|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 879 Records
-
2010 (1) TMI 1216
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on interest and dividend.
2. Deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of Rs. 50,000.
3. Deduction u/s 80IB on Banas-II plant.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on interest and dividend
The Revenue challenged the allowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on interest of Rs. 39,85,291 and dividend of Rs. 62,99,641. The Tribunal noted that the issue was already decided in favor of the assessee in earlier years (ITA No.3730/Ahd/2002 for AY 1990-91). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had observed that the interest and dividend were earned from investments made out of own funds, not borrowed funds. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.
Issue 2: Deduction u/s 80P(2)(c) of Rs. 50,000
The Revenue contested the allowance of Rs. 50,000 deduction u/s 80P(2)(c). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) noted that the assessee was not a primary cooperative society as described in section 80P(2)(b) and thus eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(c). The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the assessee's activities were not covered by clause (b) of section 80P(2). The appeal on this ground was dismissed.
Issue 3: Deduction u/s 80IB on Banas-II plant
The Revenue disputed the deduction of Rs. 82,84,339 u/s 80IB for the Banas-II plant. The assessee had revised its claim from Rs. 3,31,37,355 to Rs. 82,84,339, asserting eligibility for 25% deduction. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, referencing the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's favor for AY 2004-05. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the apportionment of common expenses would actually increase the profit of the Dairy Business, not reduce it.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on all grounds, affirming the decisions of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding deductions u/s 80P(2)(d), 80P(2)(c), and 80IB.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1215
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation and addition of closing stock of Bagasse.
2. Disallowance of vehicle running expenses.
3. Addition on account of sale of scrap.
4. Estimation of production of Bagasse.
5. Classification of nursery farm income as business income instead of agricultural income.
6. Disallowance of expenses relating to earlier years.
Summary:
1. Valuation and Addition of Closing Stock of Bagasse:
The first issue raised by the assessee was the confirmation by the CIT(A) of the AO's action in estimating and adding the value of closing stock of Bagasse to the income of the assessee. The AO observed that the appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing and trading of sugar, did not show the value of Bagasse in the trading account despite adopting a mercantile system of accounting. The AO computed the value of Bagasse at Rs. 25,58,055/- and made a net addition of Rs. 9,75,502/- to the total income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition. The Tribunal found that not showing any valuation for closing stock violated the fundamental accounting assumption of accrual. However, since the AO valued the Bagasse based on market value without finding the cost, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh examination.
2. Disallowance of Vehicle Running Expenses:
The assessee raised an additional ground regarding the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- out of vehicle running expenses. The assessee's counsel submitted that relief was granted u/s 154 by the CIT(A), and hence, the issue was not pressed. The Tribunal dismissed this issue as not pressed.
3. Addition on Account of Sale of Scrap:
The revenue's appeal involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 15 lacs on account of the sale of scrap. The AO noted lower sales of scrap compared to earlier and subsequent years and estimated unaccounted sales of Rs. 15 lacs based on substantial expenditure on repairs and maintenance. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating that the AO did not provide concrete evidence of sales outside the books. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the AO's inference devoid of cogency.
4. Estimation of Production of Bagasse:
The assessee's appeal for AY 2005-06 involved the AO's estimation of Bagasse production at 34% of sugar cane crushed, leading to an addition of Rs. 81,24,991/- to the income. The AO based this on the previous year's yield and discrepancies in stock records. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO, noting that the AO ignored instances of lower yield and did not address the practical difficulties in maintaining stock records for Bagasse.
5. Classification of Nursery Farm Income as Business Income:
The AO treated the net income of Rs. 1,87,332/- from Cane Nursing Farm as business income instead of agricultural income. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal found that the income from growing and selling cane was agricultural income and set aside the orders of the authorities below, deciding the issue in favor of the assessee.
6. Disallowance of Expenses Relating to Earlier Years:
The AO disallowed Rs. 18,08,336/- being previous year expenses claimed by the assessee, stating that the liabilities were determined and crystallized during the year. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, noting that the assessee did not provide necessary evidence to prove that the expenses crystallized during the current year.
