|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1047 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1498
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIT(A) order.
2. Addition of Rs. 57,091/- as Prior Period Expenses.
3. Addition of Rs. 51,269/- as Foreign Travelling Expenses.
4. Addition of Rs. 4,55,759/- u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Legality of the CIT(A) Order
- The assessee contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was "bad in law" and contrary to legal pronouncements.
Issue 2: Addition of Rs. 57,091/- as Prior Period Expenses
- The AO disallowed the prior period expenses of Rs. 57,091/- on the grounds that the assessee, following the mercantile system of accounting, could not claim earlier year expenses.
- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the appellant failed to rebut the AO's findings and did not provide any evidence to warrant deviation.
- The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not analyze the nature of liabilities under the relevant bills nor recorded any findings on whether the liability accrued in the year under consideration. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a speaking order.
Issue 3: Addition of Rs. 51,269/- as Foreign Travelling Expenses
- The AO disallowed the foreign travel expenses of Rs. 51,269/- incurred for Mrs. Hemaben S Sheth, wife of a director, as she was neither a director nor an employee of the company, and no documentary evidence was provided to show the work done for the company.
- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, stating that there was no justification for the claim and no evidence supporting the business purpose of the travel.
- The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting the absence of evidence showing how the foreign visit benefited the company. The onus was on the assessee to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, which was not discharged.
Issue 4: Addition of Rs. 4,55,759/- u/s 40A(2)(a)
- The AO disallowed Rs. 4,55,759/- paid to VOPL for job work, considering it excessive compared to the rate paid to Agriguard Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., another associate concern.
- The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, stating that the transactions were not at arm's length and the reasons given by the appellant were not supported by verifiable evidence.
- The Tribunal observed that the AO did not bring any material on record to show that the payment to VOPL was excessive in relation to the fair market value, legitimate needs of the business, or benefits derived. The Tribunal vacated the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the absence of cogent material to invoke provisions of sec. 40A(2)(a) and allowed the ground in favor of the assessee.
General and Residuary Grounds
- Ground no. 1 being general in nature and no additional grounds were raised, these grounds were dismissed.
Conclusion
- The appeal was allowed partly for statistical purposes.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1497
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of depreciation on cars not owned by the assessee.
2. Disallowance of Keyman Insurance premium.
3. Additions on account of inflation of purchases and unexplained cash credit.
4. Addition on account of low Gross Profit (G.P.).
5. Disallowance of commission expenses.
6. Disallowance of bad debts claim.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Depreciation on Cars Not Owned by the Assessee:
The Revenue contended that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,72,798/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of excessive claim of depreciation on two cars not owned by the assessee. The cars were registered in the names of the Directors but used for business purposes. The Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the previous year held that the beneficial ownership of the cars was with the assessee-company, and the cars were used for its business purposes. Therefore, the disallowance was not justified. Respectfully following the Tribunal's previous decision, the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
2. Disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 19,32,263/- out of the total premium of Rs. 23,19,521/- paid for Keyman Insurance, treating it as prepaid expenses for the succeeding financial year. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the deduction, stating that the liability crystallized during the year under consideration. The Tribunal upheld this view, noting that the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting and the entire premium liability crystallized during the year. No material was brought to show that the assessee had any right to receive the disallowed amount from the Insurance Company. Thus, the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
3. Additions on Account of Inflation of Purchases and Unexplained Cash Credit:
The Assessing Officer observed discrepancies in the purchases from Venus Petrochemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., leading to an addition of Rs. 14,77,700/- for inflated purchases and Rs. 2,84,867/- for unexplained cash credit. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) admitted additional evidence and found that the purchases and credit balance were genuine. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not verify the transactions thoroughly and relied solely on partial information. The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), dismissing this ground of appeal.
