|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1327 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1237
Issues involved:
Seeking ad interim relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 due to deadlock between partners of a firm, pending appointment of arbitrator u/s 11.
Summary:
Issue 1:
The petitioner sought relief under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 due to a deadlock between partners of a firm operating under a partnership deed. The petitioner highlighted non-payment of salaries and bonuses to staff, leading to hampered business operations. The petitioner requested permission to withdraw a specified amount from the firm's account to clear these dues, with a commitment to return the amount if no arbitration agreement is found.
Issue 2:
The respondents argued that the arbitration agreement no longer existed following an award by the arbitrator in earlier proceedings. They claimed that the firm was being run based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) without an arbitration clause, making the petition under section 9 not maintainable. They opposed granting ad interim relief.
Judgment:
After considering the arguments, the court scheduled the matter for a final hearing on a specific date. In the interim, the court allowed the petitioner to withdraw a specified sum from the firm's account to disburse salaries, bonuses, and outstanding expenses. The respondents were directed to sign the necessary cheques for withdrawal from specific bank accounts within a week, ensuring no prejudice to either party's rights and contentions.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1236
Issues involved: Repayment terms of a loan agreement, disagreement on the amount to be repaid, request for extension of time for repayment.
Repayment terms of a loan agreement: The respondent has paid Rs. 2 crores as per the last direction, with a proposal to pay the balance of Rs. 40 crores in monthly instalments of Rs. 2 crores each with interest. The petitioner disputes this proposal, pointing out that the agreed amount to be repaid is Rs. 42.5 crores as per the document. The petitioner's counsel is not agreeable to the proposed repayment terms and highlights that the respondent had issued post-dated cheques for complete payment by a certain date, indicating a reluctance to deviate from the original agreement.
Disagreement on the amount to be repaid: The petitioner's counsel expresses dissatisfaction with the proposed repayment plan, emphasizing the significant sum involved and the petitioner's unwillingness to accept the new terms. The petitioner insists on the agreed amount of Rs. 42.5 crores and opposes any request for an extension of time for repayment, citing the respondent's prior commitment through post-dated cheques.
Request for extension of time for repayment: The Court proposes a new repayment plan to the respondent, suggesting that the entire payment be made within 10 months from the next hearing date, with interest at the agreed rate. Both parties are given time to consider this proposal, with instructions to be taken by their respective counsels. If the proposed plan does not materialize, arguments will proceed on the merits of the case. A deadline is set for filing any replies within 10 days, with a direction listed for further action on 21.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1235
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulation 4 of the FUTP Regulations and clauses A(1) and (4) of the code of conduct for stock brokers.
2. Delay in finalization of proceedings.
Summary:
1. Violation of Regulation 4 of the FUTP Regulations and clauses A(1) and (4) of the code of conduct for stock brokers:
The appellant, a stock broker registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), challenged an order suspending their certificate of registration for one week. The suspension was due to the appellant's involvement in manipulative and synchronized trades in the shares of M/s. Roofit Industries Limited. The investigation revealed that the appellant executed synchronized trades with another broker, Amgis Holdings Pvt. Limited, which were preplanned and manipulative. The appellant argued that the trades were executed on client instructions without any manipulative intent and that the trades matched due to the trading mechanism of the stock exchange. However, the Tribunal found that the repetition of matching orders indicated synchronization and manipulation, aimed at artificially inflating the share value to benefit certain entities. The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant violated regulation 4 of the FUTP Regulations and the Stock Brokers Regulations.
2. Delay in finalization of proceedings:
The appellant contended that there was an inordinate delay in the finalization of proceedings, which prejudiced them. The transactions in question occurred in 2001, but the enquiry proceedings started in 2005, with the final order passed in 2012. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and its prejudicial effect, noting that justice delayed is justice denied. The Tribunal referenced previous cases, including Subhkam Securities Private Limited and Ms. Aditi Dalal, emphasizing the need for expeditious completion of enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that while the finding of wrongdoing was upheld, the significant delay warranted a modification of the penalty. Instead of suspending the certificate of registration, the Tribunal decided that a warning to the appellant to be cautious in the future would suffice.
Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with the modification that the appellant's certificate of registration would not be suspended, but a warning would be issued instead. No costs were awarded.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1234
Appellants non-suited on the ground of delay and non-availability of records - acquisition proceedings - Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Development Corporation) - The land in dispute admeasuring, was owned by the predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants. A very large chunk of land including the said land stood notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act') on 6.6.1964 for the establishment of the industrial development. However, no subsequent proceedings were taken up thereafter, and the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The predecessors-in-interest of the Appellants were not merely illiterate farmers, but were also absolutely unaware of their rights and hence too inarticulate to claim them. Thus, they could be persuaded by the officers of the Respondent authorities to hand over possession of the said land. Actual physical possession of the said land was taken by the State authorities and handed over to the Development Corporation in the year 1964 itself.
HELD THAT:- The learned senior Counsel appearing for the State came forward with a welcome suggestion stating that in order to redress the grievances of the Appellants, the Respondent-authorities would notify the land in dispute u/s 4 of the Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. As the Appellants have full notice and information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act are dispensed with. Notice u/s 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4 weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings would thus, be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award amount will be made to the claimants/persons-interested immediately thereafter, along with all statutory benefits. The Appellants shall be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of compensation, if so desired.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1233
Issues involved: Assessment u/s 143(3) for AY 2006-07 - Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - Proportionate disallowance of interest expenses.
Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): The AO disallowed PF and ESI payments made belatedly. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance as the AR failed to justify the belated payments. The ITAT remitted the issue to verify actual payment dates based on legal precedents.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia): The AO disallowed professional fee deduction for non-deduction of tax. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance due to lack of justification. The ITAT remitted the issue for verification of details by the AO.
Proportionate disallowance of interest expenses: The AO disallowed interest on investments in shares to earn tax-exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance citing lack of business expediency. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A) order based on a similar case, directing the AO to decide in light of the precedent.
In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting all issues back to the AO for further examination and decision.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1232
Issues involved: Appeal against ad-interim ex-parte order prohibiting buying, selling, or dealing in securities; Allegations of manipulation in Initial Public Offering (IPO) of a company; Continuation of interim order against the appellants.
Allegations and Investigations: The appeal was filed against an ad-interim ex-parte order by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) prohibiting the appellants from securities transactions. Allegations included manipulation in the IPO of a company, where certain individuals traded to attract investors. The appellants were accused of allowing trading without meeting margin requirements, using funds belonging to other clients, and falsifying records. SEBI initiated investigations and issued the impugned order against the appellants, providing them with an opportunity to respond.
Appellants' Grievance: The appellants submitted written responses and argued that the continuation of the impugned order was causing them harm and prejudice. They contended that there was no evidence suggesting detriment to the market by their actions. They requested the directions in the impugned order to be set aside.
Confirmation of Directions: During the appeal, SEBI confirmed the directions against the appellants under Section 11 and 11B of the SEBI Act. The appellants argued that the order was discriminatory as other brokers had the interim order revoked. They claimed to be out of the market for eleven months without justification for the continuation of the interim order.
Decision and Rationale: The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and reviewed the documents. It noted that investigations were complete, and SEBI was likely to issue a show cause notice to the appellants. The Tribunal found that the whole time member had provided sufficient justification for continuing the interim order against the appellants. It upheld the decision, emphasizing the role played by the appellants in manipulating the market and the failure to comply with regulations. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1231
Issues Involved: Appeal against order u/s 147 and addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2005-2006.
Appeal against Order u/s 147:
The assessee filed an additional ground against the initiation of proceedings u/s 147, which was later dismissed as not pressed during the hearing.
Addition u/s 68 - Reopening of Assessment:
The assessment was reopened based on information regarding the purchase and sale of shares by the assessee. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,71,615 under Section 68, as the shares were purchased from a company involved in providing accommodation entries for unaccounted money, as per the statement of a director of the company.
Judgment:
The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee appealed before the Tribunal, citing similar cases where the Tribunal had deleted such additions based on identical facts involving the same broker. The Tribunal found the issue to be squarely covered by previous decisions and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,71,615, following the decisions in favor of the assessee in similar cases.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,615 as the facts were similar to previous cases where such additions were deleted.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1230
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the violation of Regulation 14(2) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 1997, and the imposition of a penalty under Section 15H(ii) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.
Violation of Takeover Code:
The appellants, a public limited company, its promoter, and managing director were found guilty of violating Regulations 10 and 11 of the takeover code by making preferential allotments of shares in the target company without making a public announcement of open offer as required by Regulation 14(2). Despite a belated public announcement, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) directed the withdrawal of the announcement and issuance of a delisting offer to provide an exit opportunity to shareholders.
Adjudication Proceedings:
SEBI issued a show cause notice to the appellants, initiating adjudication proceedings for the violation of the takeover code. After considering the reply and holding a hearing, the adjudicating officer found the appellants guilty and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lacs. The appellants appealed against this decision.