Conclusion:
Both the assessee's appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1214
Issues involved: Quashing of notices u/s 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 issued by the revisional authority beyond the five-year limit.
Summary:
The petition sought the quashing of notices dated 22.1.2007 (Annexures P-12 and P-13) issued by the revisional authority u/s 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The petitioner contended that the assessments for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 had already been finalized in 2000, and the notices seeking to reopen these assessments were beyond the five-year limit prescribed by the Act.
In response, the State relied on an amendment to the Haryana Value Added Act, 2003, which extended the limitation period from five to eight years in certain cases. However, the Court found that this provision did not apply to the current situation as it was only applicable where power could not be exercised due to a judgment or decree of a Court or Tribunal, which was not the case here.
Therefore, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notices and quashing the exercise of revisional power as it was found to be beyond the period of limitation.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1213
Issues involved: Appeal against CIT(A)'s order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2)(b) - Charging of interest u/s 234B.
Disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2)(b): The assessee appealed against the disallowance of interest of Rs. 1,31,682 made by the assessing officer u/s 40A(2)(b) at 12% instead of the interest paid by the assessee at 18%. The counsel for the assessee cited previous ITAT decisions where similar disallowances were deleted, emphasizing that interest rates ranging from 15% to 24% were considered reasonable. The counsel argued that the interest paid at 18% to relatives was not excessive, especially considering the long-term nature of the advance. The ITAT noted that the AO had previously accepted 18% interest as reasonable, thus ruling in favor of the assessee and deleting the disallowance.
Charging of interest u/s 234B: Ground no.2 of the appeal concerned the charging of interest under Section 234B of the Act. Both parties agreed that this issue was consequential, and the ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate any interest after determining the income based on the above decision.
Conclusion: The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal partly, deleting the disallowance of interest u/s 40A(2)(b) and directing a recalculation of interest u/s 234B.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1212
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for asst. yr. 2004-05.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the learned CIT(A). The issue revolved around the inclusion of export incentives for deduction under s. 80-IB. The Tribunal considered the case of Oriental Rug Co. and similar assessees, where the penalty was deleted based on the debatable nature of the issue. The Tribunal noted that the claim was made based on expert advice and that there were conflicting decisions by different High Courts. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessees had disclosed complete details and the claims were bona fide. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty could be imposed in such circumstances. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of penalty by the learned CIT(A) based on these considerations.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1211
Issues Involved:
1. Temporary injunction against the use of the name "Skyline."
2. Prior user rights and trademark registration.
3. Generic vs. specific word usage.
4. Balance of convenience and equity.
5. Legal recognition and affiliations of educational institutions.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Temporary injunction against the use of the name "Skyline":
The appellant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from using the name "Skyline" for their educational institute, claiming it affected their goodwill. The Single Judge denied this, stating the word "Skyline" is generic and widely used by many entities. The Division Bench upheld this, emphasizing that the word "Skyline" was not specific and there was no likelihood of confusion between the institutions.
2. Prior user rights and trademark registration:
The appellant argued that as a prior user of the name "Skyline," they were entitled to exclusive rights and an injunction against the respondents. However, the court noted that the appellant's trademarks were still pending registration and that prior use alone did not justify an injunction, especially since "Skyline" is a common term used by many entities.
3. Generic vs. specific word usage:
The court determined that "Skyline" is a generic term, used by numerous companies and institutions worldwide. This generic nature meant that the appellant could not claim exclusive rights over the term. The Division Bench noted, "a very large number of institutes, firms, and companies are using the word 'Skyline' as part of their name."
4. Balance of convenience and equity:
The Single Judge and Division Bench both found that the balance of convenience did not favor the appellant. The respondents had already established their institute with significant investment and obtained necessary approvals from statutory bodies. The court held that granting an injunction would be inequitable, particularly as the appellant's institution lacked similar approvals and affiliations.
