|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 383 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 329
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue for assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, duplicate appeal filed by Revenue.
For assessment year 2002-03: The appeal was against the order passed by the CIT(A) in relation to the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal recalled the earlier order to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard on a relevant judgment. The facts and circumstances were found to be similar to the previous year, and the conclusion on computing deduction under sections 10A/10B depended on the Tribunal's view for the previous year. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention, deciding the issue against the assessee.
For assessment year 2003-04: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the CIT(A) for assessment year 2003-04. It was noted that a duplicate appeal had been filed by the Revenue with identical grounds. As the other appeal was already pending, the Tribunal dismissed this appeal as a duplicate.
Conclusion: The appeal for assessment year 2003-04 was dismissed, while the appeal for assessment year 2002-03 was partly allowed. The order was pronounced on January 18, 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 328
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court issuing summons under Section 292/293/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The issues involved include the applicability of electronic records, compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872, liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the lack of evidence establishing ownership or control over objectionable content on various websites.
Applicability of Electronic Records:
The petitioner argued that the Indian Penal Code does not equate electronic records with documents unless Section 65B of the Evidence Act is complied with. The petitioner contended that the material forming the basis of the impugned orders lacked certification under Section 65B, rendering them not admissible as documents. The absence of URLs on pages allegedly downloaded from Facebook.com was highlighted as a flaw in accepting such pages as evidence.
Compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act:
The petitioner emphasized the necessity of complying with Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act, which requires a certificate for electronic records. It was argued that the complainant failed to produce such a certificate, thereby lacking legal evidence before the trial court. Reference was made to a previous judgment emphasizing the importance of proper proof of electronic documents.
Liability under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act:
The petitioner relied on Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party information hosted by them. It was asserted that the petitioner, not being an intermediary or service provider, was exempted under this provision as their role was limited to advertising and providing information free of cost.
Lack of Evidence Establishing Ownership or Control:
The petitioner argued that the complaint failed to provide any information establishing the petitioner's ownership or control over the websites mentioned. It was contended that publicly available information clearly showed that the petitioner did not have ownership, management, or control over the websites in question. The complainant was criticized for not producing material to even prima facie establish the petitioner's association with the objectionable content.
Trial Court Proceedings:
The prosecution raised concerns about objectionable content submitted in a sealed cover before the trial court, alleging it to be inflammatory and capable of inciting communal violence. The prosecution defended the magistrate's order, stating that objectionable materials were present in the records. The State was impleaded as respondent no. 2 based on oral submissions, and the trial court record was to be summoned for further review.
-
2012 (1) TMI 327
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order based on the report of Special Auditors u/s 142(2A).
2. Application of NP rate on disclosed and undisclosed sales.
3. Deletion of additions related to unrecorded business receipts.
4. Disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS.
5. Deletion of additions related to unrecorded advances and protective investments.
6. Disallowance of telephone and vehicle expenses.
Summary:
1. Validity of the order based on the report of Special Auditors u/s 142(2A):
The assessee contended that the order by the AO based on the Special Auditors' report was beyond the provisions of sec.142(2A). The Tribunal, following its previous decision in Shri Ritesh Somani's case, held that the reference for special audit was in accordance with the law and dismissed the appeals.
2. Application of NP rate on disclosed and undisclosed sales:
For the assessment year 2004-05, the CIT(A) applied an NP rate of 10% on disclosed sales, which was contested by the assessee. The Tribunal directed to apply a net profit rate of 6% for assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08, and 2008-09. For undisclosed sales, the Tribunal applied an NP rate of 8%, considering some expenses are included in such sales. This was consistent across multiple assessment years.
3. Deletion of additions related to unrecorded business receipts:
The AO made additions for unrecorded transportation receipts and JCB rent, which were deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the deletion, emphasizing the application of a consolidated NP rate on total sales and transportation receipts.
4. Disallowance of expenses due to non-deduction of TDS:
The AO disallowed expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on contract payments. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, noting that the expenses were related to unaccounted business where sec.194C provisions were not applicable.