Arguments and Rulings:
The appellants argued that the scrip of the target company was not actively traded, and compliance with the takeover code was not necessary. They also cited a previous Tribunal order to support their position. However, the Board contended that the violation was clear, and the direction to delist shares did not absolve the appellants of penalty. The Tribunal agreed with the Board, emphasizing that contravention of statutory obligations attracts penalty regardless of intent.
Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal acknowledged the repetitive nature of the violation but reduced the penalty from Rs. 50 lacs to Rs. 10 lacs considering mitigating factors such as the lack of trading in the company's shares since 1998 and no adverse impact on investors. The Tribunal highlighted the discretionary nature of penalty imposition under the Act and aimed to balance the severity of the penalty with the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the adjudicating officer regarding the violation of the takeover code but reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. 10 lacs, emphasizing the importance of considering mitigating factors in determining penalties. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1229
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2012 (11) TMI 1229 - SC. Justices H.L. Dattu and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad were involved in the order.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1228
Income accrued to the assessee in India in respect of supply of equipment - business connection of the assessee in India - Duty is cast on the payer to pay tax at source, on failure on the part of the payee, no interest u/s. 234B - income of the assessee arising on account of “Royalty and Fees for Technical Services” is taxable on receipt basis and not on accrual basis
-
2012 (11) TMI 1227
Issues Involved:
1. Alterations of the Articles of Association.
2. Legality of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on February 28, 2011, and the Board Meeting held on August 16, 2011.
3. Legality of the allotment of shares made to the trusts.
4. Restoration of directorship for the petitioners.
5. Relief sought by the petitioners.
Summary:
Issue 1: Alterations of the Articles of Association
The petitioners argued for the alteration of the Articles of Association to provide for the election of directors on a proportional representation basis. The court found that the Articles did not mention proportional representation and that directors need not hold qualification shares. The court held that it would not interfere in the internal affairs of the company and that such decisions are for the company and its shareholders to decide.
Issue 2: Legality of the AGM and Board Meeting
The petitioners claimed the AGM held on February 28, 2011, and the Board Meeting on August 16, 2011, were illegal and oppressive. The court noted that the first petitioner was appointed as an additional director and chairman and had participated in meetings where resolutions were passed without dissent. The court found no illegality in increasing the share capital or in the resolutions passed during these meetings, thus holding the meetings valid.
Issue 3: Legality of Share Allotments to Trusts
The petitioners argued that the company allotted shares to various trusts illegally. The court found that the allotments were made within the authorized share capital and that the relevant forms were filed with the Registrar of Companies. The court did not find any illegality in the allotment of shares and dismissed the petitioners' allegations as baseless.
Issue 4: Restoration of Directorship
The petitioners sought restoration of their directorships, claiming their removal was illegal. The court noted that the petitioners retired by rotation in compliance with the Articles of Association and that the removal of the chairman does not fall under sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act. The court held that managerial and directorial complaints do not come under the purview of these sections, especially since the company is not a family-run or quasi-partnership entity.
Issue 5: Relief Sought
The petitioners sought an investigation into the affairs of the company. The court noted that a similar issue had already been dealt with in an earlier petition related to the same company. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners had not established any fraud or made out a case of oppression or mismanagement. All interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the allegations of oppression and mismanagement. The alterations to the Articles of Association, the legality of the AGM and Board Meeting, the allotment of shares, and the restoration of directorships were all addressed, with the court finding in favor of the respondents on all counts.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1226
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of disallowance of Rs. 4,77,99,935/- in respect of accumulated loss brought forward from preceding previous years.
2. Taxability of Rs. 17,23,91,106/- in respect of interest on deemed accrual basis.
3. Deductibility of overhead expenditures amounting to Rs. 31,21,93,576/-.
4. Disallowance of losses in respect of housing and development projects.
5. Deduction in respect of Rs. 46,818/- disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in the preceding year.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Disallowance of Rs. 4,77,99,935/-
The short issue to adjudicate was whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,77,99,935/- in respect of accumulated loss brought forward from preceding previous years. The CIT(A) observed that the sum of Rs. 4,77,99,92,935/- was the balance brought forward from previous years and could not be taxed as income for the financial year ending 31st March 2008. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the amount pertained to preceding years and could not be taxed in the current year.
