|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1382 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1286 - ITAT MUMBAI
Addition u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - non recording of reasoning for dissatisfaction with regard to the working/claim of the assessee - Held that:- Perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has not followed the guidelines of objective satisfaction as laid down by the hon’ble Bombay high Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (2010 (8) TMI 77 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) while making the disallowance . He without recording any reasoning for his dissatisfaction with regard to the working/claim of the assessee, straightway applied Rule 8D against the mandate of the provisions of section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The ld. CIT(A) also ignored the mandate of the provisions of section 14 A, while confirming the disallowance.
We restore this issue back to the file of the AO with a direction that the AO will give opportunity to the assessee to place on record all the relevant facts including its accounts and then examine the computation/calculation made in this regard by the assessee having regard to the accounts of the assessee. The AO will be at liberty to call for any record/evidences or statement etc. from the assessee as may be required by him for deciding the issue under consideration. After going through the details provided by the assessee, if the AO will be satisfied with the claim/calculation made by the assessee, then he will assess the income accordingly. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1285 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction on account of payments made to the retired partners under the provisions of the partnership deed - Constitution of income of firm - Held that:- Issue is squarely covered in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue by the judgment and order of this Court dated 25.07.2008 in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s M/s C.C. Chokshi & Company [2008 (7) TMI 1055 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. We have been shown another order following this judgment and delivered in relation to the same Assessee/ M/s A.F. Ferguson and Company.[2012 (1) TMI 357 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT].
We are of the opinion that simple answer to this contention is that so long as the judgment delivered by this Court and which is final is not set aside by the higher court, it continues to bind us. That appeal is filed against that judgment and which appeal is pending, is no answer. We will go by the binding principle and judicial discipline. In doing so we would be upholding the rule of consistency.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT
Conditional Gift - right to use the property during the lifetime of the donor retained - whether retention of possession of the gifted property for enjoyment by the donor during her life time and the right to receive the rents of the property in any way affected the validity of the gift?
Held that:- There is indeed no provision in law that ownership in property cannot be gifted without transfer of possession of such property. As noticed earlier, Section 123 does not make the delivery of possession of the gifted property essential for validity of a gift.
In the case at hand, the execution of registered gift deed and its attestation by two witnesses is not in dispute. It has also been concurrently held by all the three courts below that the donee had accepted the gift. The recitals in the gift deed also prove transfer of absolute title in the gifted property from the donor to the donee. What is retained is only the right to use the property during the lifetime of the donor which does not in any way affect the transfer of ownership in favour of the donee by the donor.
The High Court was in that view perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with the decree passed in favour of the donee - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1283 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 69A - unexplained source of cash deposits and deposits through cheques in the bank - peak credit addition - admission of the additional evidence by CIT-A in restricting addition - Held that:- AO should have no objection if the additional evidence was entertained by the ld. CIT(A), as the same was first sent to him for verification. If he was not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee’s claim in the light of such fresh evidence, he could have controverted the same.
AO chose to pick up deposit side of the bank accounts, totaled the same and made addition for the equal sum without giving benefit of the amounts withdrawn. In other words, certain amounts were withdrawn, then deposited, again withdrawn and re-deposited. When the position is such that there are certain debits and credits in the bank account, it is wholly impermissible to consider only the deposits in the bank account for the purposes of making addition by totaling ignoring the fact that there are withdrawals of the amount as well. In such a situation, it is a peak amount which is required to be added, which exactly has been done by the ld. CIT(A) in this case. The ld. DR could not point out any infirmity in the calculation of the peak amount, by which the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to ₹ 2.80 lac. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1282 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Addition u/s. 36(1)(iii) - interest free advances and outstanding advances - commercial expediency - Held that:- We find that there was opening debit balance of ₹ 4413287/- in case of Jay Ess Exports. No doubt certain purchases have been made from this party but for making purchases fresh payments have been made to this party and at all relevant time, the debit balances has rather increased during the year. We asked the assessee whether any disallowance was made in the earlier year and he admitted that disallowance was made with reference to the debit balance in case of Jay Ess Exports which was not challenged by the assessee. Assessee could not point out why huge advances have to be given to this party at all times, therefore in our opinion, the commercial expediency can not be inferred in this case - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1281 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant correctly availed CENVAT credit on certain items including machinery, spares, components and accessories etc. used for construction of various Mill Expansion Plants, embedded on the earth and thereby falling under the category of immovable property which cannot be treated as excisable goods?