5. Deletion of additions related to unrecorded advances and protective investments:
The AO made additions for unrecorded advances and protective investments based on Annexure-24, which were claimed to pertain to Smt. Meena Somani. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, and the Tribunal upheld the deletion, confirming that the transactions were verifiable from Smt. Meena Somani's records.
6. Disallowance of telephone and vehicle expenses:
The AO disallowed a portion of telephone and vehicle expenses for personal use. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowances, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing a reasonable amount for personal use. Depreciation on vehicles was disallowed to the extent of 1/8th u/s 38(2).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of both the assessee and the revenue, providing specific directions on the application of NP rates, deletion of certain additions, and reasonable disallowance of expenses.
-
2012 (1) TMI 326
Legal judgment by the Supreme Court in the case with citation 2012 (1) TMI 326 - SC. Justices H.L. Dattu and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad presided over the case. The delay was condoned, and the case was dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 325
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition.
2. Requirement of succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration.
3. Composite petition under multiple sections of the Companies Act.
4. Locus standi of the petitioner.
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The petitioner filed CP No. 76 of 2011 u/s 111, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 403, 404, and 405 of the Companies Act, 1956, seeking various reliefs including the declaration that the affairs of the company are being conducted oppressively and the rectification of the register of members to include his name. The application was contested on the grounds that the petitioner is not a member of the company and has not submitted any succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration to substantiate his claim for membership. The court concluded that the petitioner has not made out sufficient grounds to invoke section 111 of the Act and that the petition is not maintainable.
2. Requirement of Succession Certificate, Probate, or Letters of Administration:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to his late father's shares but did not provide any succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration as required by the company's articles of association. The court emphasized that without these documents, the petitioner cannot establish his claim to the shares. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in *Margaret Desor*, which held that legal representatives must obtain letters of administration to be treated as members for the purpose of maintaining a petition u/s 397 and 398.
3. Composite Petition Under Multiple Sections:
The court noted that the petition is a composite one, combining reliefs u/s 111 with allegations under sections 397 and 398. It was held that such a composite petition is not maintainable, especially in the face of disputed succession issues. The court reiterated that the petitioner must first establish his claim to the estate and shares of the deceased in a civil court.
4. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that as the legal heir of the deceased shareholder, he has the locus standi to file the petition. However, the court held that according to section 399 of the Act, only a member or members of the company can apply u/s 397 and 398. Since the petitioner is not on the register of members, he does not qualify as a member under section 41 of the Act. The court concluded that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to maintain the petition.
Conclusion:
The court allowed CA No. 203 of 2011 and dismissed CP No. 76 of 2011, holding that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the petition. The petitioner is at liberty to file a petition after obtaining the necessary succession certificate, probate, or letters of administration. All interim orders were vacated, with the order suspended for three weeks from receipt.
-
2012 (1) TMI 324
Issues Involved:
The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A) XII, Chennai dated 27.07.2011 for the assessment year 2003-04 regarding the claim of brought forward depreciation losses from the assessment years 1983-84 to 1995-96 and their set off against the business profits of the current assessment year.
Issue 1: Claim of Brought Forward Depreciation Losses
The Revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim of brought forward depreciation losses from the assessment years 1983-84 to 1995-96 and their set off against the business profits of the current assessment year 2003-04, citing the time limit for carry forward and set off for unabsorbed depreciation losses expiring in the assessment year 2001-02.
The ld. CIT(A) observed that the unabsorbed depreciation losses computed for assessment years up to 1993-94 do not lapse by the assessment year 2001-02 due to the provisions of sec.32(2) of the Income Tax Act. The circular No.762 dt. 18.02.1998 issued by the CBDT clarified that the unabsorbed depreciation of A.Y. 1996-97 will be added to the depreciation allowance of A.Y. 1997-98, extending the period of limitation to start from A.Y. 1997-98.
The decision was supported by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Pioneer Asia Packing (P) Ltd. The ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee is entitled to carry forward unabsorbed depreciation allowance from A.Y. 1997-98 to A.Y. 2003-04 and set it off against the income of A.Y. 2003-04, in line with the decision in CIT vs. S & S Power Switchgear Ltd. (218 CTR 701)(Mad).