Issue 2: Taxability of Rs. 17,23,91,106/- on Deemed Accrual Basis
The issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the taxability of Rs. 17,23,91,106/- in respect of interest on deemed accrual basis. The CIT(A) held that there was no evidence to show that the recovery of loans and interest was doubtful. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to determine the actual status of recovery of principal and interest, directing the assessee to provide all related facts and submissions.
Issue 3: Deductibility of Overhead Expenditures
The issue was whether the overhead expenditures amounting to Rs. 31,21,93,576/- were deductible. The CIT(A) disallowed the deduction, stating that there was no evidence to show that the expenditures were related to the business. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a detailed examination of the facts and a speaking order.
Issue 4: Disallowance of Losses in Housing and Development Projects
The issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in disallowing losses of Rs. 5,79,03,511/- and Rs. 66,57,12,685/- for housing and development projects, respectively. The CIT(A) disallowed the losses due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider anticipated losses in business profit computation.
Issue 5: Deduction of Rs. 46,818/- Disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia)
The issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in not allowing the deduction of Rs. 46,818/- disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in the preceding year. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to produce the requisite challan evidencing payment of taxes.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed, with several issues remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1225
Issues involved: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining transfer of shares and payment of dividend, failure to file objection to injunction application, direction to release dividend for the financial year 2011-12, liberty to file written statement against injunction.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction: The appeal was against an order passed by the Civil Judge, Jorhat, restraining the defendant from selling, transferring, or exercising voting rights over 2,21,230 shares of a company. The defendant had not filed any objection to the injunction application. The appellant agreed not to transfer the shares until further court orders. The court directed the release of dividend for the financial year 2011-12 to the defendant, to be deposited in court and released upon execution of an indemnity bond.
Payment of dividend: The plaintiff company had already paid dividends to the defendant for the years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appellant's grievance was that the payment of dividend for the year 2011-12 was withheld without sufficient reason. The court directed the plaintiff to release the dividend for 2011-12 to the defendant, with the option to claim temporary injunction for future dividends. The payment was to be made by draft in the name of the appellant and released upon execution of an indemnity bond.
Direction to trial court: The trial court was directed to examine the remaining issues on the next date, and the defendant was given liberty to file a written statement against the injunction and temporary injunction. The appeal and miscellaneous case were disposed of with the above directions.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1224
Application for bail - entitled to the benefit of statutory bail in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure - Police Encounter - Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police - FIR registered against unidentified persons Under Sections 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code), Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 - HELD THAT:- It is obvious that the Petitioner was fully aware of the situation while making the application for grant of bail, knowing that he was under arrest in connection with the first F.I.R. and not under the second F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. In the event the second investigation is treated to be a fresh investigation and the Petitioner had been arrested in connection therewith, the submissions made by Mr. Sushil Kumar would have been relevant. However, since the prayer for default bail was made in connection with F.I.R. No. 115 of 2006, in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the argument with regard to the default bail was not available to the Petitioner and such argument has, therefore, to be rejected. The other submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar that since a fresh investigation was directed to be conducted by this Court, the earlier charge-sheet must be deemed to have been quashed, has to be rejected also on the same ground.
Even on the question of delay in concluding the trial, such delay has not been caused by the prosecuting authorities, but by a co-accused and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the Petitioner.
Since no argument had been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner on the merits of the case, we also refrain from looking into the same and on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are not convinced that the Special Leave Petition, along with the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11364 of 2012, warrants any interference by this Court. The Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are, therefore, dismissed.
Order - Jasti Chelameswar, J. - In my opinion, the mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted u/s 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is required to be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the report.
Therefore, the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner, that the directions given by this Court earlier in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2007 would necessarily mean that the charge-sheet submitted by the police stood implicitly rejected is without any basis in law and misconceived. Even the fact that the CBI purported to have registered a "fresh FIR", in my opinion, does not lead to conclusion in law that the earlier report or the material collected by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the charge-sheet ceased to exist. It only demonstrates the administrative practice of the CBI.
In my view, notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to register a "fresh FIR", the investigation undertaken by the CBI is in the nature of further investigation u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the direction of this Court.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1223
Entitled for deduction u/s. 80P - Held that:- It is well settled principle in the interpretation of the ‘taxing provisions’ that the same are to be strictly construed and there is n room for any intendment. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied. One has to fairly look into language used by the Parliament. The Parliament has adopted the definition of the Co-operative Bank by refering the same as given in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is called Legislation by reference and we have to give the strict interpretation while interpreting the effect of Sub-sec. (4) to Sec. 80 P. In our opinion, Cooperative Credit Society is distinct and separate from the Co-operative Bank nor it can be said as a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Hence, the assessee being a Co-operative Credit Society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1222
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are service of notice to the respondent, challenge to the order of temporary injunction, legality of the order affecting a non-party, and the right to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Service of Notice:
The special messenger attempted to serve notice to the 1st respondent, who directed that notice be served at his residence. However, the 1st respondent's mother, staying with him, refused to accept the notice, leading to deemed sufficient service on the 1st respondent.