Held that:- The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ICL Sugars Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 1065 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] allowed the credit on storage tanks as immovable property embedded on earth - Tribunal in the appellant’s own case for earlier period, [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)], after considering the decision of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra), remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority.
Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1280 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of expenditure incurred by the assessee towards making of enrollment cards under Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY Scheme) - deferred revenue expenditure - assessee will get enduring benefit out of this investment for years together the AO allowed only 1/10th of the expenditure by amortising the expenses and disallowed the balance - Held that:- As against incurring of approximately ₹ 77/- towards cost of each smart card the assessee received service charge of ₹ 97/- per smart card from the insurer. Further, the finding given by the Ld.CIT(A) that the issue of smart card per se is completely independent line of business for the assessee company from the main business of settling the beneficiaries claimed on behalf of the insurance companies under the RSBY scheme could not be controverted by the Ld. Departmental Representative.
Departmental Representative also could not controvert the finding given by the CIT(A) that the amount received during the year has been shown as income and the assessee has claimed the corresponding expenditure incurred on the printing and issue of smart cards. No infirmity in detailed reasoning given by the CIT(A). Merely because the amount appears to be huge cannot be a ground to disallow the same on the ground of enduring benefit to the assessee when the corresponding revenue earned has been considered as income of the impugned year. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1279 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Addition u/s 54F - investment in respect of residential property has been made by the assessee outside India - Held that:- We find that except in the case of Leena J. Shah vs. ACIT [2005 (11) TMI 386 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] the Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the words “in India” cannot be inserted in section 54F of the Act and as per plain reading of section 54F of the Act, the sale proceeds of capital asset shall be invested in residential house in India or outside India.
We, accordingly, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] hold that the view favourable to the assessee taken by various Benches of the Tribunal should be followed and accordingly following the same, we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption under section 54F. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), who has rightly adjudicated the issue in the light of the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in a number of cases. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is confirmed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1278 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Possession of immovable property - The Central Government, by its order under Section 269UD(1) of the Act, on 26.3.1997, purchased the entire premises, including the tenanted premises. - The petitioner seeks to retain the right to reside in the premises on account of her long standing association and attachment with the house, as well as her old age, and consequently desires a settlement with the Appropriate Authority, with payment of appropriate purchase value.
Held that:- The silence of the Act on modes of disposal of property that are pre-emptively purchased under Chapter XX-C cannot be, by any stretch, presumed to limit or constrain the Government’s discretion in disposal of the property.
For the above reasons, the petitioner cannot claim any relief in these proceedings. At the same time, the Court is of the opinion that the CBDT or the appropriate department of the Central Government ought to consider the best manner to dispose of the property, preferably through public auction.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1277 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Eligible for grant of deduction u/s 10B - whether the unit was actually in existence in the previous year relevant to AY and whether it started manufacture and process of herbal extracts? - Held that:- AO erred in considering only manufacturing expenses for the purpose of arriving at ratio of outsourcing by way of job work of manufacturing activity. This is illogical. CIT(A), in our view, has correctly considered raw material cost, cost of chemicals, packing materials, fuel and power manufacturing expenses as well as manufacturing establishment expenses as total cost of manufacturing and the amount paid towards job works as a percentage of this expenditure and thereafter arriving at 21.27% as the percentage of job work that was out sourced from the total manufacturing cost. This demonstrates that the conclusion of the AO that major portion of manufacturing activity is not conducted in the assessee premises, is factually incorrect. In fact Laila Impex is also an EOU. Thus, we uphold these findings of the first appellate authority and dismiss the grounds raised in this regard. Appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
In the issue of directions of the CIT(A) to the AO to compute the profit of 21.27% of the turnover, as the same is attributable to the outsourcing of manufacture through job works and, then to exclude such profits from the profits eligible for deduction u/s 10B, we hold that the same is contrary to law. No such exclusion is contemplated in the Act. We are supported by the propositions laid down by the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Gebbs Infotech Ltd. (2010 (10) TMI 1083 - ITAT MUMBAI). Thus uphold the directions of the learned CIT(A) as in this case also, what was outsourced was a part of the job of manufacturing i.e. step 1 out of the 6 steps or stages of manufacturing activity.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1276 - ITAT KOLKATA
