|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1898 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1741 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance u/s 14A - Held that:- As noted from the facts brought before us that loans were taken by the assessee in earlier years. It is informed that no disallowance was made in earlier years on account of interest. Thus, impliedly, it can be said that no borrowed funds have been used in acquiring tax-free investment during the year. It is further noted that onus is upon the AO to prove that interest bearing funds were used for earning tax free income. Reliance is placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd.[2009 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], CIT vs. Winsome Textiles [2009 (8) TMI 220 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CIT vs. Deepak Mittal [2013 (9) TMI 764 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH Court]. Thus, viewed from any angle, the disallowance made by the AO was contrary to law and facts and therefore, the same has been rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).
Treating the income earned by the assessee from hoarding, mobile tower, display of advertising hoarding from subletting hotel premises - ‘income from house property’ or ‘income from other sources’ - Held that:- It is noted that the assessee has credited income from hotel business in its profit and loss account and debited expenses with respect to running of hotel and maintenance of the hotel premises in the P & L account. In these facts, the income received from exploitation from the hotel premises in any manner should also be credited in the profit and loss account. The assessee has already debited the expenses with respect to maintenance of the hotel premises. It is clarified that the assessee is also eligible to claim of expenses incurred for earning the aforesaid income.Thus, keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case for the year under consideration, the aforesaid income is directed to be treated as ‘income from business’.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- As in the case of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT [2014 (6) TMI 79 - ITAT AGRA] wherein it has been held that the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) is declaratory and curative in nature, and should be given retrospective effect from the 1st April 2005. Thus, the position of law on this issue is now very clear. The other grievance of the Revenue is that evidences with regard to payment of taxes by the payees were not referred by the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO and thus, additional evidences were admitted by him in violation of Rule 46A. Thus, accepting the grievance of the Revenue in this regard, we send this issue back to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verification of the facts with regard inclusion of income by the payees in their respective returns, and if the claim of the assessee in this regard is found to be factually correct, in that case no disallowance shall be made with regard to impugned payment of interest. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1740 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Inadvertent typing error in Company Petition - Held that:- The above paragraph in the order dated 02.12.2015, passed in Company Petition No. 415 of 2015, shall now read as under:
“Notice of the hearing of the petition on the Regional Director shall be served, at least ten days before the date of the hearing so fixed.”
The rest of the order shall remain as it is.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1739 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Amalgamation allowed - “Sandesh”, Ahmedabad Edition, as submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Publication of notice shall appear in the aforesaid newspapers, at least, ten days before the date of hearing so fixed.
Notice of the hearing of the petition to be served on the Central Government through the Regional Director, ROC Bhavan, Opp. Rupal Park Society, B/h. Ankur Bus Stop, Naranpura, Ahmedabad, pursuant to Section 394 A of the Companies Act, 1956. Notice shall also be issued to the Official Liquidator, who if required, may appoint a Chartered Accountant. Notice of the hearing of the petition on the Regional Director and to the Official Liquidator shall be served, at least ten days before the date of the hearing so fixed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1738 - ITAT MUMBAI
Reopening of assessment - AO failed to provide it with a copy of the reasons recorded before completion of the order of assessment - Held that:- Formation of belief by the AO was a condition precedent as regards the escapement of tax pertaining to the relevant assessment year. Before proceeding to issue the notice under section 147 of the Act, the AO was required to form an opinion, the validity of which are supposed to sustain the formation of an opinion, which can be challenged. Though conclusive evidence is not requisite at the stage of formation of belief, it must be based on application of mind which a reasonable person would apply. In our view, the reasons recorded, as communicated to the assessee by letter dated 04.10.2012, does not remotely evidence independent application of mind as there is clearly no nexus, whatsoever, between the reasons recorded and the factual findings in the order of assessment. In these circumstances we hold that initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act is bad in law
Variance in the reasons recorded by the AO as provided to the assessee vide letter dated 04.10.2012 and that recorded in the order of assessment, in our view, prevented the assessee from putting up any defence in respect of the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Act. This has clearly violated the principles of natural justice as the AO proceeded on a different premise while finalizing the order of assessment dated 25.03.2013. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1737 - ITAT DELHI
Disallowance of excessive depreciation in respect of assets purchased from Deltron Ltd. - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08 and 2009-10 [2016 (1) TMI 163 - ITAT DELHI] Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant company and therefore, appellant is entitled to claim of depreciation on the actual cost as incurred by the appellant on transfer of the electronic business on going concern basis from M/s. Deltron Ltd. to the appellant company
-
2015 (12) TMI 1736 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
Offence under PMLA Act - provisional attachment of various properties - Held that:- The arguments of the appellant that (i) the flat No. 204 was sold to Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi without receipt of any money as he had confidence on him on account of earlier transactions with him, (ii) that on the date of execution of sale deed dated 5-2-2013, he has not received any money except post-dated cheques, (iii) that the sale deed No. 2537, dated 5-2-2013 was conditional to the payment/release/honoring of the four cheques which were returned unpaid when presented for payment in bank and (iv) that since Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi has not paid the sale consideration to the appellant firm, hence, the appellant firm is owner of the said flat are not sustainable and are liable to be rejected.