4. Addition on Account of Low Gross Profit (G.P.):
The Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts due to a fall in the G.P. rate from 33.26% to 30.23% and made an addition of Rs. 35,81,152/-. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that no defects were found in the books of accounts, and the fall in G.P. was explained with sufficient evidence. The Tribunal agreed that the mere decline in G.P. rate without specific defects in the books did not justify the addition. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
5. Disallowance of Commission Expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 11,31,243/- for lack of evidence of services rendered by the commission agents. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that the commission payments were genuine, supported by agreements, debit notes, and TDS deductions. The Tribunal noted that the details were furnished late, and the Assessing Officer could not verify them. The issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification. This ground of appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
6. Disallowance of Bad Debts Claim:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 2,55,831/- for bad debts, stating that the assessee failed to prove the debt became bad during the year. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, noting that the cheques from the debtors had bounced several times. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in T.R.F. Ltd., which held that post-amendment, writing off the debt in the books was sufficient for deduction. The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed, and this ground of appeal was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was partly allowed for statistical purposes, specifically regarding the commission expenses, which were remanded for fresh adjudication. All other grounds of appeal were dismissed, confirming the decisions of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
-
2011 (1) TMI 1496
Issues:
1. Interpretation of excise duty on Ayurvedic medicines vs. cosmetics.
2. Discharge of respondents based on departmental proceedings.
3. Legal implications of Tribunal's decision on the complaint case.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of products manufactured by the respondent as either "Ayurvedic medicines" attracting 10% excise duty or "cosmetics" attracting 40% excise duty. The petitioner conducted a raid and alleged that certain products were cosmetics, leading to the imposition of penalties for evasion of excise duty. The respondents contended that the products were Ayurvedic medicines, supported by expert opinion and compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The ACMM ultimately held that the products fell under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as Ayurvedic medicines, dismissing the petitioner's allegations.
2. Following the departmental adjudication proceedings and the subsequent discharge of the respondents by the Tribunal, a complaint was filed alleging violations of the Central Excise Act. The ACMM considered the Tribunal's decision and the principle of double jeopardy, concluding that since the respondents were exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the basis of the complaint did not stand. The ACMM noted that the prosecution could not be sustained on the same facts and evidence, leading to the discharge of the respondents.
3. The petitioner's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's findings that the products were Ayurvedic medicines. The Supreme Court emphasized the expert analysis supporting the classification and the products' compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Consequently, the ACMM upheld the discharge of the respondents, as the products were determined to be Ayurvedic medicines under Chapter 30, refuting the petitioner's allegations of them being cosmetics. The order of discharge was maintained based on the classification of the products and the lack of legal basis for the complaint, leading to the dismissal of the Revision Petition.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1495
Issues involved: Appeal regarding the allowance of loss, consideration of investigation findings as evidence, and disallowance of interest on funds lent as interest-free loans.
Regarding the first issue, the Revenue raised a question on whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the assessee's claim of loss amounting to Rs. 21,40,11,523. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, and the matter was brought before the High Court for review.
Concerning the second issue, the ITAT's decision to not consider the findings of investigations conducted by JPC and SEBI regarding the security scam of 2001 as evidence for framing the assessment order was questioned. The legality and relevance of such findings in the assessment process were under scrutiny.
On the third issue, the Tribunal provided detailed reasoning in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its judgment to support its decision that the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 6,92,79,428 related to funds lent as interest-free loans to sister concerns was not sustainable. The High Court found no fault with the Tribunal's order on this matter.
The High Court admitted the appeal on the first two questions raised by the Revenue, indicating that further examination and deliberation were required on these specific issues.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1494
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax liability on loading, unloading, and freight charges in a contract for supply of goods.
Summary:
The revision before the High Court challenged the Tribunal's order regarding tax liability for the Assessment Year 1996-97 in a contract awarded by the Railway for the supply of ballast. The dispute centered around whether tax should be levied on loading, unloading, and freight charges in addition to the value of the goods supplied. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal, but the Commissioner of Trade Tax appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal.
