|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 787 Records
-
2007 (8) TMI 732
Issues Involved:
1. Promissory Estoppel
2. Rectification of Contract
3. Breach of Contract
4. Government Policy and Enforcement
Detailed Analysis:
1. Promissory Estoppel:
The plaintiffs, excise contractors, claimed that the State of Karnataka was estopped from collecting higher Kist amounts based on a budget speech by the Finance Minister proposing a ban on toddy sales. They argued that they bid higher amounts for the right to vend arrack based on this promise. The courts below upheld this plea, but the Supreme Court found it unsustainable. The Supreme Court noted that a minister's speech in the Assembly does not constitute a promise or representation that can attract the principle of promissory estoppel. The court cited previous rulings, including *Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India* and *Union of India vs. Ganesh Rice Mills*, which established that government policy statements do not create enforceable promises.
2. Rectification of Contract:
The plaintiffs sought rectification of the contract to reflect the Kist amounts of the previous year (1989-90), arguing that the government's failure to enforce the toddy ban constituted a mutual mistake. The Supreme Court held that rectification under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act requires proof of fraud or mutual mistake, neither of which was present. The written contracts did not include any terms about the toddy ban, and the plaintiffs entered the contracts with full knowledge of the ongoing toddy tappers' agitation. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had no basis for rectification since the contracts were clear and unambiguous.
3. Breach of Contract:
The plaintiffs argued that the government's failure to enforce the toddy ban rendered the contract impossible to perform, excusing them from paying the higher Kist amounts. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any detriment or loss due to the government's actions. The court noted that the plaintiffs continued to vend arrack and pay the Kist amounts for July and August 1990, indicating their acceptance of the contract terms. The court also pointed out that the plaintiffs had not proven any direct connection between toddy sales and arrack sales.
4. Government Policy and Enforcement:
The plaintiffs contended that the government's failure to enforce the toddy ban violated the policy announced in the budget speech. The Supreme Court found that the government had not resiled from its policy objective but faced practical difficulties in enforcement. The court held that the plaintiffs' remedy, if any, lay in claiming damages for any losses suffered due to the government's failure to enforce the policy, not in seeking rectification or estoppel. The court emphasized that government policies are subject to change and do not create enforceable contractual obligations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, and dismissed the suits filed by the plaintiffs. The court found no basis for promissory estoppel, rectification of the contract, or breach of contract. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- in each appeal.
-
2007 (8) TMI 731
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income derived by the applicant on the purchase in India and export of gold jewellery accrues or arises in India and is taxable in India ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income arising to the applicant on the purchase in India of gold for the purpose of manufacturing gold jewellery in India for export and export of the same accrues or arises in India and is taxable in India ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income arising on the purchase and export of gold jewellery and the purchase of gold for the purpose of manufacturing gold jewellery for export and export of the same by the applicant who is a non-resident would constitute income accruing or arising through or from the operations which are confined to the purchase of goods in India for the purpose of export falling within clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation 1 to section 9(1)(i) and whether such income is taxable in India ?
-
2007 (8) TMI 730
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Information Commissioner's order.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. Locus standi of the respondent to request information.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
Summary:
1. Legality of the Information Commissioner's Order:
The appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenges the judgment and order dated 9.4.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 1662 of 2007, where the learned Single Judge upheld the Information Commissioner's decision, deeming it legal, valid, and justified.
2. Applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The core issue was whether the information sought by the respondent falls under the exemption provided by Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court held that the information requested, which included documents submitted by bidders and the note sheet regarding the change in tender conditions, does not constitute "commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property" that would harm the competitive position of a third party. The court emphasized that transparency in government dealings is paramount and that the public has a right to know the basis on which decisions are made, especially after the tender process is completed and the contract is awarded.
3. Locus Standi of the Respondent to Request Information:
The appellant argued that the respondent had no locus standi to request the information as he was neither a tenderer nor a participant in the bid. The court rejected this argument, stating that under Section 6 of the Act, any person can request information without needing to demonstrate a direct interest in the matter. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, which supports the public's right to know about public transactions.
4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The intervener (successful bidder) contended that they were not given notice by the State Public Information Officer, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 11 of the Act. The court acknowledged this but noted that the State Information Officer had refused to disclose the document, thus favoring the third party. The court also provided the intervener with an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, thereby addressing any potential violation of natural justice.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming that the information sought does not fall under the exemption of Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment underscores the importance of transparency and the public's right to access information regarding government decisions.