5. Legal recognition and affiliations of educational institutions:
The respondents argued that the appellant's institute operated without necessary statutory approvals, unlike their own institution, which was recognized by AICTE. The court found this significant, noting that the appellant's claims of affiliations with foreign universities and the use of the name "Skyline" were not sufficiently substantiated to warrant an injunction.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that the appellant had not established a prima facie case for an injunction. The court emphasized that "Skyline" is a generic term, widely used, and that the appellant's lack of statutory approvals and affiliations weakened their case. The court also vacated the modified injunction granted by the Single Judge, fully allowing the respondents to use the name "Skyline" for their institute. The appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs for the litigation.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1210
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of job charges received.
2. Deletion of addition u/s 68 on account of share capital received.
3. Disallowance of various administrative expenses.
4. Disallowance on account of delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF.
5. Deletion of disallowance of bogus purchases.
6. Deletion of disallowance of claims paid by the assessee in respect of processing of goods.
7. Deletion of disallowance of loss from fire.
8. Deletion of addition u/s 69B for shortage of cash found at the time of search.
9. Deletion of addition u/s 69B for excess stock of finished goods found during the course of search.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Job Charges Received:
The first issue in appeal by the revenue, except for AY 2000-01, is against the deletion of addition made on account of job charges received by the assessee. The AO made additions based on seized papers indicating higher average job charges than recorded. The CIT(A) deleted the additions, stating that the transactions were accounted for, and the AO's estimation was not bonafide and genuine. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting no evidence of unrecorded job charges.
2. Deletion of Addition u/s 68 on Account of Share Capital Received:
The AO added share application money as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 due to lack of identity and creditworthiness of share applicants. The CIT(A) deleted the addition after the assessee provided necessary documents. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s action, stating that the assessee was justified in producing evidence before the CIT(A) and there was no violation of Rule 46A.
3. Disallowance of Various Administrative Expenses:
The AO disallowed 20% of administrative expenses due to non-production of bills and invoices. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to 10%. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance entirely, noting that the assessee was not asked to produce bills and invoices and had filed necessary details.
4. Disallowance on Account of Delayed Payment of Employees' Contribution to PF:
The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, noting that payments were made before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Alom Exclusion.
5. Deletion of Disallowance of Bogus Purchases:
The AO disallowed purchases from Pooja Dyes Chem, alleging they issued bogus bills. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating the AO did not provide specific evidence against the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the disallowance was based on presumption.
6. Deletion of Disallowance of Claims Paid by the Assessee in Respect of Processing of Goods:
The AO disallowed claims due to lack of explanation. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the claims were reasonable and supported by ledger accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the claims were adequately explained.
7. Deletion of Disallowance of Loss from Fire:
The AO disallowed the loss claim due to lack of supporting evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the insurance claim received was credited to the profit and loss account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the AO to verify the facts.
8. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B for Shortage of Cash Found at the Time of Search:
The AO added the shortage of cash as income u/s 69B. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating shortage in cash is not an income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting the provisions of section 69B did not apply.
9. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B for Excess Stock of Finished Goods Found During the Course of Search:
The AO added the value of excess stock found during search u/s 69B. The CIT(A) reduced the addition, accepting part of the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal deleted the entire addition, noting the excess stock was adequately explained by the disclosure made during the search.
Conclusion:
The appeals of the revenue were dismissed, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee were allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 15.1.2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1209
Suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure - jurisdiction of courts with reference to suits - Whether a District Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, does not have jurisdiction to try a suit u/s 92 of the Code? - State Government Notification No. GOM No.727 - The respondents instituted a suit on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore against the appellants u/s 92 of Code, seeking a direction to the second appellant to repay all the amounts spent by him after 20.6.2005 contrary to the terms of the supplementary deed of Trust, and also to convene the Trust meeting for approval of the income and expenditure and other consequential reliefs.