The learned Standing Counsel argued that even though the work order separately listed the charges for loading, unloading, and freight, they should still be included in the turnover for tax purposes. Citing the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was contended that all expenses incurred before the delivery of goods should be part of the turnover if the ownership of the goods remains with the supplier until delivery at the destination.
Agreeing with the Standing Counsel's argument and relying on the precedent set by the Apex Court, the High Court held that in cases where the supply is Free on Rail (F.O.R.) destination, expenses such as freight and insurance charges are integral to the sale price. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was deemed unsustainable, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court.
Therefore, the High Court allowed the revision, set aside the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal in light of the legal principles established by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. India Meters Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1493
The appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2004-05 was dismissed by ITAT Mumbai as the appellant M/s. Bon Limited had already merged with M/s. HUL and was not in existence on the date of filing the appeal. The appeal was found non-maintainable and dismissed, with the option to file a fresh appeal if permitted by law.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1492
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO not to take the notional interest of Rs. 14,04,00,000 on interest-free deposits received by the assessee while computing the Annual Letting Value (ALV) of the property.
Summary:
Issue 1: Notional Interest on Interest-Free Deposits
The Assessing Officer (AO) challenged the CIT(A)'s order dated 18.2.2008 for the assessment year 2005-06, which directed the AO not to consider the notional interest of Rs. 14,04,00,000 on interest-free deposits received by the assessee while computing the ALV of the property. The AO noticed that the assessee had let out commercial premises and received substantial interest-free deposits, which were invested in equity shares of a group company. The AO computed notional interest at 18% per annum on these deposits and included it in the ALV of the property. The CIT(A) deleted this notional interest, following the ITAT's decision on a similar issue.
Upon appeal, the Tribunal found that the issue was covered by the decision dated 15.12.2003 in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1999-2000, where it was held that revenue authorities cannot consider notional interest on interest-free advances while determining the ALV of rented property. The Tribunal also referred to the case of DCIT v. Reclamation Realty India Pvt. Ltd., where it was observed that the annual value should be based on municipal valuation or actual rent received, not on notional interest.
The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's rulings in Diwan Daulat Kapoor and Mrs. Sheila Kaushish, which emphasized that the annual value should be the standard rent or municipal valuation, not the actual rent received. The Tribunal also noted that the Bombay High Court in Smitaben N. Ambani held that municipal valuation should be the yardstick for determining the annual value.
The Tribunal concluded that the annual value adopted by municipal authorities should be the determining factor, and notional interest on interest-free security deposits should not be added. Since the CIT(A) followed the Tribunal's earlier decision, the Tribunal approved the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the revenue's appeal.
Conclusion:
The appeal by the AO was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO not to consider the notional interest on interest-free deposits while computing the ALV of the property was upheld. The Tribunal emphasized that the annual value should be based on municipal valuation or actual rent received, not on notional interest.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1491
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) u/s 23(1)(a) vs. 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of Assessing Officer's (AO) method in determining ALV by ignoring Municipal valuation.
Summary:
Issue 1: Determination of Annual Letting Value (ALV) u/s 23(1)(a) vs. 23(1)(b)
The primary issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the determination of ALV by the AO invoking the provisions of section 23(1)(a) as against the ALV declared by the assessee u/s 23(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee, a company deriving income from house property, capital gain, and other sources, declared its income under the head "income from house property" based on the actual rent received, which was higher than the municipal value. The AO, however, determined the ALV by ignoring the municipal valuation and estimated a significantly higher ALV based on market inquiries.
Issue 2: Validity of AO's Method in Determining ALV
The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO, stating that the AO's computation of ALV at Rs. 48 lakhs was based on unsubstantiated information and hearsay. The AO failed to provide documentary evidence or confront the assessee with the alleged higher rental value during the assessment proceedings.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, referencing the ITAT Mumbai "D" Bench's decision in DCIT vs. Reclamation Reality India Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the ALV should be based on the municipal valuation unless the actual rent received is higher. The Tribunal emphasized that the charge u/s 22 is not on the market rent but on the annual value, and in the case of property not let out, the municipal value is the proper yardstick for determining the ALV. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the AO was not justified in ignoring the municipal valuation and that the actual rent received should be the basis for ALV u/s 23(1)(b).