-
2007 (8) TMI 729
Issues:
The judgment involves the issue of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the block period from 1.4.1988 to 14.10.1998.
Summary:
The Revenue challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding an unexplained investment of &8377;41,50,000 during the block period. Documents recovered during a search indicated additional payments for property purchase. The Assessee's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal, leading to the Revenue's appeal u/s 260A of the Act.
The documents recovered were in the handwriting of the Assessee's father, but the Revenue did not examine him. Statements of others involved in property transactions did not support the claim of unexplained investment. The CIT (A) found no material suggesting such investment and noted the informal nature of the recovered documents.
The High Court agreed with the CIT (A) and Tribunal, stating that no unexplained investment was evident from the documents. The failure to examine the Assessee's father was highlighted as a lapse in evidence collection. The opinions of the lower authorities were deemed reasonable and based on the available records.
No substantial legal question was found, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2007 (8) TMI 728
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the question of law regarding the time bar on a demand issued by the Appellant under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, based on the alleged suppression of material facts by the Respondents.
Issue 1: Alleged Suppression of Material Facts
The Revenue issued a show cause notice to the Respondents, alleging that they had removed branded goods without paying Central Excise duty, thereby contravening the provisions of the Central Excise Rules. The contention was that the Respondents wilfully suppressed the fact of manufacture and removal of goods with intent to evade payment of duty, invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issue 2: Eligibility for SSI Benefit
Respondent No.1 claimed exemption from Central Excise duty for goods cleared under 9 consignments, stating that the goods bore brand names eligible for SSI benefit and that the factory was located in a Gram Panchayat area. The Commissioner of Central Excise dismissed the appeal, holding that the benefit of the Notification was not admissible if the brand name of another person was used on the product.
Issue 3: Limitation on Issuing Show Cause Notice
The Customs and Excise Appellate Tribunal held that the show cause notice could not have been issued on the ground of limitation, as the Respondents had a strong case of bonafide belief. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
Conclusion:
The High Court found that the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal was not contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was noted that the law was not clear on the issue, and unless the requirements of the proviso to Section 11A were satisfied, the penalty could not be imposed. The Court emphasized that the predicates for applying the proviso were not met in this case, as the law was unclear at the time of the alleged violations. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in challenging the Tribunal's decision.
-
2007 (8) TMI 727
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's decision to overturn the acquittal and convict the accused.
2. Validity of the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses.
3. Application of the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
4. Implications of the accused's death during the appeal process on the continuation of the appeal and potential consequences for pensionary benefits.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the High Court's Decision to Overturn the Acquittal and Convict the Accused:
The High Court set aside the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and convicted the appellant for offences under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that once it is proved that the accused accepted the amount, the presumption under Section 4 of the Act would get attracted. The Trial Court's finding that the accused accepted the amount for someone else was deemed immaterial. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal and recording a conviction based on the evidence.
2. Validity of the Evidence Presented by Prosecution Witnesses:
The Trial Court had acquitted the accused partly because the Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution and were treated as hostile. The High Court, however, relied on the evidence of PW 1 (Anup Kumar - Complainant) and PW 10 (S.K. Tiwari - Inspector of Special Police Establishment). The Supreme Court supported this reliance, stating that the credibility of witnesses should be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. The Court noted that there is no rule of law that police witnesses should not be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 10 was found to be reliable and trustworthy, justifying the conviction.
3. Application of the Presumption Under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:
The Supreme Court clarified that once the accused accepted the amount, the presumption under Section 4 of the Act came into play. The Trial Court's observation that the presumption is rebuttable was acknowledged, but the Supreme Court noted that the accused's defense of total denial and false implication did not rebut the presumption. The Court emphasized that even if the amount was accepted for someone else, the accused would still be liable under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Act.
4. Implications of the Accused's Death During the Appeal Process:
During the pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court, the accused died, and his widow sought to continue the appeal. The Supreme Court allowed her to continue the appeal despite a delay in filing the application. The Court, however, stated that the death of the accused did not affect the legal findings. The Court noted that if the conviction was upheld, the deceased might not be entitled to pensionary and other benefits, but this consequence could not alter the legal outcome. The argument of sympathy was not sufficient to overturn the conviction.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the accused. The Court found that the High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal based on the evidence and the legal presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The death of the accused during the appeal process did not alter the legal findings, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.
