|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 15872 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 1387 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Relaxation of the condition of bail - service of summons - Section 56(1)(ii) read with 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is about 76 years old and he travels abroad frequently for medical treatment. He is permanent resident of Mumbai and is staying with his family at Mumbai.
There shall not be any apprehension that the petitioner will abscond and will not face the trial - condition of the bail modified - application disposed off.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1386 - ITAT RAIPUR
Assessment u/s 153A - Unexplained gift u/s 69A - HELD THAT:- Where AO had not referred to any incriminating material found during the course of search based on which addition was made, then the AO had no jurisdiction to make addition in the assessment framed under s. 153A of the Act.
In the case of Jai Steel (India) v. CIT [2013 (6) TMI 161 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that the requirement of assessment or reassessment under s. 153A has to be read in the context of s. 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then the question of reassessment of the concluded assessments does not arise, which would require more reiteration and it is only in the context of the abated assessment under second proviso which is to be reassessed.
In number of cases, the Tribunal Benches have consistently taken the view that when no assessment is abated, question of making any addition or making disallowance which are not based on material found during search is bad in law - we hold that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is bad in law. We, therefore, allow original ground as well as additional ground of the appeal.
Addition u/s 68 on gift received treated as unexplained - HELD THAT:- Both the authorities below have categorically held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the donor. No confirmation of gift was filed along with the return of income of the assessee. It is claimed that the alleged gift was made in cash but the donor was not produced before the AO for examination. At this stage also, the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the donor. No additional evidence, whatsoever, was filed before us. in the absence of any supporting evidence, we are of the view that the addition is fully justified.
Disallowance on account of forfeiture of EMD made beyond the scope of s. 153A - HELD THAT:- Assessee did not bring any material on record to prove that the EMD amount as been forfeited by BPCL. In the absence of any documentary, evidence regarding forfeiture of EMD, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. At this stage also, the assessee has not brought any evidence to demonstrate that the claim made by it was justifiable. It is settled law that where an assessee claims deduction, the onus lies on him to bring all material facts on record to substantiate his claim. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1385 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appointment in the post of Senior Manager (Dairy) in a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969? - HELD THAT:- Whether a body or authority is a State or not is a mixed question of fact which has to be examined, taking into consideration different factors including the constitution, finance, function, control etc. For deciding the said issue, the Court has to essentially enter into various facts. There being no foundation in the Writ Petition, it is neither necessary nor desirable to enter into the said issue. Thus, there being no foundation in the Writ Petition, the question as to whether respondents 2 to 4 are 'authorities' within the meaning of Article 12, cannot be considered.
The power of the High Court to issue certain writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not confined to the traditional powers of the English Court to issue writs. Under Article 226, power has been given to the High Court to issue writ to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories.
The Apex Court had occasion to consider the question regarding maintainability of the Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society in A. UMARANI VERSUS REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ORS. [2004 (7) TMI 693 - SUPREME COURT]. The Writ Petition was filed in the High Court by the employees of the Co-operative Society. The learned Single Judge dismissed some of the Writ Petitions against which Writ Appeals were filed. The Division Bench framed various issues for consideration. One of the issues framed was as to whether the Writ Petition was maintainable. The Division Bench held that the Writ Petition was maintainable. The matter was taken to the Apex Court and a contention was also raised before the Apex Court that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against a Co-operative Society - Apex Court reiterated that a Writ Petition against a Co-operative Society is maintainable if the action of the Co-operative Society is violative of statutory provisions.
The Writ Petitions against Co-operative Societies are maintainable in certain circumstances. When the action complained in the Writ Petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society, a Writ Petition will lie. The action of the Co-operative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of the public duty is complained of, writ may also lie. However, in the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a Writ Petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society.
Applicability of decision in the case of Bhaskaran & others v. Addl. Secretary & others [1987 (11) TMI 401 - KERALA HIGH COURT] - HELD THAT:- The judgment of the Full Bench in Bhaskaran confines to only consideration of a Co-operative Society under Article 12. In regard to Co-operative Society which does not fall under Article 12, writ cannot be maintainable against the Co-operative Society on that basis. However, as we have already observed by considering issue No. (i), Writ Petition may be maintainable against Co-operative Society in the circumstances mentioned therein.
The present Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petition dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1384 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A - As per DR assessee to prove that a particular item of expenditure was incurred for earning taxable income and hence should not be disallowed u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- The assessee claims that the expenditure on interest, is incurred for the purpose of earning interest income but no evidence is lead by the assessee to prove this claim. Similarly on the issue of other expenses no evidence is lead to demonstrate that a particular expense cannot be said to have been incurred in relation to earning the income, which is not part of total income. Under these circumstances we are unable to accept the plea of the assessee.