Conclusion:
The appeal of the revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld, confirming that the ALV should be determined based on the actual rent received when it exceeds the municipal valuation, as per section 23(1)(b) of the Act. The Tribunal reiterated that assessment of income tax cannot be based on hearsay and must be supported by evidence.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1490
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs on account of unexplained sundry credits.
2. Denial of enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs on account of unexplained sundry credits
The appeal arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXI, New Delhi, confirming the addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs made by the AO on account of unexplained sundry credits. The Tribunal had previously restored the matter to the AO for re-framing the assessment after allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. The AO had made the addition u/s 69 of the Act, concluding that the assessee did not purchase any material from M/s Unifoil Enterprises, as the creditor denied any sales to the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this addition, noting that the assessee was engaged in over-invoicing of goods to defraud the revenue.
Issue 2: Denial of enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC
The assessee argued that if the purchases were treated as bogus, it should be entitled to a higher deduction u/s 80HHC. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not agree, citing the DRI's findings that the goods were over-invoiced. The Tribunal noted that the non-payment of the purchase consideration and the absence of any dispute regarding the quality of goods strongly indicated the non-genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal concluded that no purchase was made from M/s Unifoil Enterprises, leading to the rightful addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs u/s 69 and the denial of enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the ld. CIT(A) that the addition of Rs. 66.15 lakhs u/s 69 was justified and the denial of enhanced deduction u/s 80HHC was appropriate. The order was pronounced in the open court on 14 January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1489
Recovery of amount jointly and severely on various assessees/appellants - Held that:- Tribunal in number of precedent decisions, has held that such confirmation of demand jointly and severely on various assessees/appellants, is not in accordance with law. In all such earlier matters, appeals stand remanded with direction to original adjudicating authority to decide the liability of each individual separately.
Matter remanded to Commissioner for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1488
Rules of guidance for Offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - General directions have been issued to all the criminal courts, which are called upon to hold trials, particularly in cases involving an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - discretion on the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance before the Magistrate/ the Trial Court, - complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act
HELD THAT:- Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure confers a discretion on the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance till such time his appearance is considered by the court to be not necessary during the trial. It is manifest from a plain reading of the provision that while considering an application under Section 205 of the Code, the Magistrate has to bear in mind the nature of the case as also the conduct of the person summoned. He shall examine whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence - Therefore, the satisfaction whether or not an accused deserves to be exempted from personal attendance has to be of the Magistrate, who is the master of the court in so far as the progress of the trial is concerned and none else.
Order of the Magistrate should be such which does not result in unnecessary harassment to the accused and at the same time does not cause any prejudice to the complainant. The Court must ensure that the exemption from personal appearance granted to an accused is not abused to delay the trial.
In Manoj Narain Agrawal Vs. Shashi Agrawal & Ors. [2009 (4) TMI 1056 - SUPREME COURT], this Court, while observing that the High Court cannot lay down directions for the exercise of discretion by the Magistrate under Section 205 of the Code, had held that similarly, the High Court should not have, for all intent and purport, issued the direction for grant of exemption from personal appearance. Such a matter undoubtedly shall be left for the consideration before the learned Magistrate. We are sure that the Magistrate would exercise his jurisdiction in a fair and judicious manner.
It is equally trite that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code have to be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and in rare cases to correct patent illegalities or to prevent miscarriage of justice - Similarly, while it is true that the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. In any event, the power of superintendence cannot be exercised to influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order or judgment in a particular manner.