HELD THAT:- In view of the express provisions of section 92 specifying the courts which will have jurisdiction to entertain suits under that section, neither the provisions of sections 15 to 20 of the Code nor the provisions of section 12 of the Civil Courts Act will apply to such suits. Section 92 is a self contained provision, and conferment of jurisdiction in regard to suits under that section does not depend upon the value of the subject matter of the suit. Therefore, insofar as the suits u/s 92 are concerned, the District Courts and Sub- ordinate Courts will have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits. We find that the learned District Judge had held that he had jurisdiction because the value of the subject matter was ₹ 10 lakhs, apparently keeping in view, section 12 of the Civil Courts Act. We make it clear that the pecuniary limits mentioned in section 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits u/s 92 of the Code.
In fact, if section 12 of the Civil Courts Act is applied to decide the jurisdiction of courts with reference to suits u/s 92 of the Code, it will then lead to the following anomalous position: The District Court will have jurisdiction if the value of the subject matter exceeds ₹ 5 lakhs. The Sub-ordinate Court will have jurisdiction where the value of the subject matter exceeds ₹ 1 lakh but does not exceed to ₹ 5 lakhs. That would mean that a suit u/s 92 of the Code, where the subject matter does not exceeds ₹ 1 lakh, cannot be filed in any court as section 92 confers jurisdiction only on District Court and Sub-ordinate Courts. This obviously was not intended. Be that as it may.
We do not therefore approve the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in PS Subramanian which ignores the earlier decisions of that court and decisions of other High Courts which have consistently taken the view that where jurisdiction is also conferred on any other court by the state government by a notification (u/s 92 of the Code or under any similar provision), then that court and the District Court will have concurrent jurisdiction.
Appeal is dismissed. The learned District Judge will proceed to decide the suit expeditiously.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1208
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01.
Summary:
1. Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961:
The assessee claimed deductions u/s 80-IA on gross total income before allowing deduction u/s 80-HHC. The Assessing Officer (AO) recalculated the deduction u/s 80-IA after allowing deduction u/s 80-HHC, leading to a reduced deduction. The CIT(A) initially allowed the assessee's claim, but the ITAT, following the decision in ACIT vs. Rogini Garments, directed the AO to first allow deduction u/s 80-IA and then u/s 80-HHC. The AO then levied penalties u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
2. Assessee's Argument:
The assessee argued that the deductions were claimed based on prevailing favorable judgments, including those from ITAT Ahmedabad Bench and other Tribunals. The returns were filed with full disclosure and supported by Auditor's Certificates. The assessee contended that the penalties were unjustified as the claims were made under a bona fide belief and supported by existing case law.
3. CIT(A)'s Findings:
The CIT(A) upheld the penalties, stating that the assessee claimed excess deductions contrary to the restrictive clause in section 80IA(9). The CIT(A) noted that the excess deductions were claimed to reduce tax liability, justifying the penalty.
4. Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claims were based on several favorable decisions from different ITAT Benches, including ITAT Ahmedabad. The Tribunal emphasized that the claims were made before the decision in Rogini Garments and were supported by bona fide belief and full disclosure. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those from the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which held that penalties are not justified for debatable or bona fide claims.
5. Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and supported by existing case law at the time of filing returns. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and canceled the penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
Order:
All the appeals of the Assessee are allowed. The penalties u/s 271(1)(c) are canceled.
Order signed, dated, and pronounced in the Court on 22/01/2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1207
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of book results and estimation of net profit.
2. Addition on account of ceased liabilities under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Addition on account of unexplained gifts credited in the capital account.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Rejection of Book Results and Estimation of Net Profit:
The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the book results of the assessee's construction business due to the failure to produce relevant books of account and details despite multiple notices. The AO estimated the net profit at 8% of the turnover. The CIT(A) upheld this estimation, noting that the assessee did not provide the necessary documentation even during appellate proceedings. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee's failure to produce books justified the application of section 145 of the Act, leading to the estimation of profit. This was supported by precedents from the Hon'ble Orissa High Court and the Supreme Court, which validated the estimation method in such circumstances.
