted to victims in the amended Code of Criminal Procedure in 2008.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court held that the order transferring the sessions trial without hearing the victim was vitiated and ordered its recall. The victim's right to oppose the transfer and participate in the legal proceedings was recognized, emphasizing the importance of victim involvement in criminal cases.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1737
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the interpretation of Article 24 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore, the determination of whether a payment constitutes Royalty under the DTAA, and whether the Royalty has arisen in India as per the provisions of Article 12(7) of the DTAA.
  
  Interpretation of Article 24 of DTAA:
  The Tribunal held that the income, even if construed as Royalty, does not arise in India under Article 12(7) because the payer is a resident of Singapore. Referring to the OECD Commentary on Article 11, it was emphasized that the state of source of royalties is the state where the payer is a resident. The Tribunal also noted that the amount paid was subject to tax in Singapore under its domestic laws, leading to the conclusion that Article 24 of the DTAA does not apply. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground based on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench.
  
  Nature of Payment as Royalty under DTAA:
  The Tribunal did not find it necessary to decide whether the payment in question was in the nature of Royalty under the DTAA, as it had already determined that the Royalty did not arise in India as per the provisions of Article 12(7) of the Treaty. This decision was in line with a previous decision of the Tribunal, and accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
  
  Royalty Arising in India u/s Article 12(7) of DTAA:
  The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of Article 12(7) of the Indo-Singapore DTAA and referred to a previous decision regarding the necessity of an economic link between the payment of royalties and the Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. It was concluded that since there was no economic link between the payment of royalties and the Indian PE, the Royalty did not arise in India as per the Treaty provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground, following the decision in the assessee's own case.
  
  Separate Judgment by Judges:
  The judgment was delivered by Shri N.K. Billaiya, AM, and Shri B.R. Mittal, JM. The issues of interpretation of the DTAA, nature of payment as Royalty, and the Royalty arising in India u/s Article 12(7) of the DTAA were comprehensively addressed and decided in favor of the assessee based on previous Tribunal decisions and legal interpretations.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1736
  
  Issues Involved: Cross appeals filed by Assessee and Revenue in ITA Nos. 925/Ahd/12 & 1086/Ahd/12 regarding addition of land restoration expenses for assessment year 2007-2008.
  
  Assessee's Appeal (ITA No. 925/Ahd/2012):
  The Assessee challenged the addition of Rs.6,67,849 out of total addition of Rs.79,41,759 made by the AO on account of disallowance of land restoration expenses. The Assessee argued that the expenses should be allowed as revenue expenses since the corresponding projects were completed in earlier years and income was already booked. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that expenses can only be allowed if corresponding income is disclosed during the year. The Assessee failed to co-relate the expenses with income generated, leading to partial confirmation of disallowances.
  
  Revenue's Appeal:
  The Revenue contested the deletion of Rs.72,73,910 out of the total addition of Rs.79,41,759, treating land restoration expenses as capital expenditure. The Co-ordinate 'A' Bench set aside the issue to the CIT(A) for reconsideration. The A.O. did not provide a clear finding in the remand report, and the CIT(A) did not address the nature of expenditure in the second round. Despite the Assessee's failure to clarify the nature of expenses initially, the CIT(A) had treated the expenses as revenue expenditure in the first round. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed based on the nature of the expenses being deemed revenue in previous findings.
  
  Conclusion:
  Both the Assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal upholding the disallowance of Rs.6,67,849 of land restoration expenses and confirming the treatment of expenses as revenue rather than capital expenditure. The Orders were pronounced on 20.12.2013 by the ITAT Ahmadabad.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1735
  

  Penalty u/s 271D and 271E - Assessee obtained unsecured loans in cash in excess of the amounts specified in section 269SS of the Act - Assesse argued for deletion of penalty broadly on the following grounds:(1) It is a transaction between the sister concern or the directors.(2) It is the first year of operation, hence, assessee was not well aware of the statutory provisions. (3) Assessee has proved its bonafide by disclosing unsecured loans in the financial statement along with return of income.

  HELD THAT- The undisputed facts are that the unsecured loans are taken either from sister concern or directors, who are closely related to the assesse, secondly the AO has also not doubted the genuineness of the transaction, as he has accepted the unsecured loan without making any addition in this regard.

  The High Court in [2010 (7) TMI 818 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], also expressed similar view when the transaction is between sisters concern, penalty under section 271E and 271D cannot be imposed.

  Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1734
  
  The High Court dismissed the defendant's revision petition against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Phagwara. The defendant's application to assess the age of the ink with regard to his signatures on the Pronote and Receipt was denied. The court held that there is no scientific method to determine the age of ink and noted that the defendant claimed to have signed as a witness, not as a borrower.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1733
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) cancelling rectification order passed by AO u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction u/s. 80HHC for Assessment Year 2002-03.
  
  Summary:
  The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata heard the appeal by revenue against the order of CIT(A) cancelling the rectification order passed by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act. The original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) by ACIT, Kolkata, where deduction u/s. 80HHC was in question. CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the deduction u/s. 80HHC, leading to a dispute. The AO rectified the order, but CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee, stating that the rectification was against the law. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the computation of turnover was a debatable issue and the AO's rectification was not valid u/s. 154. The appeal of revenue was dismissed, confirming the quashing of rectification proceedings.
  
  The AO's rectification order was challenged by the revenue before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment involved a dispute over deduction u/s. 80HHC, leading to directions from CIT(A) for recomputation. The AO rectified the order, but CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, stating that the rectification was not valid as the computation of turnover was a debatable issue. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and confirming the quashing of rectification proceedings.
  
  The Tribunal considered the appeal by revenue against the order of CIT(A) cancelling the rectification order passed by the AO u/s. 154 regarding deduction u/s. 80HHC. The original assessment by ACIT, Kolkata involved a dispute over the deduction, leading to directions from CIT(A) for reevaluation. The AO's rectification was challenged, but CIT(A) found it to be against the law due to the debatable nature of the turnover computation. The Tribunal agreed with CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal and upholding the cancellation of rectification proceedings.
  
  The Tribunal addressed the appeal by revenue concerning the cancellation of the AO's rectification order by CIT(A) u/s. 154 regarding deduction u/s. 80HHC. The original assessment by ACIT, Kolkata raised issues regarding the deduction, resulting in directions from CIT(A) for reassessment. The Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the rectification, citing the debatable nature of turnover computation. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the quashing of rectification proceedings.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1732
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, consecutive sentencing, consideration of extenuating circumstances, previous criminal record, age of the appellant at the time of the offence.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence
  The appellant filed an appeal against the final judgment convicting him u/s 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines for each offence, ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, noting the seriousness of the offences committed in the court premises.
  
  Issue 2: Grounds of Appeal
  The appellant contended that the consecutive sentences awarded were disproportionate and contrary to the law. He argued that the sentences for offences under a single transaction should run concurrently, citing legal precedents to support his case.
  
  Issue 3: Justification of Sentence
  The respondent argued that the High Court rightly upheld the sentence imposed by the trial court, considering the evidence on record. The basis for the consecutive sentencing was the appellant's previous criminal record for a similar offence in the court premises.
  
  Judgment:
  After considering the arguments, the Supreme Court modified the sentence, holding that the sentences for different offences must run concurrently, not consecutively. The Court emphasized the appellant's age at the time of the offence and the extenuating circumstances. The sentence was reduced to a total of 10 years, which the appellant must serve. The appeal was partly allowed in favor of the appellant.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1731
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Accommodation entries and income @ 0.25%.
  2. Addition u/s 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-.
  3. Addition for office expenses.
  4. Addition for rent expenses.
  5. Addition for printing and stationery expenses.
  6. Addition for salary expenses.
  7. Acceptance of fresh evidence by CIT(A) without opportunity to A.O.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Accommodation Entries and Income @ 0.25%:
  The ITAT held that it is an admitted fact that the assessee has only given accommodation entries to earn income @ 0.25%. The assessee admitted during the survey that he issued bills and received a commission of 0.25% on the amount of bills. The CIT(A) and ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income at 0.25% on the total turnover, which was confirmed by the High Court.
  
  2. Addition u/s 40A(3) for Cash Payments Exceeding Rs. 20,000/-:
  The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,52,44,338/- u/s 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, stating that the transactions were only paper entries and no actual cash payments were made. The ITAT confirmed this deletion, and the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, agreeing that the payments were not actually made in cash.
  
  3. Addition for Office Expenses:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 52,840/- for office expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT confirmed the deletion. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision.
  
  4. Addition for Rent Expenses:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 91,000/- for rent expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT confirmed the deletion. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision.
  