Assessee argued that the AO has not recorded satisfaction that the computation of disallowance u/s 14A by the assessee is wrong. We find that the satisfaction is discernible from para 2 of the assessment order, where the AO has not agreed with the manner in which the assessee applied Rule 8D and has computed the disallowance in his own way. This was after considering the detailed reply given by the assessee on 28.12.2011. Hence these arguments of the Ld.Counsel is dismissed as devoid of merit.
CIT(A) has restricted the net disallowance u/s 14A. We are of the view that the disallowance has to be recomputed under Rule 8D (2)(ii). Thus for this limited purpose we set aside the matter to the file of the AO for computing the disallowance.
Disallowance of claim of short term capital loss - assessee has submitted that right to obtain shares is an asset and forfeiture of the same is, extinguishing of a right and hence covered u/s 2(47)(ii) of the Act - HELD THAT:- As decided in SHRI CHAND RATAN BAGRI [2010 (1) TMI 123 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that forfeiture of the convertible warrant amounted to a transfer within the meaning of s.2(47) - A share in a company is nothing but a share in the ownership of the company. While the right of the assessee to share in the ownership of the company Stands extinguished on account of the forfeiture, the company, with all its assets, continues to exist. The forfeiture only results in one less shareholder. It is not as if the asset in which a share was being claimed was also extinguished - Decided against revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1383 - ITAT DELHI
Denial of TDS credit - HELD THAT:- We find that the credit has been allowed by the authorities below, it terms of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after ‘the Act’) and Rule 37BA(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (herein after ‘the Rules). The assessee declared interest income of ₹ 23,170/- and accordingly corresponding credit of TDS of ₹ 2,327/- has been allowed and excess credit claimed of ₹ 1,909/- has been disallowed, which is also in terms of the reply dated 14.12.2012, furnished by the assessee - Having regard to the above, the claim is bereft of merit and thus rejected.
Disallowance of electricity expenses - Addition as personal expenditure - HELD THAT:- We find that the disallowance sustained is excessive. The assessee is a bachelor and has claimed as rendering services as an advocate from residence. The ld CIT(A) has accepted said factual aspect. Therefore we restrict the disallowance to 50% of the expenditure incurred and claimed pertaining to electricity expenses of the residence. So, this ground is partly allowed.
Addition of client development expenses - HELD THAT:- We find no reason to interfere with the disallowance made. No evidence could be led to deny the factual finding, that the expenditure included expenditure on shoes, apparels, purses, toys etc. Thus such expenditure disallowed as personal expenditure is reasonable and is upheld.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r.8D - CIT(A) noted that the assessee has earned exempt income as dividend and as long term capital gain, but no expenses has been shown to have been incurred for earning the exempt income - HELD THAT:- we find that the assessee had made investments in Mutual Funds, shares of ₹ 85 lakhs approximately, and in respect of which an exempt income in the shape of dividend and long term capital gain has been claimed. No explanation has been furnished to satisfy that no expenditure was incurred to manage the above investment yielding tax free income. The books of account have been examined by the AO, who has held that disallowance under Rule 8D, is warranted - we decline to interfere with the conclusion of the authorities below. Ground raised is rejected.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1382 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessment of HUF - property in dispute is an individual property or joint family property - HELD THAT:- This Court by its order in earlier years [2012 (10) TMI 1249 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed these appeals and held the property in dispute is a joint family property and accordingly relief was granted.
Thus these three appeals are to be allowed, setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal holding that the property in dispute is an individual property and holding that it is a joint family property. Accordingly, the assessing authority shall grant relief in terms of the said order.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1381 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - demand of differential duty u/s 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - petition was dismissed as there is no amount which is required to be stayed as per the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of differential Central Excise duty under the provisions of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it applies to the period in question.
An identical issue has been decided by this Bench in the case of M/S ACME CERAMICS AND OTHERS VERSUS CCE RAJKOT [2014 (3) TMI 164 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that prior to 01.03.2008, in the absence of any provisions for re-determining the RSP, in the form of prescribed rules, the Revenue authorities cannot re-determine the RSP under any of the provisions available to them. It has to be noted that there is no contrary view which has been taken by the Tribunal.
There are no reason to deviate from such a view already taken - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1380 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Approval of Scheme of Amalgamation - section 230-232 of Companies Act - HELD THAT:- Various directions regarding holding and convening of various meetings issued - directions regarding issuance of various notices issued.