2. Addition on Account of Ceased Liabilities Under Section 41(1):
The AO added Rs. 45,56,635/- to the assessee's income, treating certain creditors as non-genuine and considering the liabilities as ceased under section 41(1). The CIT(A) reduced this addition to Rs. 26,02,684/-, accepting some creditors as genuine. The Tribunal, however, vacated the CIT(A)'s findings and deleted the entire addition. It held that the mere lapse of the limitation period does not imply cessation of liability, referencing decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Courts. The Tribunal concluded that without evidence of the assessee obtaining any benefit or the liability being written off, section 41(1) was not applicable.
3. Addition on Account of Unexplained Gifts Credited in the Capital Account:
The AO added Rs. 2,32,705/- to the assessee's income, treating gifts received as unexplained due to the failure to establish the donor's creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting the lack of evidence for the donor's financial capacity and the absence of any occasion for the gifts. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the assessee did not prove the creditworthiness of the donor or the genuineness of the gifts. It highlighted that mere identification of the donor and banking transactions were insufficient without corroborative evidence of the donor's financial capacity and the genuineness of the gift, referencing various judicial precedents.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the rejection of book results and estimation of net profit, deleting the addition under section 41(1), and maintaining the addition on account of unexplained gifts.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1206
Issues involved: Appeal challenging order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal u/s 35 G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding penalty imposition and benefit eligibility u/s 11 AC.
Summary:
The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's order allowing penalty reduction to 25% of duty amount even when penalty was not paid within 30 days as required by the second proviso to Section 11 AC. The case involved M/s Shipley Hosiery Industries, a manufacturer of Sweaters, where a duty amounting to Rs. 1,98,068/- was found due. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,98,068/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to 25% citing precedent cases. The Revenue contended that the penalty should be equal to the duty amount as per Section 11 AC, while the Respondent argued that the penalty should be 25% of the duty determined if paid within 30 days. The Court noted that similar issues were addressed in previous cases like CCE vs. J.R. Fabrics (P) Ltd. and upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
The Court held that the case was in line with previous decisions and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, as no contrary view was presented by the appellant's counsel. The decision was based on the interpretation of Section 11 AC and the application of penalty provisions in relation to duty payment timelines. The Court referred to relevant legal precedents to support its ruling, emphasizing consistency in the application of penalty provisions in similar cases.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1205
Issues involved: Challenge to Provisional Assessment orders u/s 25(1) of U.P. Vat Act, 2008 for the assessment year 2008-09.
Issue 1: Challenge to Provisional Assessment orders
The petitioner challenged the Provisional Assessment orders dated 1.9.2009 for the Ist, IInd, IIIrd, and IVth quarters for the assessment year 2008-09 on the ground that no provisional assessment order could be passed u/s 25(1) of U.P. Vat Act, 2008 after the furnishing of the annual return. The annual return for the assessment year 2008-09 was filed on 7.8.2009. The Assessing Authority rejected the petitioner's plea that no provisional assessment order could be made after the filing of the annual return, stating that the return was filed after the issue of the notice.
Judgment:
The High Court held that the Provisional Assessment Orders passed by the Assessing Authority for the assessment year 2008-09 on 1.9.2009 were illegal and without jurisdiction. Section 25(2) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 clearly states that no provisional order of assessment shall be made after the dealer has submitted the annual return of turnover and tax. The Court emphasized that once the return was filed, the Assessing Authority was no longer empowered to pass any Provisional Assessment order. As the return was filed on 7.8.2009, the Assessing Authority had no authority to pass the Provisional Assessment Order on 1.9.2009.