-
2007 (8) TMI 726
Issues involved: Challenge to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for reopening assessment u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 1990-91 based on deduction claims u/s 80HH and 80I.
Assessment under Section 148:
The petitioner challenged a notice dated 25.11.1997 issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment completed u/s 143(3) on 25.03.1991 for A.Y. 1990-91. The notice was issued based on the claim of deduction u/s 80HH and 80I. The reasons recorded for issuing the notice highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of trading income as income from Industrial Undertaking for claiming deductions. The assessing officer believed that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment due to inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee.
Claim of Deduction under Section 80HH and 80I:
The Revenue contended that the assessee wrongly claimed deductions under Sections 80HH and 80I for trading receipts, which were not eligible. Although the original assessment order did not specifically address the trading income separately, the total income was disclosed. The court noted that if the assessing officer had the relevant material to disallow the claim during the original assessment, there was no justification for issuing a notice u/s 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the assessment year.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 25.11.1997 issued u/s 148 for reopening the assessment for A.Y. 1990-91. The petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that when material facts were available during the original assessment, there was no valid reason for reopening the assessment at a later stage.
-
2007 (8) TMI 725
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty by CESTAT
2. Confiscation of diamonds and imposition of redemption fine by CESTAT
3. Liability for confiscation of diamonds by CESTAT
Confirmation of demand of duty and penalty by CESTAT:
The High Court considered whether the CESTAT was correct in confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 12,31,86,708 and penalty of an equivalent amount. The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case in this regard.
Confiscation of diamonds and imposition of redemption fine by CESTAT:
Another issue before the Court was whether the CESTAT was right in ordering the confiscation of 10,631.39 carats of diamond and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 43 lakhs. The Court analyzed the facts and circumstances related to this aspect of the case.
Liability for confiscation of diamonds by CESTAT:
The third issue involved whether the CESTAT was correct in concluding that 63,078.35 carats of diamonds are liable for confiscation. The Court deliberated on the facts and circumstances surrounding this particular issue.
The Court further deliberated on the conditions to be imposed for the grant of interim relief. After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Court noted that the respondents were in possession of diamonds valued at around Rs. 4.3 crores. The appellants argued that these diamonds could be retained by the customs authorities until the appeal is disposed of. On the other hand, the respondents contended that proper security should be provided by the appellants.
After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court granted interim relief in favor of the appellants. The relief was subject to certain terms, including the appellants depositing Rs. 2 crores with the respondents within four weeks. Additionally, the diamonds valued at Rs. 4.3 crores were to remain with the respondents as security until the final disposal of the appeal and for a specified period thereafter. The appellants were also required to furnish a bond in respect of the building in favor of the respondents, to be kept alive until the hearing and final disposal of the appeal and for a specified period thereafter.
-
2007 (8) TMI 724
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai granted waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty imposed on an appellant engaged in manufacturing industrial gases. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that the activity did not fall under banking and financial services. Waiver was granted based on a previous order in the appellant's own case.
-
2007 (8) TMI 723
GTA service - Whether Service Tax in relation to goods transport service, received by a party during the period November, 1997 to June, 1998, can be recovered by issuing show cause notice in 2004.? - retrospective amendment to recovery provisions would not revive already time barred cases - matter referred to Larger Bench
-
2007 (8) TMI 722
The Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal by the revenue as the issue was already addressed in a previous Supreme Court judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (8) TMI 721
Whether on the facts and the material available on record, non-adherence of the instructions as laid down in paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Manual would invalidate the departmental proceedings initiated against the respondents and rendering the consequential orders of penalty imposed upon the respondents by the authorities, as held by the High Court in the impugned order?
-
2007 (8) TMI 720
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Court under Section 130(E) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the appeal's maintainability based on the valuation of goods for assessment purposes.
Judgment Details:
1) The Respondents argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to Section 130(E) of the Customs Act, as the questions of law framed related to the value of goods for assessment. Therefore, they contended that the appeal was not maintainable.
2) The Appellants, on the other hand, referred to Section 14 of the Customs Act and stated that since valuation had already been done in the case, the issue of valuation did not arise. They cited a judgment in support of their argument.
3) The Court considered the Supreme Court's judgment in a related case where valuation had been completed, indicating that the issue was about working out the shortage, not valuation itself.
4) Upon reviewing a previous judgment of the Court, it was noted that the dispute in that case related to the valuation of goods. However, in the present matter, the questions framed were regarding penalties, not rate of duty or valuation.