Even if the arguments of the appellant that he has not received the sale consideration as all the four cheques have bounced is upheld, still the ownership of the flat No. 204 is also with Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi as all the rights in the property have been transferred by appellant to Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi through deed of absolute sale registered at No. 2537 on 5-2-2013 with the District Registrar Office, Patna. Admittedly the title suit bearing No. 541 of 2013 before the Sub-Judge-1, Patna, Bihar against Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi is pending adjudication and the competent court has not declared the above sale deed No. 2537, dated 5-2-2013 executed by the appellant in favour of Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi as null and void,’fraudulent and without consideration and Sh. Sunny Priyadarshi continues to be the owner of the above flat No. 204. Thus the appellant has no rights in the attached property flat No. 204 as claimed by him. Appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1735 - ITAT DELHI
Addition made u/s 153A/143(3) - Held that:- There is no incriminating evidence found during the course of search. Hence, as per the binding decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] addition to income cannot be made in respect of items which are originally disclosed in the original assessment proceedings. Therefore we do not find any merits in this ground of appeal of the Revenue, so it is dismissed.
Unexplained income of the assessee - receipt of gifts - Held that:- Both the amounts added to the income of the assessee cannot be held to be unexplained income of the assessee, since it was a gift from the father who was the Donor and an NRI from his bank account at Singapore. So the ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the addition for both the years and so we uphold the order of the ld. CIT (A) and dismiss these ground of the revenue in both the assessment years.
Unexplained jewellery found with the assessee - Held that:- The value of jewellery declared is far in excess of the value of jewellery found during the course of search, which finding also could not be controverted before us by the department. The ld CIT(A) has considered individually i.e. assessee wise, the value of jewellery declared taking the rate of gold at ₹ 900/- per gram is in excess of jewellery found during the course of search. The CIT(A) rightly observes that it is not unusual for families to spend money on modification of their jewellery and very often, the bills evidencing the modification are not retained for a long period of time. However, since there was sufficient cash available with the assessee and her family, there is no reason to disbelieve her contention that the jewellery was remodeled, altered from time to time and hence the difference in description. The Assessing Officer in his assessment order and in the remand report has nowhere refuted the claim of the assessee that both in terms of value and quantity, the jewellery declared in the wealth tax return far exceed the jewellery found during the course of search. There is also no evidence that has been brought on record to prove that the jewellery seized was purchased out of undisclosed income. The reconciliation of jewellery is quite detailed and in the absence of any discrepancies found during the assessment proceedings and remand proceedings, it cannot be faulted with - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1734 - SC ORDER
Bail application - smuggling - Charas and Ganja - the decision in the case of Lavkesh Singh Versus Union of India [2015 (4) TMI 1215 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that the appellant No. 2 Pawan Kumar has made out a case for bail and the bail was allowed - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1733 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AT NEW DELHI
Offence under PMLA - provisional attachment orders - Held that:- The charge Sheet No. 1/2013 was filed on 25-2-2013 before the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Banglore which inter alia include offences under Sections 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code against Shri John Micheal and others and provisional attachment Order No. 9/2014 was passed on 6-8-2014 which event is subsequent to 1-6-2009, therefore, following the principle laid by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of V. Suryanarayan Prabhakara Gupta (2011 (8) TMI 1245 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR) and Alive Hospitality and Food Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Others (2013 (8) TMI 474 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and for the above stated reasons we are of the considered view that the appellants are covered by the provisions of PMLA and as the respondent had jurisdiction under the provisions of PMLA, therefore, attachment proceedings initiated by him u/s 5 of the PMLA are valid proceedings and the appeals filed by the appellants cannot be allowed on this ground.