Thus, in the instant case, there are no hesitation in holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and/or Article 227 of the Constitution by laying down the afore-extracted general directions, which are inconsistent with the clear language of Sections 205 and 313 of the Code. In light of the afore-noted guidelines laid down by this Court, further directions on the same issue by the High Court were wholly uncalled for.
The impugned order containing general directions to the lower courts is set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1487
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) upheld by CIT(A) for non-payment of interest amount u/s 43B.
Summary:
The appellant challenged the first appellate order upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act at Rs. 4,04,232. The AO levied the penalty based on an addition of Rs. 13,47,443 due to non-payment of interest by the due date for filing the income tax return u/s 139. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, considering the explanation provided by the appellant as ignorance of law and inadvertence by the tax consultant, which was deemed a lame excuse. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties and reviewed relevant decisions.
The appellant's representative reiterated submissions made before the CIT(A) and presented an affidavit from the tax auditor acknowledging the mistake in not including the unpaid interest amount in the income computation due to ignorance of the amended provisions of Section 43B(e). The representative argued that the mistake was bona fide as it was the first year of implementing the amendment. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their case.
The Departmental Representative (D.R.) contended that ignorance of law cannot justify the mistake and argued that the appellant and their counsel should be considered as one entity. The D.R. highlighted a specific case where the penalty was upheld due to similar circumstances.
After reviewing the cited decisions, the Tribunal found that in comparable cases, penalties were deleted based on the bonafide nature of the mistakes. Citing precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the mistake made by the tax consultant was bonafide, and the penalty should be deleted. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 4,04,232 u/s 271(1)(c). The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 31st January 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1486
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding exemption from Service Tax under Notification No.6/05-ST for a Direct Selling Agent (DSA) promoting a registered/branded entity.
Analysis:
The appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, involved a challenge by the Commissioner of Service Tax against an order made by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The main issue was whether the assessee, a Direct Selling Agent (DSA) of a registered bank, was entitled to exemption from payment of Service Tax under Notification No.6/05-ST dated 01.03.2005. The respondent-assessee was engaged in promoting the business of a registered bank and receiving commission/incentives. The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence initiated proceedings against the assessee, leading to a demand for service tax, interest, and penalties. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal. The revenue then appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee relied on Notification No.6/2005-Service Tax, which exempts taxable services of aggregate value not exceeding four lakh rupees in a financial year from service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the aggregate value of services in this case was below the threshold and granted the exemption. However, the revenue contended before the Tribunal that since the plea regarding the notification was not raised before the original adjudicating authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in extending the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that a claim under a notification can be raised for the first time at the appeal stage. The Tribunal emphasized that the availability of the notification is a legal plea that can be raised if otherwise applicable.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the undisputed fact that the aggregate value of taxable services for the assessee was below the threshold specified in the notification. The Tribunal held that the failure to claim the benefit of the notification before the original adjudicating authority did not preclude the assessee from availing the exemption if entitled. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that no infirmity was found in the Tribunal's order. The High Court noted that the revenue did not present any evidence to suggest that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Additionally, the High Court highlighted that certain grounds raised by the revenue, such as the liability to pay service tax from the first amount, were not raised before the Tribunal or in the show cause notice, making them impermissible to raise for the first time before the Court.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no question of law, let alone a substantial question of law, arose from the impugned order warranting interference. The judgment underscored the importance of raising relevant legal pleas at the appropriate stages of proceedings and upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the entitlement of the assessee to the exemption under Notification No.6/05-ST.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1485
Issues involved: Implementation of tribunal order, restoration of CHA license, delay in compliance by department.
Implementation of tribunal order: The appellant sought implementation of the tribunal order dated 12.8.2010 which set aside the suspension order issued to the Customs Agent and allowed appeals with consequential relief. The appellant's advocate emphasized the importance of restoring the CHA license promptly, citing previous tribunal and Supreme Court decisions supporting the need for following higher appellate authorities' orders diligently. The department's delay in filing an appeal and lack of urgency in listing the matter for hearing were noted.