  5. Addition for Printing and Stationery Expenses:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 28,790/- for printing and stationery expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT confirmed the deletion. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision.
  
  6. Addition for Salary Expenses:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 4,05,500/- for salary expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT confirmed the deletion. The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision.
  
  7. Acceptance of Fresh Evidence by CIT(A) without Opportunity to A.O.:
  The revenue contended that the CIT(A) accepted fresh evidence without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer. The ITAT decided the case on merits without addressing this specific ground. The High Court found no substantial question of law in this regard and dismissed the appeals.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court dismissed the tax appeals, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, and confirmed that no substantial question of law arises in the present tax appeals.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1730
  
  The High Court of Allahabad allowed the delay condonation application in a tax case for the assessment year 2009-10. The court upheld the benefit of input tax credit for the assessee as all payments were made through bank and purchases were against tax invoices. The revision was dismissed as lacking merit.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1729
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to the order rejecting the application to bring affidavits of third parties on record in rebuttal to the statements made by accused u/s 313 of Cr.PC.
  
  Summary:
  The petitioner approached the High Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the application to bring affidavits of third parties on record in rebuttal to the statements made by the accused u/s 313 of Cr.PC. The order was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also under challenge. The accused had made allegations during his statement u/s 313, claiming kidnapping of family members and theft of a cheque. The Court noted that the accused did not adduce evidence, and his statements u/s 313 cannot be considered independent evidence for rebuttal. The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court case regarding the exercise of powers u/s 311 of Cr.PC, but the Court found the present case to be different. The lower Courts rightly concluded that the petitioner had the opportunity to present evidence during the trial, which was being conducted summarily. The High Court upheld the impugned orders, stating that no intervention u/s 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted, and summarily rejected the petition.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1728
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Disallowance of expenditure u/s 40(a)(i) due to non-deduction of TDS by assessee's branches abroad.
  2. Deletion of prior period expenses disallowed by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of Expenditure u/s 40(a)(i)
  The Department challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow expenditures incurred by the assessee's branches in the USA, UK, and Japan, arguing that no TDS was deducted as required u/s 195 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had disallowed Rs. 9,44,57,453/- for A.Y. 2002-03, Rs. 2,77,71,671/- for A.Y. 2005-06, Rs. 1,90,41,453/- for A.Y. 2006-07, and Rs. 89,18,411/- for A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee contended that payments were made by foreign branches to non-residents whose income was not taxable in India, thus no TDS was required. The CIT(A) concluded that the recipients had no permanent establishment in India, and the payments fell under the exceptions provided in section 9(i)(vii)(b) of the Act and relevant DTAAs. Consequently, the CIT(A) directed the deletion of the disallowances. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the provisions of section 195 did not apply as the payments were not chargeable to tax in India.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of Prior Period Expenses
  The Department disputed the deletion of Rs. 1,85,891/- out of Rs. 2,68,099/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that the expenses pertained to an earlier accounting year. The assessee argued that the expenses, though related to the previous year, were crystallized and paid in the current year. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, except for Rs. 64,463/- for telephone bills and Rs. 17,745/- for car rental charges, which were not claimed in the current year. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the liability had accrued in the assessment year under consideration, and there was no evidence that the expenses were claimed in the preceding year.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by the Department for A.Y. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08, upholding the CIT(A)'s orders on both issues. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the non-applicability of TDS provisions u/s 195 and the crystallization of prior period expenses in the current year.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1727
  
  Issues involved: Challenge for quashing of summons and directions to restrain further proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
  
  In the present writ petition, the petitioner challenged the summons issued on 19th July, 2013 and sought directions to restrain the Assistant Director (PLMA), Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India from proceeding further in the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner primarily contested the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India.
  
  The Court was informed that a First Information Report was lodged by an official of South Indian Bank Ltd. against the petitioner and some bank officials under various Sections including Section 420 I.P.C. The Reserve Bank of India forwarded this information to the Directorate of Enforcement, which initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
  
  The Assistant Solicitor General informed the Court that the Enforcement Directorate was investigating the matter and had summoned not only the petitioner but also various bank officials named in the F.I.R. The investigation was ongoing, and the Court was of the view that no interference was presently required. The writ petition was dismissed, with a direction for the Enforcement Directorate to expedite the investigation and for the petitioner to provide necessary cooperation.

  ---

123456........ 741