The scheme is approved - application allowed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1379 - ITAT CHENNAI
Stay of recovery - AR submitted before us that Stay was granted for the assessment year 2007-08 on identical issues and the case was heard by the Bench and the orders are awaited - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the contention of the Ld. AR. On identical matters, for the assessment year 2007-08, the case was heard and the order is likely to be pronounced shortly as submitted by the Ld. AR. Therefore, we hereby grant stay to the assessee from recovery of demand by the Revenue for a period of 60 days from this date or date of order whichever is earlier.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1378 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Correct head of income - Interest earned on bank deposits - Business income or income from other sources - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that assessee corporation is a government company promoted by H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. The assessee has admittedly not started commercial operation in the year under consideration and was still in the pre-operative stage.
The assessee's counsel has referred to the accounts of the assessee to show that assessee received lesser interest of ₹ 625.97 lacs and paid interest on loan in the year under consideration would show that assessee has to pay more interest as against the small interest received by assessee. Therefore, if any adjustment is made against interest paid, still there is a liability of the assessee to pay interest on the loans. The assessee also explained that for effective funds management, the temporary surplus funds were kept in short term bank deposits and thereafter, interest was earned and so was also used for construction of the project and for paying interest to the power finance company which have not been adversely commented upon by the authorities below. Therefore, the reliance of the Assessing Officer on the decision in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. CIT [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] was totally misplaced.
It is clear that the funds with the assessee, even if temporarily used for savings/short term deposits, but the earning of the interest were directly connected with work of construction of the project employed by the assessee - earning of interest could not be treated as income from other sources, since the income was earned in the period prior to commencement of the business and it was the nature of capital receipt and was required to be set off against pre-operative expenses. We, therefore, set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1377 - SC ORDER
Importing drug Benfotiamine - allowing the importer to use the provision of Rule 43 of the Rules there is a possibility of spurious drugs being circulated to the human use which will be neither allowable nor permissible - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the goods have since been cleared. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court.
SLP dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1376 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation on computers and peripherals - @60% OR 15% - finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the laptops, printer, scanner, mouse, IBM san switches, projector, pen drive, network equipment, router pack, desktop with monitor, visual impex etc., are all computer peripherals and are accordingly covered under the head 'Computer and Peripherals', which are entitled to depreciation @ 60% - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid finding is essentially a finding of fact. We also find that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in several cases starting from CIT versus BSES Rajdhani Power Limited [2010 (8) TMI 58 - DELHI HIGH COURT], CIT versus Citicorp Maruti Finance LImited [2010 (11) TMI 802 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CIT versus Bonanza Portfolio Limited[2011 (8) TMI 1058 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Assessee, who is present on advance notice, has drawn our attention to another decision in CIT versus Birlasoft Limited [2011 (12) TMI 608 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Special Leave to Appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by order dated 14th February, 2014.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1375 - SUPREME COURT
Murder - dowry demands - death within four months of marriage - offences punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT:- Since, the victim in the case is a married woman and the death being within seven years of marriage, apparently, the court has gone only on one tangent, to treat the same as a dowry death. No doubt, the death is in unnatural circumstances but if there are definite indications of the death being homicide, the first approach of the prosecution and the court should be to find out as to who caused that murder. Section 304B of Indian Penal Code is not a substitute for Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The genesis of Section 304B of Indian Penal Code introduced w.e.f. 19.11.1986 as per Act 43 of 1986 relates back to the 91st Report of the Law Commission of India - However, it is generally seen that in cases where a married woman dies within seven years of marriage, otherwise than under normal circumstances, no inquiry is usually conducted to see whether there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, as to whether the offence falls Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Sometimes, Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is put as an alternate charge. In cases where there is evidence, direct or circumstantial, to show that the offence falls Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, the trial court should frame the charge Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code even if the police has not expressed any opinion in that regard in the report Under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Section 304B of Indian Penal Code can be put as an alternate charge if the trial court so feels.
In the instant case, the prosecution has not made any attempt to explain the ante-mortem injuries which conclusively point to the cause of death as asphyxia caused by strangulation. Yet, no serious attempt, it is disturbing to note, was done to connect the murder to its author(s).