Restoration of CHA license: The advocate highlighted the livelihood impact on the firm, owner, and employees due to the delayed restoration of the CHA license. Reference was made to a previous case where the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to implement an order within two weeks and report compliance promptly. A comparison was drawn between the timely actions in the previous case and the delayed response in the current situation, emphasizing the need for swift action by the Revenue.
Delay in compliance by department: The tribunal observed that the department had not taken sufficient steps to obtain a stay order or implement the tribunal's order promptly. Despite assurances from the Revenue's representative about efforts to expedite the process, the lack of progress in getting the matter heard was evident. In light of these circumstances, the tribunal directed the Commissioner of Customs Kandla to implement the tribunal's order within two weeks and report compliance by a specified date to avoid further delays. The Revenue was instructed to communicate this directive promptly to prevent any additional delays in compliance.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1484
Issues: Ad-interim order, protection of investors, direction to High Court for day-to-day hearing, SEBI and ROC to file counter affidavit, liberty to SEBI for inquiry, direction to Respondent No.1 to provide investor names to ROC.
The Supreme Court, in a case involving an ad-interim order and the protection of investors, decided not to interfere at the current stage due to the impending peremptory hearing. However, considering the stakes involved, the Court directed the High Court to conduct day-to-day hearings from a specified date without adjournments. SEBI and ROC were instructed to submit their counter affidavit by a certain date, with immediate copy furnished to Respondent No.1. The High Court's order allowed SEBI to proceed with the inquiry while directing Respondent No.1 to provide investor names to ROC as per specified notices. The Court clarified that SEBI could request any necessary information, including investor names, during the inquiry. Respondent No.1 agreed to cooperate with SEBI's information requests, with a caveat regarding pending matters. The Court emphasized that no opinion on the case's merits was expressed and urged the High Court to promptly hear and decide the matter. The special leave petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1483
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for acceptance of cash exceeding Rs. 20,000.
2. Penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act for repayment of cash exceeding Rs. 20,000.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act for acceptance of cash exceeding Rs. 20,000:
The assessee filed appeals against the penalty orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271D for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and 2007-08. The penalties were imposed for accepting monies on account of Preference Shares/Debentures amounting to Rs. 20,000 or more from any particular person otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. The Addl. CIT, Range VI, Kolkata, after hearing the assessee, levied penalties of Rs. 25,56,000/-, Rs. 25,81,000/-, Rs. 7,53,000/-, and Rs. 3,57,500/- for the respective assessment years.
The Addl. CIT held that the assessee did not deny the receipt of cash over Rs. 20,000 from any single person nor objected to the aggregate amount accepted in cash. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd Vs CIT, which held that share application money is a deposit, and acceptance of such money in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 violated Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act.
2. Penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act for repayment of cash exceeding Rs. 20,000:
Similarly, the assessee filed appeals against the penalty orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271E for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2007-08. The penalties were imposed for repaying monies taken on account of Preference Shares/Debentures amounting to Rs. 20,000 or more to any particular person otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. The Addl. CIT, Range VI, Kolkata, after hearing the assessee, levied penalties of Rs. 5,15,300/- and Rs. 3,57,500/- for the respective assessment years.
The Addl. CIT held that the assessee did not deny the repayment in cash over Rs. 20,000 to any single person nor objected to the aggregate amount repaid in cash. The judgment of Bhalotia Engineering Works (P) Ltd was again referenced to hold that repayment of share application money in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 violated Section 269T of the Income Tax Act.
Tribunal's Findings:
At the hearing, both parties conceded that the issue is covered in favor of the assessee by a series of judgments, including M/s. Pravez Constructions (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, VLS Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, CIT Vs. Rugmini Ram Ragav Spinners P. Ltd., and others. The Tribunal referenced the case of ITO Vs. M/s. Avadh Rubber Ltd., which held that the receipt of share application money is neither a loan nor a deposit and hence does not attract the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 271D.