Outcome:
The writ petition was allowed, and the Provisional Assessment Orders dated 1.9.2009 for the Ist, IInd, IIIrd, and IVth quarters were quashed. However, the Assessing Authority was given the opportunity to pass the final assessment order based on the return filed by the petitioner in accordance with the law.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1204
Whether an application for grant of FL-3 Licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed when the application was made or in accordance with the Rules in force on the date of consideration - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts that the State has exclusive privilege of manufacture and sale of liquor, and no citizen has a fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor, the applicant did not have a vested right to get a licence. Where there is no vested right, the application for licence requires verification, inspection and processing. In such circumstances it has to be held that the consideration of application of FL-3 licence should be only with reference to the rules/law prevailing or in force on the date of consideration of the application by the excise authorities, with reference to the law and not as on the date of application. Consequently the direction by the High Court that the application for licence should be considered with reference to the Rules as they existed on the date of application cannot be sustained.
Whether the amendment to Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules substituting the last proviso is valid - HELD THAT:- Rule 13(3) provides for grant of licences to sell foreign liquor in Hotels (Restaurants). The substitution of the last proviso to Rule 13(3) by the notification dated 20.2.2002 provided that no new licences under the said Rule shall be issued. The proviso does not nullify the licences already granted. Nor does it interfere with renewal of the existing licences. It only prohibits grant of further licences. The issue of such licences was to promote tourism in the State. The promotion of tourism should be balanced with the general public interest. If on account of the fact that sufficient licences had already been granted or in public interest, the State takes a policy decision not to grant further licences, it cannot be said to defeat the Rules. It merely gives effect to the policy of the State not to grant fresh licences until further orders. If the State on a periodical re-assessment of policy changed the policy, it may amend the Rules by adding, modifying or omitting any rule, to give effect to the policy. If the policy is not open to challenge, the amendments to implement the policy are also not open to challenge. When the amendment was made on 20.2.2002, the object of the newly added proviso was to stop the grant of fresh licences until a policy was finalized. Ultimately the proviso has to be construed upon its terms. Merely because it suspends or stops further operation of the main provision, the proviso does not become invalid. The challenge to the validity of the proviso is therefore rejected.
In view of the above, the appeals filed by the State are allowed in part and the appeals filed by the applicants for licences are dismissed, subject to the following clarifications.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1203
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a refund order-cum-demand notice and the challenge of four orders passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Tribunal.
Quashing of refund order-cum-demand notice:
The petitioner filed W.P.No.1443/2002 to quash the refund order-cum-demand notice dated 6th March, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Airport. The Revenue, on the other hand, filed W.P.No. 1802/2002 to challenge four orders passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The High Court, after considering the complex issues involved and the consensus between the parties, set aside the order of CESTAT and the refund order-cum-demand notice. The CESTAT was directed to denovo hear and adjudicate upon the issues arising from the orders within four months. The amount deposited in the Court was ordered to remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
Challenging orders of CESTAT:
The Revenue challenged four orders passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Tribunal, Mumbai Bench. The High Court set aside the order of CESTAT and directed it to denovo hear and adjudicate upon the issues arising from the orders within four months. All rival contentions were kept open, and the amount deposited in the Court was ordered to remain subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. Both writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1202
Whom can be given option to redeem the goods – the decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus MOHAMMED AIJAJ AHMED [2009 (7) TMI 308 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested where it was held that The question of the Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 125 of the Customs Act and remit the matter to give an option to the respondent herein to redeem the goods was clearly without jurisdiction - Held that: - the earlier decision is upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1201
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB of Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05.
Summary:
1. The appeals arose from orders of CIT(A) Karnal regarding penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for wrong deduction claim u/s 80IB on export incentives.
2. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB based on a Supreme Court decision and initiated penalty proceedings.
3. Assessee argued penalty could not be imposed due to differing High Court decisions on deduction u/s 80IB for export incentives.
4. CIT(A) deleted the penalty citing support for the deduction claim from various High Court and ITAT decisions.
5. ITAT Delhi Bench "C" also deleted the penalty, considering the claim as bona fide and debatable due to conflicting High Court opinions.
6. The penalty was not upheld, and the Revenue's appeals for all years were dismissed.
Judgment Details:
- The appeals concerned the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for incorrect deduction claims u/s 80IB on export incentives for Assessment Years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05.