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - expenditure on provision for commission and transportation on which the TDS was made in subsequent previous year - TDS paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) - Held that:- The first proviso to 40(a)(ia) is applicable when the payment is made before the due date specified u/s 139(1) - here all payments of TDS have been made after 31-03-2009, but the TDS has been deposited before the due date specified in section 139(1) - since TDS has been made after 31-03-2009, we are of the view that the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this issue is erroneous and consequently, the same stands reversed and that of the AO restored - thus this appeal of revenue stands allowed.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of expenditure on interest on which no TDS was deducted - Held that:- Form No. 15G/H has not been produced by the assessee before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) nor even before us - hence the appeal of revenue stand allowed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1275 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 10B - Exclude the freight charges both from Export turnover and Total Turnover, though such an adjustment to the total turnover - Held that:- It appears, the learned Tribunal has followed the decision of the Special Bench in the case of Saksoft Ltd. [2016 (10) TMI 539 - ITAT CHENNAI] on identical issue and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. It does not appear that the aforesaid decision of the learned Tribunal has been reversed or questioned before any forum. Hence, we think that the learned Tribunal has correctly applied the law following the rule of consistency.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1274 - SC ORDER
Requirement of notice - Held that: - Since the petitioner, who appears in person, has noted the next date of hearing, no formal notice in this regard is required to be issued by the Registry.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1273 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Unexplained investment in stock - Search proceedings - under recording the purchase value of the goods as well as sale value of the goods - whether separate additions can be made for such unrecorded purchases and sales? - Held that:- Almost 50% purchases have been made outside the books of account because in the books of account only purchases of ₹ 34,26,938/- have been made whereas the purchases outside the books are ₹ 16,35,009/-. This in turn means that assessee would require some investment to hold such stock and also some sundry debtors wherever credit sales have been made. Since the amount of ₹ 16,35,009/- pertains to full year, in our opinion, an addition of ₹ 3 lakhs would meet the ends of justice because that would mean inventory for almost two months plus some credit sales.
Addition on account of alleged profit earned on alleged unaccounted sales - Held that:- As discussed in detail the aspect relating to unrecorded purchases and sales and practically deleted whole of that addition except for the sum of ₹ 3 lakhs which was required as investment in the form of inventory. It was also observed that at best only profit could be estimated on such undisclosed sales. The undisclosed sales was clearly admitted during the survey/search operation by the assessee himself and therefore, the same cannot be denied now. At least profits on all such transactions have to be assessed to tax. The Assessing Officer has been more then reasonable to assess the profit at the GP rate declared by the assessee in various years and the same has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), therefore, we find nothing wrong with the order of Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same.
Addition on account of alleged capital gains short disclosed - Held that:- The year a sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- has been shown towards construction and further a sum of ₹ 44,333/- is shown for transfer charges and ₹ 28,550/- for purchase of wood etc. Therefore, it can be said that assessee has incurred some expenditure for cost of improvement. However, at the same time no documentary evidence has been placed and since admittedly the assessee is holding many properties, therefore, it cannot be said that all the expenses have been incurred for improvement of this property. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice we are of the opinion that if a sum of ₹ 1 lakhs is estimated towards cost of improvement, then the same would meet the ends of justice.
Unexplained investment in stocks under section 69B - Held that:- The assessee is regularly carrying on the business of sanitary and hardware items and, therefore, must be carrying on some stock . Before CIT(A) list of inventory was furnished showing stock of ₹ 18,47,600/-. Though inventory list was not furnished before Assessing Officer but this can be said to have be accepted by the Revenue because investment in undisclosed sale was calculated on the basis of these details. Further, we have already held while adjudicating the issue regarding undisclosed stock i.e sum of ₹ 3 lakhs should be added towards inventory and sundry debtors. Considering this fact and the fact that some of the items have been valued at retail price we are of the opinion that addition of ₹ 5 lakhs towards cost would meet the ends of justice.
Unaccounted cash found at the time of search - Held that:- A married women coming to her parents house may bring cash and considering the overall circumstances we are of the opinion that a credit for ₹ 1 lakh can be given for cash belonging to Smt. Jyoti Khajuria. As far as cash belonging to Shri Vijay Kishan Sharma is concerned, no credit can be given, firstly a father-in-law normally would not keep his cash in the house of son-in-law. Secondly there was no such occasion to keep the cash with the son-in-law. In any case this cash was withdrawn from Vijay Bank on 19.8.2010 and why that cash was withdrawn and kept at son-in-law’s house, has not been explained. Therefore we decline to give any credit for the cash to Shri Vijay Kishan Sharma. To sum up a credit for ₹ 1,60,000/- (i.e. ₹ 1 lakh for cash belonging to Smt. Jyoti Khajuria and ₹ 60,000/- belonging to the business should be given and balance addition is confirmed). Therefore we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow this ground partly.