Now, the question as to why the High Court, having entered a conclusion that it is a case of murder at the hands of the Appellants, yet chose to convict them only Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. As we have already indicated, it could have been a case for the High Court or for that matter this Court for issuing notice for enhancement of punishment to those against whom there is evidence to connect them with the murder. The incident being of 1991, the prosecution having not chosen to link all the circumstances in a chain with no missing links to reach the irresistible and conclusive finding on involvement of the accused, the High Court would have thought it more prudent to convict the accused only Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code. No doubt, in such a case, the High Court should not have entered a categoric finding on murder since once the court enters such a finding, the punishment can only be Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the circumstances which we have referred to above, we are of the view that though this case could have been dealt with Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, at this distance of time and in view of the lack of evidence on the chain of circumstances, it will not be proper for this Court to proceed Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for enhancement of punishment.
Now, the last question as to whether the case should be remitted back to the High Court for the purpose of Section 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure, we are of the view that in the present case, it is not necessary. The conviction is Under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. The mandatory minimum punishment is seven years. of course, there is no such minimum punishment Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code or Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. Since the sentence in respect of offence Under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code for two years rigorous imprisonment and one year Under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code are to run concurrently, no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the two Appellants. Therefore, this is not a fit case for following the procedure Under Section 235 of Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court or for remand in that regard to the High Court.
The conviction and sentence against the third and fourth accused/Appellants, Rakesh Singh and Gyan Chandra, respectively, are set aside. The conviction and sentence as against first and second Appellants, Vijay Pal Singh and Narendra Singh, respectively, Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and Section 201 of Indian Penal Code are upheld - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1373 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - project was constructed was less than 1 acre - Claim denied on profits derived from the housing project 'Ved Vihar' - CIT(A) held that the area of the plot on which the said project was constructed was less than 1 acre and hence, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) was not allowable to the assessee in respect of the said project - HELD THAT:- Assessee had bought the TDR rights and had been sanctioned to construct 12 additional flats in the existing building Nos.A and B of the said project and where it had already completed the originally sanctioned 80 flats within the stipulated period, the assessee was eligible to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
The assessee had constructed 80 flats originally sanctioned by the commencement certificate dated 21.05.2004 before 31.03.2009 and the PMC had issued occupancy certificate on 30.03.2009 for the said 80 flats in building Nos.A and B. The assessee thus, was entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the said 80 flats in building Nos.A and B which were completed within the stipulated period as provided under section 80IB(10)(b) of the Act, for which an occupancy certificate was also issued by the local authority.
Merely because the assessee had received the sanction for the construction of 12 additional flats in the same building itself against the purchase of TDR rights, which admittedly, was not constructed before 31.03.2009 does not dis-entitle the assessee to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of the originally sanctioned 80 flats. The provisions of section 80IB(10) of the Act are benevolent and have to be interpreted in the manner which is beneficial to the assessee.
The assessee admittedly, has not claimed any deduction in respect of balance 12 flats which were not constructed before 31.03.2009. In the entirety of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act on the completion of the project which comprised of construction of 80 flats, which was originally sanctioned vide commencement certificate dated 21.05.2004 against which, the occupancy certificate dated 30.03.2009 has been issued. Under the provisions of section 80IB(10)(a) of the Act, the assessee had to complete the construction on or before 31.03.2009 and the assessee having been issued the occupancy certificate dated 30.03.2009 had also complied with the said provisions of the said Act and was entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the basic condition that the plot area of the project was one acre or more. We have also remitted the said issue of measurement of the plot back to the file of Assessing Officer and in case, it is established that the assessee has fulfilled the said condition, wherein area of the plot on which the project has been constructed is one acre or more, then the assessee would be entitled to the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act.
Assessee's alternate plea as to allowance of proportionate deduction on account of the flats constructed, is not maintainable in either case, where the claim of the assessee under section 80IB(10) of the Act has been found to be maintainable. However, if the assessee fails to justify the basic condition of the area of plot being one acre or more, even the alternate plea of the assessee is not maintainable. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed as indicated above.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1372 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of interest expenditure - rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA - HELD THAT:- As Revenue Authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hitesh S. Mehta [2013 (10) TMI 1065 - ITAT MUMBAI] Whether the interest liabilities constitutes ascertained one or not is also linked to the issue of rejection of books of accounts as the books of account is the basis for computation of book profits u/s 115JA of the Act. This is common issue qua the issue adjudicated in the case of the Hitesh S. Mehta (supra) and matter was set aside. Respectfully following the said order the issue raised in ground no. 4 should be set aside to the files of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.