In view of the foregoing, the challenge of the appellants to the impugned order dated 12th November, 2014 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint confirming provisional attachment Order fails and the appeals are dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1732 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that:- Since the tax effect in this appeal is ₹ 15,32,504/- and since the monetary limit of ₹ 20 lakhs is fixed for filing appeals before the High Court by the Department as per Circular which has been issued with retrospective effect and as Mr. Dudhoria submits that he has no written instruction from the Department for withdrawing this appeal, as the said Circular, in view of Section 119(1) is binding on the departmental authority, the appeal is treated to be dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1731 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation - Held that:- All these consent letters are annexed with the application as Exhibit' D'. Similarly, all the Secured Creditors of the applicant Company have approved the Scheme in form of written consent letters. All these consent letters are annexed with the application as Exhibit' E'. There are no Unsecured Creditors of the applicant Company as on date. The certificates confirming the status of the Shareholders and Creditors as well as the receipt of the consent letters from all the Shareholders and Secured Creditors are annexed respectively as Exhibit' F', 'F1', and 'F2'. In view of the same, dispensation is sought from convening the meetings of the Equity Shareholders and Secured Creditors of the applicant Company.
Considering the above facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced at the Bar, the same is hereby granted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1730 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Arrangement in the nature of Amalgamation - Held that:- Considering all submissions and in light of the settled legal position confirmed by various judgments referred to in the affidavit in support of the Judges' Summons, holding that separate proceedings are not necessary for the Transferee Company, being the Holding Company, it is held that in the present case, as well, separate proceedings are not required to be filed for the Transferee Company.
The attention of the Court is drawn to Paragraph 8 of the Affidavit in support of the Judges' Summons. It has been pointed out that the applicant, being a listed public limited Company, pursuant to Clause 24(f) of the Listing Agreement, the applicant Company has obtained the requisite approval from the concerned stock exchanges viz. BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange of India Limited. A copy of each of them have been placed on record as Exhibit 'E'. However, in light of the fact that no shares are being issued by the said Company pursuant to the proposed scheme, the compliance of Clause 5.16(a) is not necessary for the applicant Company. The applicant Company has already submitted the requisite Undertaking and the Auditor's Certificate to the SEBI. A copy of which is annexed herewith as Exhibit' F' for immediate reference. In light of the facts and circumstances, the applicant Company shall not be required to undertake the procedure of Postal Ballot and voting for seeking approval from the Public shareholders.
In view of the same, the rights and interests of the creditors of the Transferee Company shall not be prejudicially affected and the Scheme does not envisage any arrangement with the creditors of the Transferee Company. It has been further submitted that notwithstanding the above referred contention, the approval to the Scheme has been obtained from all the Secured Creditors of the Transferee Company in compliance with the contractual terms of the loan agreements. The said consent letters are placed on record as Exhibit' H' and the same has been substantiated by the Certificate from the Chartered Accountant placed on record as Exhibit' I'. In light of the same, dispensation is sought for the meetings of the Creditors vide prayer (e) of the Judges' Summons.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1729 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted on the following reframed substantial question of law:
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the assessee qualifies for deduction of profits u/s. 80IB(10) on prorata basis even though it has not fulfilled the provision of clause 'c' of section 80IB(10)?”
-
2015 (12) TMI 1728 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Show-cause notice for cancellation of contract - Held that:- We are of the considered view that in any case before 31.12.2015, the authorities of the respondents did not have any authority to issue show-cause notice for cancellation of contract unless some new circumstance comes in existence before expiry of such extended period and in that regard, no averments are made in the impugned show cause notice although it appears from the record that the prayer of the petitioner for extending the further period of six months from 31.12.2015 to complete the work was pending before the authority of respondent No. 2. In such premises, the impugned show-cause notice Annexure P-10 deserves to be and is hereby quashed.
It is also apparent from the papers placed on the record that even after filing this petition under the authority of interim order of this Court the remaining excavation/digging work of tunnel was/is being carried out by the petitioner but payment of running bills was not made within time to the petitioner to meet the necessary expenses to pay the wages to the labourers and to maintain the deployed machinery and in such premises, it could be said that due to late payment or non-payment of running bills of the petitioner within time it could not manage the requisite infrastructure to carry out the work. In such premises, we direct the authorities to make the regular payment of running bills to the petitioner within time in accordance with the procedure without any hurdle or hindrance to carry out the remaining work within the prescribed and extended period.