The Tribunal noted that the object of introducing Section 269SS was to prevent unaccounted money and false entries in the account books. However, in the present case, the transactions were properly recorded with no intention to deceive the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that penal provisions must be construed strictly and only apply to cases specifically included within their letter.
The Tribunal also referenced the judgment in VLS Foods (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, which stated that receipt of share application money is neither a loan nor a deposit, and hence Sections 269SS and 271D are not applicable.
Conclusion:
Based on the legal position and the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E were not justified. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.
Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.1.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1482
Issues involved: Assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; Erroneous assessment prejudicial to Revenue; Interpretation of total turnover for sections 10A and 10B.
Assessment under section 143(3): The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in an income of &8377; 7,73,95,960. The learned CIT found the order erroneous as the assessee had deducted certain expenses for section 80HHE but not for section 10A/10B, leading to excess deduction under section 10A/10B.
Interpretation of total turnover: The assessee argued that telecommunication charges and foreign currency expenses should be reduced from total turnover, not just export turnover, for computing deductions under sections 10A and 10B. The CIT held that the Assessing Officer's failure to exclude these expenses from total turnover led to an erroneous assessment prejudicial to Revenue. The CIT set aside the assessment for recomputing the deduction after excluding these expenses.
Tribunal's decision: The Tribunal modified the CIT's order, directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the expenditure incurred in foreign exchange for services outside India from both export turnover and total turnover for calculating deductions under sections 10A and 10B, in line with a previous decision in the assessee's own case. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 7th January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1481
Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to deduction u/s 10A and 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Issue 1 - Assessee's Appeals - Asst. Year 2005-06:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision regarding leased line charges paid to Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. The CIT(A) held that the charges are in the nature of expenditure for delivery or export of publication material. The assessee argued that the charges were not part of the export turnover and should not be reduced while determining deduction u/s 10B of the Act. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision based on previous rulings emphasizing parity between export turnover and total turnover for calculating deductions u/s 10A/10B.
Issue 2 - Revenue's Appeals - Asst. Years 2005-06 and 2006-07:
The revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision on reducing export receipts not received in time from the export turnover for computing deduction u/s 10A. The revenue cited section 10A(3) which specifies conditions for treating convertible foreign exchange as export receipts. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, considering post facto approval from RBI as valid for claiming the deduction. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that post facto approval and realization of the amounts entitled the assessee to the deduction u/s 10A/10B.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals partially by directing the exclusion of lease line charges from both export turnover and total turnover for calculating deductions u/s 10A/10B. The revenue's appeals were dismissed based on the post facto approval obtained by the assessee from RBI. The judgment was pronounced on January 13, 2011, at Bangalore.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1480
Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of telecommunication and travel expenses from export turnover for deduction under section 10A.
2. Setting off of domestic unit losses against income from 10A unit.
3. Setting off of unabsorbed losses and depreciation before computing deduction under section 10A.
4. Treatment of interest on fixed deposits and other income for deduction under section 10A.
5. Depreciation on intellectual property rights.
6. Treatment of lease rental income for deduction under section 10A.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Exclusion of Telecommunication and Travel Expenses from Export Turnover for Deduction under Section 10A:
The assessee argued that telecommunication and travel expenses should not be excluded from export turnover as they were not incurred specifically for the delivery of software outside India. The Tribunal, however, held that telecommunication and insurance charges are indirectly included in the export turnover and must be reduced for the purpose of computing deduction under section 10A. The Tribunal also upheld that these charges should be reduced from the total turnover to accurately compute the deduction, following the Special Bench decision in Sak Soft Ltd.
2. Setting off of Domestic Unit Losses Against Income from 10A Unit:
The assessee contended that losses from its domestic business should not be set off against the profits of the 10A unit before allowing the deduction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing several decisions, including Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. and Khoday India Ltd., which established that the deduction under section 10A is undertaking-specific and should not be affected by losses from other units.