5) The Court concluded that the present case did not involve questions of rate of duty or valuation but rather pertained to penalties, thus rejecting the objection raised about the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
6) Ultimately, the Court found the objection to be without merit and upheld its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, dismissing the objection raised by the Respondents.
-
2007 (8) TMI 719
The Bombay High Court admitted an appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal's decision to confirm a penalty of Rs. 1,03,03,435 on the appellants. The court decided to hear the appeal after the Supreme Court decides on a related matter. The appellants were granted liberty to seek interim relief if entitled to do so.
-
2007 (8) TMI 718
Classification of goods - hether 'Ink Cartridges' and 'Toner Cartridges' used in Inkjet printers and Laserjet printers are covered under Entry No. 41 A (xxv) of the Third Schedule appended to the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004? - Held that: - There is no dispute that toners and cartridges are used in the above kinds of printers. Therefore, toners and cartridges are part and accessories of goods mentioned in HSN 84.71 and therefore, covered by Entry 41A (xxv) of the DVAT Act, 2004 - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 717
Income deemed to accrue or arise in India - Non-deduction of tax at source u/s 195 r/w s. 9(1)(vi) and (vii) - Payment in foreign currency made to IGTL and TDT - connectivity facility and maintenance services - facilitate call centers in India (run by assessee) to establish outbound calls to clients/people in United States of America (USA) - Assessee in default - Non-resident - DTAA between India and USA - HELD THAT:- After insertion of cl. (iva) to Expln. 2 in s. 9(1)(vi) w.e.f. 1st April, 2002 meaning of 'royalty' is very wide. There are two basic conditions for application of that definition, first is that equipment should be any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment and second is that 'use or right to use' of those equipments. In the case under consideration MUX and ancillary equipments are undoubtedly commercial equipments. The same are scientific equipment also. Thus this first condition is satisfied.
In respect of second condition, we find that IGTL allowed assessee to use or gave right to use MUX and ancillary equipments in USA so that the assessee gets connectivity facility, which facilitates assessee to establish outbound calls to clients/people in USA. Thus, the second condition is also satisfied. We, therefore, find that payment made by the assessee to the IGTL, USA party is royalty within the meaning given in cl. (iva) of Expln. 2 of s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act.
We find that impugned payment is 'royalty' in accordance with cl. (iva) to Expln. 2 of s. 9(1)(vi) which is deemed to accrue or arise in India. All income accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue or arise in India is chargeable under the provisions of this Act. Sec. 195 provides that any person responsible for paying to non-resident any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rates in force. We find that the impugned transaction under consideration satisfied all the conditions stipulated in section, therefore, the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from both types of payments for availing connectivity facility and for availing maintenance services as both payments are in the nature of 'royalty'. We confirm the order of CIT(A) though on different reasons and grounds.
Deduction of tax at source from payments made to TDT - Royalty is the transfer of the 'right in respect of the property'. The two transfers are distinct and have different legal effects. In one, rights are purchased which enables use of those rights, while in the other the purchase is involved, only the right to use has been granted. Ownership denotes the relationship between a person and an object forming the subject-matter of his ownership. It consists of a complex of rights all of which rights are rights in property, being good against all the world and not merely against a specific person and such rights are indeterminate in duration and residuary in character. That sum may be agreed for the transfer of one right, two rights and so on but not the ownership. Thus, the definition in respect of software, etc. does not extend to the outright purchase of the right to use an asset.
A payment for the absolute assignment and ownership of rights transferred is not a payment for the use of something belonging to another party and therefore, not royalty. In an outright transfer to be treated as sale/purchase of property as opposed to licence, alienation of all rights in the property is necessary.
Thus, we find that the said payment was not for transfer of absolute assignment and ownership of 'True Dial Software'. The transaction clearly falls under the definition of 'royalty' as defined in s. 9(1)(vi) Expln. 2(iva). The assessee acquired only right to use of 'True Dial Software'. It is 'royalty' and royalty payment to NRI is deemed to accrue and arise in India and therefore, payment is subject to TDS. We, therefore, confirm the orders of the lower authorities.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 716
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of addition of gifts claimed by the assessee from eight parties, the genuineness of which was not proven, leading to a tax liability increase.