In the available scenario, it is apparent that due to non-cooperation of the respondents- authorities till some extent and unnecessary process of the show cause notice Annexure P-10 issued contrary to the Departmental communication Annexure P-9 and on account of non-making the payment of the running bills regularly within time, the petitioner could not complete the work of contract within time. It also appears that the excavation work of tunnel is almost near to be completed. The same may be completed within some period and on such reasons, the petitioner appears to be entitled for extension of the period of further six months under the relevant clauses and terms of the contract. Such observation is being made, keeping in view that if by rescinding the contract of the petitioner, the authorities of the respondents proceed to carry out the remaining work through some other agency, then again long time would be required for NIT process and finalization of contract and issuing the work order and in that circumstance, the remaining work of the contract could not be completed in short period and consequently, the public work will suffer and the agriculturists could not get the water for irrigation of their field in early days.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1727 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Cross examination - supply of documents - Held that: - learned counsel for the petitioner states that an appropriate application for the same would be filed before the adjudicating authority within a week and the adjudicating authority shall dispose of the said application in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter - petition disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1726 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - tax effect - Held that:- In the present case, tax effect on account of the relief granted by the CIT(A) which led to the filing of the present appeal by the Revenue, is admittedly, less than ₹ 10 lakhs.
In the light of the circular dated 10.12.2015, issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred in it by subsection (1) of S.268A, we are of the view that the appeal filed herein should not have been pressed by the Revenue. The Learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the Revenue effect in this appeal is less than the limit prescribed in para-3 of the above circular issued by the CBDT. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue as withdrawn/not pressed
-
2015 (12) TMI 1725 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement - directions issued pertaining to the meeting of the Secured Creditors - Held that:- The meeting of Secured Creditors could not be held and all the Secured Creditors instead of attending the meeting have given their consent in writing, in approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. In the facts and circumstances, the directions contained to the extent of holding and convening the meeting of the Secured Creditors are directed to be omitted. Further, in view of the fact that all the Secured Creditors have given their consent, in writing, in approval of the Scheme, the meeting of the Secured Creditors is ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1724 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement - directions issued pertaining to the meeting of the Secured Creditors - Held that:- The meeting of Secured Creditors could not be held and all the Secured Creditors instead of attending the meeting have given their consent in writing, in approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. In the facts and circumstances, the directions contained to the extent of holding and convening the meeting of the Secured Creditors are directed to be omitted. Further, in view of the fact that all the Secured Creditors have given their consent, in writing, in approval of the Scheme, the meeting of the Secured Creditors is ordered to be dispensed with.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1723 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Scheme of Amalgamation - Held that:- Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the Scheme and the proceedings, it appears that the requirements of the provisions of sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 are satisfied. The Scheme appears to be genuine and bonafide and in the interest of the shareholders and creditors. This Court, therefore, accordingly allows the Company Petitions and approves the Scheme. The Scheme is sanctioned. The prayers made in the respective Company Petitions are hereby granted.
The petitions are allowed accordingly. Fees of Mr. Devang Vyas are quantified at ₹ 7,500/in each of the petitions. The said fees would be paid by the Transferee Company. The fees of the Official Liquidator are quantified at ₹ 7500/in respect of Company Petition No. 392 of 2015. The said fees to the Official Liquidator shall be paid by the Transferee Company/ Transferor Company.
Filing and issuance of drawn up orders are dispensed with. All concerned authorities to act on a copy of this order along with the Scheme duly authenticated by the Registrar, High Court, Gujarat. The Registrar, High Court of Gujarat shall issue the authenticated copy of this order alongwith Scheme within 15 days of passing of this order.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1722 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Scheme of demerger - directions to convene meeting of the Equity Shareholders of Resulting Company/ Petitioner Company II and secured and unsecured creditors of the Resulting Company and Equity Shareholders, secured and unsecured creditors of Demerged Company/ Petitioner Company I - Held that:- The Scheme is for the benefit of all the members of the companies. The creditors of the companies are in no way affected or prejudiced by the approval of the scheme.
In this view of the aforesaid factual matrix, when all the Equity Shareholders and unsecured creditors of the Quatrro Business Support Services Private Limited (Demerged Company/ Petitioner Company I) and secured and unsecured creditors of the Quatrro Global Services Private Limited (Resulting Company/ Petitioner Company II) have given their consent to the Scheme of Arrangement, I do not find any reason to decline the prayer to dispense with their meeting. Accordingly, their meeting is dispensed with.
There is no secured creditor of petitioner company I.
As far as the prayer of counsel for the petitioner regarding convening the meeting of Equity Shareholders of the petitioner company II, is concerned, the prayer is justified. Accordingly, it is directed that a meeting of Equity Shareholders of the petitioner company II be convened accordingly. The scheme put up in the meeting of the Equity Shareholders shall be approved/ decided by the majority in number and by minimum 75% in value of the Equity Shareholders present and voting either in person or proxy.
............
|