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed as the ld. CIT(A) correctly allowed the claim of brought forward depreciation losses based on the provisions of sec.32(2) and the CBDT circular, supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 323
Validity of remand order - demand of duty jointly upon the offenders and direction to fix separate/individual liability of each of the offenders including the respondent when jointly omission and commission of the offenders in perpetuating the fraud and causing loss of revenue are intermingled - fraudulent availment of rebate - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in remanding case of the respondent back to the adjudicating Commissioner to arrive at finding of liability of individuals as regards the duty is concerned?
Held that:- The Tribunal after detailed consideration of the submission had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority following its own earlier decision in the case of this very respondent assessee - the Commissioner had confirmed the demand against the respondents and others jointly and severally. That was the reason why the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner.
There is no illegality in remand orders - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 322
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: 2012 (1) TMI 322 - SC
Judges: Mr. D.K. Jain and Mr. Anil R. Dave
Decision: Delay condoned; Special Leave Petition dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 321
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) confirming disallowance of commission expenses and addition of share application money u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Commission Expenses Issue: The appeal by the assessee challenged the disallowance of commission expenses of Rs. 4,00,000. The assessee contended that the disallowance was unjustified and uncalled for. The assessment was framed u/s. 144 of the Act, and the assessee claimed that no opportunity was given to present relevant documents due to police seizure of records. The assessee requested for a reconsideration of the issue by the Assessing Officer to provide an opportunity for proper representation. The CIT(A) was noted to have relied on a wrong conclusion in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. The Tribunal set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit documentary evidence to support the claim.
Share Application Money Issue: The appeal also contested the addition of share application money amounting to Rs. 4,54,88,000 u/s. 68 of the Act. The assessee argued that the addition was not tenable in law and did not comply with legal requirements. The assessee, due to the seizure of records, could not cooperate during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to re-adjudicate the issue considering the evidences filed by the assessee in accordance with the law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
Conclusion: The Appellate Tribunal ITAT KOLKATA allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes, setting aside both the issues of disallowance of commission expenses and addition of share application money u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for fresh adjudication by the Assessing Officer to ensure proper opportunity for the assessee to present its case.
-
2012 (1) TMI 320
Unexplained investment under section 69 - sale of the shares - penny stocks - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that:- Similar question raised by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia [2011 (9) TMI 919 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has been dismissed.
HC held it is neither the case of the Revenue that the shares in question are still lying with the Assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that the amounts received by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by the Assessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. held that the sale transaction was genuine. ITAT is correct in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount as unexplained investment under Section 69 cannot be faulted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 319
Whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’?
Held that:- Section 14B is attracted where an ‘employer’ makes a default in the payment of any contribution to the fund. In the instant case admittedly default has taken place. We hold if there is a default in payment of contribution to such a scheme it amounts to contravention of Section 14B and damages can be levied. The High Court, with great respect, erred by coming to a contrary conclusion.
High Court’s interpretation of the expression "so far as may be" as limiting the ambit and width of Section 17(1A)(a) of the Act, in our judgment, cannot be accepted for two reasons as well.
The High Court is guided in the interpretation of the word "so far as may be" on the basis of the principle that statutes does not waste words. The High Court has also relied on the interpretation given to "so far as may be" in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh and another v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 989. It goes without saying that Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is a fiscal statute dealing with penal provisions whereas the aforesaid expression is to be construed in this Act which is eminently a social welfare legislation. Therefore, the parameters of interpretation cannot be the same.
In the instant case, the High Court failed to discern the correct principle of interpretation of a social welfare legislation. High Court missed this well settled principle of interpretation of social welfare legislation while construing the expression "so far as may be" in interpreting the provision of Section 17 (1A)(a) of the Act and unduly restricted its application to the employer of an exempted establishment.
We hold that in a case of default by the employer by an exempted establishment, in making its contribution to the Provident Fund Section 14B of the Act will be applicable.