Summary:
The respondent, a colonizer, declared an income of &8377; 29,890/- in the assessment year 1986-87 and claimed cash credits totaling &8377; 90,000/- as gifts from eight parties. The Assessing Officer added the &8377; 90,000/- to the income, resulting in a tax liability of &8377; 53,312/-. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, but the Tribunal entertained the appeal. The Tribunal considered that the gift memorandums were filed, gift tax assessments were done in the same ward, and affidavits were submitted. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the addition made by the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The Court noted that there were two possible views in the case and that the tax liability was &8377; 53,312/-. Referring to a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which suggests not appealing matters with tax liabilities less than &8377; 5,00,000/-, the Court decided not to interfere. It was also observed that the case did not involve a substantial question of law warranting consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
-
2007 (8) TMI 715
Issues Involved:
1. Sustenance of addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Reduction of deduction claimed under section 80-IA.
3. Charging of additional interest under section 234B.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Sustenance of Addition under Section 68
The assessee filed an appeal against the addition of Rs. 9.22 crores made under section 68 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO found that the assessee received share application money and share premium from Milli Marketing Pvt. Ltd. during the assessment year 2003-04. A search operation revealed that Mr. P.K. Ruia floated companies to provide entries to beneficiaries after receiving cash from them. The AO suspected the genuineness of the transactions and concluded that the share application money was undisclosed income.
The AO's inferences were based on several observations, including the lack of real income for Milli Marketing, inability to provide details of godowns/warehouses, and absence of stock registers. The AO issued a commission under section 13(1)(d) and sent notices under section 133(6) to verify the transactions, but the responses were unsatisfactory.
The assessee contended that it had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, including confirmations from Milli Marketing and Vivek Leafin Pvt. Ltd., bank statements, and IT details. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including balance sheets, confirmatory certificates, bank statements, and details of share application money. The Tribunal noted that the department failed to provide any tangible evidence to contradict the assessee's claims. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd., which laid down guidelines for proving cash credits under section 68. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2: Reduction of Deduction Claimed under Section 80-IA
The assessee challenged the reduction of deduction under section 80-IA by Rs. 93,71,110, arguing that the AO wrongly excluded interest received and hire charges from the business income. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pandian Chemicals Ltd.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on ITAT decisions in DLF Power Ltd. and Bharat Rasayan Ltd., which distinguished the language used in section 80-IA from sections 80HH and 80-I. The Tribunal found that the entire relevant material had not been properly examined to establish the nexus between the business activity and the income. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s findings and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Issue 3: Charging of Additional Interest under Section 234B
The assessee challenged the charging of additional interest of Rs. 1,42,06,445 under section 234B. The CIT(A) observed that the AO had not adjudicated this issue, and it arose only from computation in ITNS 150. The CIT(A) directed the AO to look into this aspect from case records of various years and apply the provisions of section 115JA.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and added that the charging of interest under section 234B is consequential. The AO was directed to recalculate the interest while giving effect to the appellate order.
Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, favoring the assessee on the issue of addition under section 68 and remanding the issue of deduction under section 80-IA for fresh examination. The issue of additional interest under section 234B was directed to be recalculated by the AO.
-
2007 (8) TMI 714
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD ruled that DTA clearances at 50% FOB value should consider both actual and deemed exports. The decision was based on a previous Larger Bench ruling in the case of M/s.Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals.
-
2007 (8) TMI 713
Issues involved:
The appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench regarding the disallowance of a claim of deduction in respect of chit loss as a business loss for the assessment year 1997-98.
Summary:
1. Background:
The appellant, engaged in the business of interior decoration, filed the return of income for the assessment year 1997-98, admitting income of Rs. 5,23,017. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of deduction in respect of chit loss amounting to Rs. 3,23,949, stating that running a chit fund was not the business of the appellant.
2. Commissioner's Decision:
The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals accepted the appellant's contention and deleted the disallowance. However, the Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal.
3. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant contended that the amount received from the chit fund was invested in the business, and thus, the loss sustained in bidding the chit should be treated as a business loss.
4. Court's Decision:
The Court disagreed with the appellant's argument, stating that the investment in the chit fund did not have a nexus with the business of interior decoration. Being a member of the chit fund was not considered part of the appellant's business activities. The Court cited a precedent from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing that contributions to a chit fund could not be treated as business expenditure.
5. Conclusion:
The Court found no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and dismissed the tax case appeal, upholding the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to disallow the claim of loss in the chit fund account.
Therefore, the Court affirmed that the loss incurred by subscribing to a chit was not allowable as a business loss, as it did not have a direct connection to the appellant's interior decoration business.
............
|
9911796707