Challenge to Order of Temporary Injunction:
The petitioner, a third party, challenged the order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A. No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012, where the 1st respondent sought an injunction against respondents 2 and 3 regarding the construction of a university building.
Legality of Order Affecting a Non-Party:
The petitioner contended that despite being aware of the construction work being allotted to him, he was not made a party in the suit or the applications for injunction. The order affecting the petitioner, who had already started construction, was deemed unsustainable and challengeable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Right to Challenge Order under Article 227:
The judgment highlighted that an order of injunction cannot be passed to affect a person who is not a party to the proceeding. Citing legal precedents, it emphasized that the court should not issue an injunction against someone who is not a party to the case. The petitioner was deemed entitled to challenge the order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A. No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012. The court dismissed I.A. No. 925 of 2013 and clarified that the judgment would not prevent the 1st respondent from impleading the petitioner as a party in the suit or other pending applications for seeking appropriate relief.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1221
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of CIT (A) for the assessment year 1996-1997 regarding the allowance of bad debts u/s 36(1)(viia) of the IT Act.
Grounds raised by Revenue:
1. CIT (A) order is opposed to law and facts.
2. CIT (A) erred in allowing the amount of Rs. 105,99,46,975 as bad debt u/s 36(1)(viia) when Rs. 26.69 crores was already allowed u/s 36(1)(vii).
3. Request to set aside CIT (A) decision and restore that of the AO.
Details of the Judgment:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the CIT (A) order allowing Rs. 105,99,46,975 as bad debt u/s 36(1)(viia) for the assessment year 1996-1997. The Revenue contended that this amount should not be allowed as a deduction under this section as Rs. 26.69 crores had already been allowed u/s 36(1)(vii). The Ld Counsel for the assessee argued that the provision for bad debts should be set off against Rural debts only, citing a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court judgment and previous decisions in the assessee's favor, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Decision and Reasoning:
After hearing both parties and analyzing the Supreme Court judgment in the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd case, the Tribunal found strength in the assessee's claim. The Tribunal noted that the CIT (A) had correctly followed the Supreme Court's decision in the assessee's own case for relief. Given the settled nature of the issue at the Supreme Court level, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT (A) order did not require any interference. Consequently, the grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appeal of the Revenue was also dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1220
Re-import of the goods earlier exported - N/N. 58/1995-Cusw dated 14.11.1995 - Held that: - To remove the hardship when the goods have gone on 23.3.2006 it is left open to the appellant to make appropriate application to the authority concerned to consider the aspect of condonation of delay and examine whether re-export made on 23.3.2006 was within permissible time stipulated under the discretionary power of the learned authority - matter remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority to grant an opportunity to the appellant for personal hearing and take decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1219
The Supreme Court condoned delay, granted leave, and scheduled the appeal for hearing on the SLP paper book. Additional documents can be filed by the parties. Citation: 2012 (11) TMI 1219 - SC Order.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1218
Short term capital loss disallowed - Held that:- Such share transactions were not quoted and consequently, were not traded through stock exchange. When all the facts and circumstances of the case are viewed, in totality, it is evident that the assessee appellants failed to discharge the onus, to prove the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sales of such shares. The impugned transactions of shares are preordained one, not for legitimate commercial purpose in view but for the purpose of creating non-genuine and artificial short term capital loss, with a view to reducing valid taxliability.
These transactions of shares were not governed by market factors prevalent at that relevant time, in such trade, but the same are product of the design and mutual understanding on the part of the appellants and the said Hissar based unlisted company. CIT(Appeals) has failed to bring any cogent and credible evidence, to dislodge such finding. Having regard to the peculiar fact-situation of the present case, it is evident that such share transactions were close circuit transactions and clearly structured one. No merit in the findings of the CIT(Appeals).
Having regard all the findings of the CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained and, hence, the same are reversed. Further, an offer to surrender the impugned loss, subject to no penal action, made by the appellants before the AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, is an important piece of evidence, hence, cannot be ignored lightly. Consequently, the findings of the AO, as recorded in the impugned assessment order, are restored.
............
|
9911796707