Addition on account of alleged investment in jewellery substantive in the case of assessee appellant - Held that:- Atleast benefit of the instructions issued by CBDT in Instruction No. F.286/63/93-IT(inv)-11 dated 11.5.1994 should be allowed for jewellery. As per these instructions jewellery to the extent of 500 gms in case of a married lady and 100 gms in case of a married male should be accepted, therefore out of jewellery of 735.20 gms, jewellery of 600 gms should be accepted. Similarly diamond items had been valued at ₹ 65150/- and silver items had been valued at ₹ 21780/-. These are small amounts and considering the overall status of the family, in our opinion, these amounts should be accepted as explained. Therefore we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to make addition of jewellery for 135.20 gms.
Addition on account of alleged undisclosed capital gains - cost of improvement - Held that:- No force in the submissions because no evidence has been filed for the source of the cash for so called improvement. Therefore we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and confirm AO order.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1272 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - input services - outdoor catering services - medical insurance - Held that: - The definition of 'input service' is very broad, which includes 'activities relating to business', to be covered within its purview, for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. It is admitted fact on record that the disputed input services are business related expenditure of the appellant, which is duly reflected in the CAS-4 maintained as per accounting standards. Hence, it will not be prudent to disallow the Cenvat credit on such services.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1271 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Allowability of deduction under Section 80JJA - Held that:- In relation to that, in the case of the very Assessee, this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Smt. Padma S. Bora [2012 (12) TMI 666 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has dealt with the identical questions. The Commissioner of Income Tax's Appeal was dismissed by this Court finding that the same does not raise any substantial question of law. That was in relation to Assessment Year 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
In the current Assessment Year the Tribunal has adopted identical reasoning. In such circumstances, we do not think that the Appeal raises any substantial question of law. The Same, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
Allowability of bad debts claim - Held that:- The Assessee is engaged in the business of money lending. Merely because the Assessee does not have license to conduct this business, does not mean that the claim of bad debts should be denied. The Commissioner has in relation to this claim held in his order at the Tribunal's order in the case of B. N. Khandelwal v/s Income Tax Officer [2007 (5) TMI 352 - ITAT MUMBAI] would assist the Assessee inasmuch as the amount is lent in ordinary course of money lending business. It was written off after making efforts to recover.
The effort was unsuccessful. In such circumstances, the Tribunal did not commit any error in reaffirming the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and which is to be found in paragraph no. 4.2 of the Commissioner's order. The present Appeal also is continuation of the attempt by the Revenue to question such findings. The findings being purely of fact, the same do not raise any substantial question of law. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1270 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance being written off as irrecoverable - allowable deduction u/s 37 - Held that:- CIT(A) has not given cogent reasoning while upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and he has simply stated that the amount in question being TDS cannot be said to be business expenditure of the assessee company and therefore, the same could not be allowed. According to us, the order of CIT(A) is non-speaking one as it contains no reasoning. In the absence of reasoning, the order cannot be upheld - restore this issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee
Disallowance out of foreign travel expenses - Held that:- The expenses related to foreign travel of Shri Aditya Bhartia, his wife Payal Bhartia and his father Radhe Shyam Bhartia. Based upon the findings for A.Y. 2007-08, the Assessing Officer held that there was no justification for foreign travel of Smt, Payal Bhartia and Shri Radhe Shyam Bhartia, Accordingly, he disallowed ₹ 4 lacs treating the same as non-business expenditure, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Taking over all view and in the interest of justice, we restrict the disallowance to ₹ 2 lacs.
Disallowance of the claim u/s.80IB(3)(ii) - Held that:- CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee following the decision of similar issue decided by the Tribunal in Samruddhi Industries Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 696 - ITAT, PUNE) holding that the assessee is not entitled as it did not continue SSI during the assessment year under consideration. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
Allowability of MAT Credit - Held that:- CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground No.6 of the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative could not dispute the same. So in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Allow the deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a) without deducting brought forward loss or unabsorbed depreciation prior to initial year on notional basis
Disallowance of deduction u/s.35(2AB) - Held that:- The approval u/s.35(2AB) of the Act has been accorded to R & D unit of assessee company from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2012 which entitles the assessee to claim weighted deduction u/s 35(2AB) from A.Y. 2010-11. Relying upon clear cut finding of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 48 - DELHI HIGH COURT) the action of the Assessing Officer denying the deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act was rightly upheld by the CIT(A). As directed Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act to ₹ 85,39,848/-. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.