3. Setting off of Unabsorbed Losses and Depreciation Before Computing Deduction under Section 10A:
The Tribunal noted that the issue of setting off unabsorbed losses and depreciation before allowing the deduction under section 10A was not clear from the assessment order. It remanded the issue back to the AO to verify if the losses pertain to the STP unit and to set off the losses accordingly if they relate to the assessment years in which the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 10A.
4. Treatment of Interest on Fixed Deposits and Other Income for Deduction under Section 10A:
The Tribunal held that interest earned on fixed deposits and other income such as insurance claims should be treated as business income and included in the profits for the purpose of deduction under section 10A. This decision was based on the precedents set by the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Green Agro Pack (P) Ltd. and the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sportking India Ltd.
5. Depreciation on Intellectual Property Rights:
The Tribunal followed its previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years, allowing depreciation on intellectual property rights (IPRs). It directed the AO to determine the written down value (WDV) of the IPRs and allow depreciation accordingly, considering the provisions of section 43A regarding assets acquired from outside India.
6. Treatment of Lease Rental Income for Deduction under Section 10A:
The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision to exclude lease rental income from the profits eligible for deduction under section 10A, following the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. It was held that the rental income from sub-leased premises does not have a direct nexus with the export of computer software and should be treated as 'income from other sources.'
Conclusion:
The appeals by both the revenue and the assessee resulted in partial relief for the assessee. The Tribunal provided detailed reasoning for each issue, ensuring that the legal principles and precedents were thoroughly applied and upheld. The decisions made reflect a careful consideration of the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, particularly section 10A, and relevant judicial interpretations.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1479
Issues Involved:
1. Estoppel and Acceptance of Final Bill
2. Execution of Extra Work and Entitlement to Additional Payment
3. Validity of "No Due Certificate" and Claims Post Final Bill
4. Jurisdiction and Limitation
Summary:
1. Estoppel and Acceptance of Final Bill:
The High Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming damages as the final bill was accepted under protest. The High Court relied on Clauses 8 and 10 of the agreement, which stated that intermediate payments are advances and the final bill must be submitted within one month of work completion. The High Court concluded that the plaintiff's acceptance of the final bill without disclosing real grievances amounted to acceptance without valid objection. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, stating that merely accepting the final bill under protest does not deprive the plaintiff of the right to claim damages for additional work performed.
2. Execution of Extra Work and Entitlement to Additional Payment:
The trial court had accepted the plaintiff's claims for additional work and awarded a decree for Rs. 2,27,758/- with interest. The Supreme Court upheld this, noting that the plaintiff had performed additional work as directed by the Department and was entitled to additional payment. The trial court's detailed examination of the issues, including extra work, excavation, construction of guide bunds, pitching work, providing sand filter in the river, waste weir backfilling, extra masonry, providing a heavy gate, additional amounts due to rising prices, and establishment charges, was found to be thorough and justified.
3. Validity of "No Due Certificate" and Claims Post Final Bill:
The Supreme Court referred to precedents, including *Chairman and MD, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors* and *Ambica Construction vs. Union of India*, which held that a "No Due Certificate" does not bar genuine claims if the contractor can prove additional entitlement. The Court emphasized that the necessity of signing such certificates under duress does not negate the contractor's right to claim additional amounts if substantiated by evidence.
4. Jurisdiction and Limitation:
The trial court had framed issues regarding the jurisdiction and the timeliness of the suit, which were not specifically addressed by the High Court. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the materials and the trial court's findings, agreed with the trial court's decision and found no merit in the High Court's reversal based on estoppel.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's decree, allowing the civil appeal with no order as to costs. The plaintiff was entitled to the awarded amount of Rs. 2,27,758/- with interest as determined by the trial court.
............
|
9911796707