-
2012 (1) TMI 318
Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, under Section 3(1) read with Section 2A and B of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 - Held that:- No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted. Preventive detention involves detaining of a person without trial in order to prevent him/her from committing certain types of offences. But such detention cannot be made a substitute for the ordinary law and absolve the investigating authorities of their normal functions of investigating crimes which the detenue may have committed. After all, preventive detention in most cases is for a year only and cannot be used as an instrument to keep a person in perpetual custody without trial. Accordingly, while following the three-Judge Bench decision in Rekha's case (2011 (4) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 20th July, 2011, and also quash the Detention Order dated 15th February, 2011, issue by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh.
-
2012 (1) TMI 317
Issues involved: Appeal by revenue against CIT(A) order allowing interest on borrowed funds used for interest-free loans to sister concerns for Assessment Year 2005-06.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MUMBAI, comprising R. S. Syal (Accountant Member) and Vijay Pal Rao (Judicial Member), heard an appeal by the revenue against the CIT(A) order for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The sole ground raised by the revenue was regarding the allowance of interest on borrowed funds utilized for interest-free loans to sister concerns. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The CIT(A) had allowed the claim based on the precedent of the previous year. The Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05, emphasizing the commercial expediency of the transactions and the wide import of the expression 'commercial expediency.' The Tribunal found no reason to disturb the conclusions reached by the CIT(A) and declined to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the Tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue. The order was pronounced in the open court on the 11th day of January 2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 316
Issues involved: Service tax liability under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.
Summary:
The case involved a stay petition for the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax liability and penalties under Sections 76, 77, 78, and 70. The issue was whether the appellant improperly availed the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The Tribunal found that the appellant's action of paying service tax in the first month of the financial year for services rendered in the preceding financial year did not clearly indicate a waiver of the exemption under the notification. The Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount and allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the remaining balance, with recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal. Compliance was to be reported by a specified date.
-
2012 (1) TMI 315
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty by manufacturing and removing excisable goods clandestinely.
2. Imposition of duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Deletion of penalty and interest by the Tribunal.
4. Questions of law proposed for consideration by the High Court.
Alleged Evasion of Central Excise Duty:
The Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence found that excisable goods were being manufactured and removed clandestinely to evade Central Excise duty. The companies involved did not issue invoices or follow proper procedures, leading to the discovery of a significant evasion of duty.
Imposition of Duty, Interest, and Penalty:
A show cause notice was issued proposing duty under Section 11A of the Act, along with interest and penalty. The Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise imposed duty and penalty on the companies and their partners, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Deletion of Penalty and Interest by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, in its judgment, deleted the penalty, interest, and duty imposed by the adjudicating authority. It found that there was no direct evidence of clandestine removal by the companies and that the order-in-original was based on surmises and conjectures.
Questions of Law Proposed:
The High Court considered several substantial questions of law, including whether the assessee could be held liable without direct evidence, whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the demand for duty and penalty, and whether the Tribunal failed to record submissions made by the Departmental Representative.
The High Court, after examining the evidence and submissions, found no cause for interference. The Tribunal had carefully reviewed the orders and evidence before it, noting that the production was sold to another entity on payment of Central Excise duty. The lack of direct evidence linking the companies to clandestine removal led the Tribunal to conclude that the order-in-original was based on speculation.
The High Court further observed that the basis for levying penalties was undermined by the lack of evidence supporting clandestine removal. As the Tribunal found no illegality or perversity in its decision, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
-
2012 (1) TMI 314
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the liability of an assessee for payment of duty, interest, and penalty based on corroborative and circumstantial evidence of illicit removal of excisable goods without proper documentation.
Summary:
Issue A: Liability of assessee based on circumstantial evidence
The appeal challenged the order of the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the liability of the assessee for duty, interest, and penalty without direct evidence but based on corroborative and circumstantial evidence of illicit removal of goods. The Tribunal deleted the penalty citing lack of substantive evidence linking the assessee to the clandestine removal.
Issue B: Tribunal's decision on demand of duty, interest, and penalty
The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty, interest, and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority and confirmed by the appellate Commissioner. The Tribunal found no substantial error of law in its decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue C: Recording of submissions by the Tribunal
The Tribunal was accused of committing a substantial error of law by not recording the submission made by the departmental representative during the appeal hearing and not addressing it in the judgment. This issue raised concerns about procedural fairness in the Tribunal's decision-making process.