Disallowance on account of foreign travel expenses - AO made disallowance on account of non-business expenditure and the same was upheld by the CIT(A)- Held that:- A similar issue in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2008-09 has been decided vide para 5 of this order. Facts being similar, so following the same reasoning and taking all facts into consideration, we restrict this disallowance to 2,70,000/-.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1269 - ITAT NEW DELHI
Disallowance u/s 14A - expenditure in relation to exempt income - Held that:- The expenditure, which has to be disallowed, has to be in relation to exempt income. The assessee before us has demonstrated that expenses incurred by it, to a large extent pertain to amalgamation of ten companies. This expenditure cannot be attributable to the earning of exempt income. This expenditure has to be excluded while computing disallowance u/s 14A with regard to administrative expenses. As a detailed verification is to be done, we set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. It is for the assessee to make its contentions before the Assessing Officer.
The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2011 (11) TMI 267 - Delhi High Court ) has clearly laid down that no disallowance can be made u/s 14A of the Act, if no expenditure is incurred in relation to the exempt income. This proprietary has to be applied by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1268 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Adjustment of accumulated unabsorbed depreciation allowance brought forward as against income from house property and income from other sources - whether the assurance of the Finance Minister in Parliament that set-off of the cumulative unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years as on April 01, 1997 can be set off against the profits and gains of a business or profession or any other income of the tax payer for the assessment year 1997-98 and subsequent year forms part of the legislative intent and any construction contrary thereto is erroneous? - Held that:- the provisions introduced suggest that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession carried on by the assessee. The unabsorbed depreciation allowance could be set off from the income under any other head during the assessment year 1997-98. If the unabsorbed depreciation allowance could not be wholly set off during the assessment year 1997-98, the left over could only be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of the business or profession in the assessment year 1998-99. This submission of Mr. Agarwal appears to be plainly correct on the basis of the wordings used in sub-section (2) of Section 32 as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 with effect from 1st April, 1997. Both the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue.
Another submission advanced by Mr. Bagchi that the unabsorbed depreciation of the previous year becomes depreciation of the current year as would appear from the Circular issued by the CBDT which has also been taken into account by the learned Tribunal may be correct, but that does not materially alter the situation. The intention of the legislature appearing from the amendment made by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 is that the depreciation unabsorbed or otherwise or current would be set off against the income arising from business or profession or any other income, but the left over portion thereof could not be set off in the assessment year 1998-99 except against the income arising from business or profession. Therefore, this submission of Mr. Bagchi does not help his case nor does the same lead to a different result of the appeal.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1267 - SUPREME COURT
Interpretation of statute - consumer and commercial purpose - The case of the Appellant being Punjab University is that UTI failed to honour the assurance of 13.5% per annum returns and that they were in breach of contract as they invested more than 20% in equity markets owing to which the NAV fell and the same amounts to deficiency of services - whether the complainant-Universities fall within the ambit of the definition of "consumer" as laid down in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and that the "services" hired by them are not for any "commercial purpose"?
Held that: - the words 'commercial purposes' would cover an undertaking the object of which is to make a profit out of the undertakings. In the present case the services of UTI were availed by the complainant for the betterment of their employees, that such an investment was made, and it is to be made clear that no benefit by way of profit was to accrue to the complainant, improving its balance-sheet, in view of the definition of the word 'commerce' given above, under no circumstances, the Appellant could be said to be indulging in any 'commercial' activity, thus excluding him from the definition of 'consumer' as enshrined in the Act. The intent of the Universities in the present dispute is not profiteering and the same is for benevolent interest and there is no intention whatsoever that the investment is made for any commercial purpose or gain and therefore we find that the complainant Universities fall within the definition of "consumer" under the Act and the complaints are maintainable before the National Commission.
Whether in terms of the offer, is there any deficiency of services? - Held that: - It has been clearly stipulated in the 'terms of offer' that the maturity amount will depend on the NAV and that the same was guaranteed not to be below the par value of ₹ 10 per unit. All investments are subject to markets risks and fluctuations and an investor has to exercise due caution while investing any amount in any Scheme just because the maturity amount is below their expectations they cannot drag the service provider to Court for the same.
The University would come within the purview of "consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
............
|