- The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction based on a Supreme Court decision and initiated penalty proceedings.
- Assessee argued against penalty imposition citing differing High Court decisions on the deduction's allowability.
- CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting the bona fide nature of the claim and support from various High Court and ITAT decisions.
- ITAT Delhi Bench "C" also upheld the deletion of penalty, considering the claim as debatable due to conflicting High Court opinions.
- The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not imposed, and the Revenue's appeals for all years were dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1200
Issues Involved: Dispute settlement, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on interest component of decree.
Dispute Settlement: The parties have settled the dispute, but a query arises regarding the deduction of TDS on the interest component of the decree. The defendants express apprehension about the provisions of section 194A of the Income-tax Act, stating that tax should be deducted at source on the interest component. The plaintiff argues that since the amount is for discharging a liability crystallized by a court decree, the defendants are not liable to deduct tax at source.
Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Issue: The defendants rely on judgments including Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta v. Union of India and Islamic Investment Co. v. Union of India to support their position. The court distinguishes the present case from Lt. Col. K.D. Gupta's case, emphasizing that once a decree is passed, it is an order of the court to be discharged without deduction of tax at source. The court rules that the defendants are not entitled to withhold payment for TDS, as the issue of tax liability can be determined by the Income-tax authorities after payment to the decree holder.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1199
Issues involved: Appeal against Order dated 30-01-2009 by CIT(A)-19 for assessment year 2005-2006. Grounds: 1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 76,33,179 based on additional income declared in Survey Action. 2. Deletion of disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 20,87,450 without proof of debts being bad.
Deletion of Addition of Rs. 76,33,179: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 76,33,179 made by the Assessing Officer based on additional income declared in Survey Action. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) provided cogent reasons for concluding that the addition was not in accordance with the law in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning and upheld the Order, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Deletion of Disallowance of Bad Debts: Another ground of appeal was the deletion of the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 20,87,450 without proof that the debts had become bad. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had given cogent reasons for this deletion as well. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue, affirming that the disallowance of bad debts was not justified in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai, comprising D. Manmohan (Vice President) and Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member), dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Order of the CIT(A)-19 for the assessment year 2005-2006. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the addition of Rs. 76,33,179 and the disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 20,87,450, finding that both actions were not in accordance with the law in the specific circumstances of the case. The Order was pronounced on January 27, 2010.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1198
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A)'s order allowing claim of assessee on short payments made by customers and discounts.
Summary:
Issue 1: Claim of short payments and discounts
The Revenue appealed against CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim of the assessee regarding short payments made by customers and discounts. The original assessment was completed earlier, and the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer observed discrepancies in the discounts allowed by the assessee to customers and the handling of payments. The AO raised concerns about the documentation provided by the assessee and the matching of signatures on discount vouchers and delivery notes. The CIT(A) reviewed the case and found in favor of the assessee, stating that the discounts claimed were reasonable considering the competitive market and the nature of car sales. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support their claim, including sales bills and ledger accounts. The CIT(A) decision was based on previous rulings in favor of the assessee for other assessment years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the discounts and short payments were legitimate business expenses that could be verified through proper documentation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the claim of the assessee regarding short payments made by customers and discounts.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1197
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against order by Commissioner u/s 263 for assessment year 2001-2002.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2001-2002. The original assessment was made u/s.143(3), following which the Commissioner u/s.263 directed further investigations. The Assessing Officer then framed the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 263, determining the total income at Rs. 13.47 crores, as opposed to the original income of Rs. 26.37 crores. The Tribunal, in ITA No.2877/Mum/2006, quashed the order passed by the Commissioner u/s.263. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, set aside the assessment, allowing the assessee's appeal.
Upon reviewing the submissions and relevant material, it was established that the assessment order was passed based on the direction of the Commissioner u/s.263. As the foundation of the assessment proceedings, the revisional order u/s.263, no longer existed, the Tribunal upheld the decision to quash the assessment order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The judgment was pronounced on January 11, 2010.
............
|
9911796707