Issue D: Imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules
The Tribunal was questioned for setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld based on the lack of evidence linking the respondent to the alleged clandestine activities.
The judgment focused on the factual details surrounding the alleged clandestine removal of branded products and the imposition of penalties on the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish the nexus between the respondent and the clandestine activities, leading to the deletion of penalties. The decision emphasized the importance of substantive evidence in establishing liability for duty, interest, and penalties. Ultimately, the tax appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order of deletion of penalty due to the lack of legal grounds for interference.
-
2012 (1) TMI 313
Contribution for Compensatory Afforestation - Captial or Revenue Expenditure - Allowable u/s 37(1) or not? - The respondent had paid some amount towards contribution for compensatory afforestation. The assessee relying upon decision of Supreme Court, contended that this is an expenditure incurred for the purposes of business and allowable u/S 37(1).
According to AO -The assessee was permitted to carry out mining activity for the year under consideration only in the already broken up area out of total area and remaining area was undisturbed. As per the Mining Plan the assessee will first carry out mining only in Block A. Which will last for about 7 years and then block B will be taken up for mining activity. Hence the entire payment cannot be said to be an expenditure for the said financial year. Accordingly the said amount of expenditure is restricted to 1/14th
HELD THAT- CIT (A) while confirming the order of assessing authority said that the funds are used for a natural regeneration which the assessee participates indirectly. Therefore at no point of time could it be said that the assessee had incurred a capital expenditure giving the assessee a benefit of enduring nature for the purpose of earning segmented income to render the same to income tax. The amount was incurred as a revenue expenditure and is directed to be allowed in the year it has been incurred.
We, therefore, held that It is not in dispute that the said payment was made as contribution for compensatory afforestation as per the directions of the Supreme Court. It is not permissible for the assessee to make phase-wise payment. Order of CIT is thus sound and proper - Decision against Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 312
The Delhi High Court heard arguments from both parties and decided to hold the matter over until the next date. The court directed the parties to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the hearing of the writ petition can proceed. The case was renotified for 16.02.2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 311
Royalty and Fees for Technical Services u/s 9 - Double Taxation Relief u/s 90 - Assessee has derived income from providing telecommunication services to various customers in India as well as outside India. The AO treated income from Indian customers as royalty and held that such payments are taxable.
HELD THAT:- Facts are similar in the own case of M/S INTELSAT CORPORATION, C/O S.R. BATLIBOI & CO. VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), NEW DELHI [2011 (3) TMI 1707 - ITAT DELHI], where it was held that, assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable. However, there is no need to go into the provisions of the DTAA because of the provision contained in Section 90(2) of the Act. This provision provides that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall applied to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. It has to be granted the benefit of the Act under which no liability to tax can be fastened on the assessee. This decision was further confirmed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT INTERNATIONAL TAXATION VERSUS INTELSAT CORPORATION [2011 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
Thus, income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (1) TMI 310
Issues involved: Appeal against Tribunal's judgement on deduction u/s.80IB of the Act for BanasII Dairy Plant and cattle feed expansion.
Issue A - Deduction u/s.80IB for BanasII Dairy Plant:
The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's decision on the assessee's entitlement to deduction u/s.80IB for BanasII Dairy Plant. The Court observed that the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(Appeals) and found no infirmity in the order, leading to the confirmation of the same. The Court, after hearing both parties and examining the documents and orders, upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no error or perversity in the order, and no question of law arose for determination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issue B - Deduction u/s.80IB for cattle feed expansion:
The Revenue also challenged the Tribunal's decision to restore the issue of deduction u/s.80IB for cattle feed expansion to the Assessing Officer. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive review of facts and application of relevant provisions. After considering the arguments and the Tribunal's reasoning, the Court concluded that the order of remand was appropriate, and there was no error in the Tribunal's decision. As the matter was decided on facts without any legal issues for the Court to determine, the appeal was dismissed.
In summary, the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Tribunal's judgement regarding the deduction u/s.80IB for BanasII Dairy Plant and cattle feed expansion, as it found no errors or legal issues warranting a different outcome based on the facts and application of relevant provisions.
............
|
9911796707