Charging of interest u/s 234A & 234B - HELD THAT:- As assessee submitted that the assessee being a ‘notified person’, there is no change of interest. It is his further submission that the receipts of the assessee are subjected to TDS. On the contrary, Special Counsel for the Revenue filed various decisions of the Tribunal in support of the change of interest. The judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Devine Holdings Pvt Ltd [2012 (4) TMI 100 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was relied on by the Spl. Counsel for the Revenue. During the rebuttal time, Ld Counsel submitted that this issue should also revisit the file of the AO for removal of certain inaccuracies in calculating the interest. We order accordingly. Thus, ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1371 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - mobile phones/cell phones - taxable at 14.5% under Schedule V of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 or not - validity of circular of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes dated 20.09.2014 - HELD THAT:- The question, whether or not mobile phones/cell phones fall under Entry 39 (15) of the IV Schedule to the Act, must be examined by the assessing authority while exercising his quasi-judicial powers to pass an assessment order, and it is not for the Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) to issue an administrative circular directing them to treat the subject goods as unclassified goods falling under Schedule V to the Act, more so in the absence of any statutory sanction for issuing such a circular. The impugned circular of the Commissioner, (Commercial Taxes) is, therefore, set aside. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether the mobile phones/cell phones fall under Entry 39 (15) of the IV Schedule to the Act or whether they are liable to be treated as unclassified goods under Schedule V to the Act, or on any of the other contentions urged by the petitioner in the Writ Petitions, for these are matters which the assessing authority has to consider.
While the submission of the learned Senior Counsel has considerable force, the fact also remains that the Assistant Commissioner has invited objections from the petitioner herein. It is considered appropriate, in such circumstances, to treat the proceedings dated 06.11.2014 as a show cause notice, and to permit the petitioner to submit their objections thereto within two weeks from today - petition disposed off.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1370 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- The section starts from the wordings, “The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act …”. Here we have to make a distinction between record and order, because, both these terms have distinct connotations. An order is the mind of the AO/Officer to incorporate or not to incorporate any point in the order, whereas the record forms the basis for formation and construction of the order. It is the record of the case, from which, one can ascertain, as to whether the AO had conducted adequate enquiry to form a legally correct inference. It is, then upto the AO/revenue authorities to incorporate his inference drawn in the order.
DR could neither elaborate nor assist us to convince us that the inference drawn by the AO, after conducting exhaustive enquiry was an erroneous view.
We also find that the CIT did not initiate the proceedings himself but initiated the proceedings on the proposal received from the AO.
This in our opinion, too is against the legislative spirit, because, the provision contemplates independent application of mind by the CIT, because the section says “Commissioner may call for and examine the records of any proceedings under the Act and if he considers …”, which means that the proposal for initiation of revision proceedings must be initiated by the CIT, because, it is the CIT who has to call for examine the record”, as held by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Shivpuri [2014 (11) TMI 1176 - ITAT MUMBAI]
Looking at the issue from this angle also, the initiation of revision proceeding become infirm and illegal. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Application for de-tagging of writ petition - HELD THAT:- It has been agreed that the writ petition No. 5283 of 2011 and Misc. Bench No. 9613 of 2014 shall be placed for hearing and final disposal before the Bench assigning for hearing of PIL cases on Monday i.e. 12.01.2015.
Parties are directed to complete their pleadings by that date so that the hearing, before the assigned Bench granted roster, can proceed on 12.01.2015. In terms of the request which has been made before the Court, the hearing of the petition is peremptorily fixed on 12.01.2015. The de-tagging application has not been pressed before this Court.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1368 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition being confirmed in quantum proceedings before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal committed grave errors in dismissing the appeals of the assessee, inasmuch as they failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that addition of certain amount is not a ground to impose penalty on the assessee. He, then, invited our attention to a decision of this court in [2014 (11) TMI 1234 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein, under more or less similar circumstances, the assessee's appeal was allowed for the assessment year 1994-95.
In the result, this appeal is allowed and the question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue
-
2014 (12) TMI 1367 - ITAT BANGALORE
Addition to Interest Income - Additions made on account of accrued interest on loans and advances without appreciating that after the amendment to section 145 of the Act w.e.f. 1.4.1997, banks are required to follow the mercantile system of accounting.-CIT-A deleted that addition - DR submitted that the assessee has to follow the provisions of section 145 of the Act for the purposes of computation of income under the normal provisions of the Act - HELD THAT:- Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT V Urban Co-operative Bank [2014 (10) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 2014 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT BANGALORE], we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the grounds raised at S.Nos.3 & 4 and amended ground No.3 raised by revenue are dismissed.
Provision for Non-Performing Assets (‘NPA’) - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2007-08 [2014 (11) TMI 94 - ITAT BANGALORE], we uphold the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) in allowing the assessee's claim of deduction on account of provision for NPA.
........
|
