Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1227 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1132 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ... ... ... ..... the nature of assessee’s business and intention of leasing the unsold unit, which is integral part of the business.” 2. At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that same very issue is covered in favour of the assessee in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07 in I.T.A. No.3216/M/2009 order dated 20.4.2010 vide which, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue by confirming the order of ld CIT(A). He submitted that facts in the assessment year under consideration are identical. Ld D.R. did not dispute the contention of ld A.R. 3. In view of above submissions of ld representatives of parties and respectfully following the order of co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07 (supra), copy placed on record, we uphold the order of ld CIT(A) by rejecting ground of appeal taken by the revenue. 4. In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 10th August, 2012
-
2012 (8) TMI 1131 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ... ... ... ..... e judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Kumar (supra) relied upon by the ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In case of CIT vs. Dharmendra Kumar the first appellate authority and Tribunal followed their earlier order passed in another case which was not approved by the Hon’ble High court. Therefore on that ground alone the reference was allowed in favour of the Revenue. In the appeal before us excepting the statements of Dr.K. Ashok and Lalu Saheb there is no other evidence brought on record to prove that assessee has paid ₹ 16,40,000/- in cash over and above the consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed. In aforesaid view of the matter, the order passed by the CIT (A) calls for no interference. The grounds raised by the Revenue for the years under consideration are thus rejected. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 24- 8-2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1130 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ... ... ... ..... n record. The tribunal decided the same by following its earlier decision in the case of CIT v. Goodrick Group Ltd. (ITA No. 255/Kol/2004 dated 10-06-2005). The basis of its decision, as stated by the tribunal vide it’s order in the assessee’s case for A.Y. 2004-05 (at para 24-25 at page 6), is that though the purchase of the relevant assets is funded out of withdrawals from NABARD, depreciation is not an expenditure but only a statutory allowance. Though we observe no reference to any decision by any higher authority by either party before us; the same being the consistent view of the tribunal and, further, in the assessee’s own case, respectfully following the same we confirm the deletion of the impugned disallowance of the claim of depreciation by the ld. CIT(A). We decide accordingly. 13. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1129 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources - Finding of Fact - Non genuine and creditworthiness of unsecured loan and creditors - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with this issue. The Tribunal by appreciating the material on record has recorded finding of fact to the effect that the genuineness of the transaction is proved. While reaching to the said conclusion, the Tribunal has taken note of the reasoning of the assessing officer as well as CIT (Appeals) and has also considered the other material on record. The Tribunal on its own independent analysis of the matter has reached to the factual conclusion about the genuineness of the transaction and in this process the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the detailed account of the concerned parties were filed by the assessee and the entries in the account were through account payee cheques, the source of deposit in the bank was not in dispute and the identity of the parties was established and also that the creditworthiness of the creditors was also established.
The aforesaid finding which has been recorded by the Tribunal is essentially a finding of fact. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Gyan Chand Anil Kumar v. ITO [2001 (3) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] such a finding is a pure finding of fact which does not involve substantial question of law. Learned counsel for appellant has failed to point out any error or perversity in the said finding of fact.
Thus, the appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law requiring consideration by this Court which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1128 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
... ... ... ... ..... mposes the maximum penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the CPIO as he has not been able to establish any credible reason for not having discharged his functions viz¬a¬viz the appellant's request. 3. The I.G.Police, UT Chandigarh is directed to recover the amount of ₹ 25,000/- from the salary of Shri B.S.Chandha, Dy. SP/CPIO/W&CSU, UT Chandiarh and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Joint Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd. Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi¬110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of ₹ 5000/- per month every month from the salary of Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003080 Shri B.S. Chadha, Dy.SP/CPIO and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from September, 2012. The total amount of ₹ 25,000/- will be remitted by 10th of March 2013.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1127 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... Officer noted that assessee has claimed a depreciation of mobile phone amounting to 2525/-, but Assessing Officer also noted the same mobile phone was lost. Hence the same set was not used by the assessee. Therefore, depreciation cannot be allowed. 8. Upon assessee’s appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 9. I have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced. I find that depreciation on mobile has not been allowed during the year on the ground that the same was lost during the year. In such a situation, the entire cost of the mobile has to be taken out from the block. Accordingly, I remit this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the issue afresh, in light of my observation as above and by reference to section 32(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/8/2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1126 - SUPREME COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ed the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 32. The learned single Judge considered all these aspects in detail and after finding that those two conditions cannot be said to be discriminatory and unreasonable refused to interfere exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed the writ petition. The well reasoned judgment of the learned single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 33. In the light of what is stated above, we fully agree with the reasoning of the High Court and do not find any valid ground for interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1125 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... lso having different facts. In the case of CIT vs. MTNL, the nature of the business is different than the nature of business of the assessee. In this case, the assessee was engaged in the business of providing communication network. Similarly, in the case of Siemens Ltd., the company was engaged in manufacture of equipment for generation and transmission of electricity. Thus, in both these cases, facts are different. Assessee’s business was to manufacture and sell sheet metal components for automobiles and white goods sector. There is a variation in the nature of the business and facts of case. These items as mentioned at page 64 cannot be treated as part of the plant and machinery. On these electrical items, 10 depreciation is allowable as per rule. This ground of assessee in both the appeals stand dismissed. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 24th day of August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1124 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant that due to subsequent order, which has been passed, the appeal has been rendered infructuous, Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1123 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Power of Tribunal - Seeking to recall the order sanctioning of a compromise or an arrangement - prejudicial Of the interest - HELD THAT:- The power of the Court to enforce the compromise and arrangement which is sanctioned under Section 391 of the Companies Act is prescribed/set out u/s 392 of the Companies Act. It has clearly empowered the Court to give directions and allow modifications in the compromise or arrangement but has not given any powers to the Court to recall/rescind/cancel the order sanctioning the compromise or arrangement. If at all the Court is satisfied that the compromise or arrangement sanctioned u/s 391 cannot be worked satisfactorily with or without modifications, the Court can suo motu or on the Application of any person interested in the affairs of the Company make an order winding up the Petition. In fact, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meghal Homes (P.) Ltd.[2007 (8) TMI 447 - SUPREME COURT], it is now well settled that if a Company desires to modify a sanctioned scheme despite the same not being necessary for the proper working thereof, the Company cannot do so under any other provisions except by following the required procedure prescribed u/s 391 of the Companies Act.
As submitted on behalf of the Regional Director, even on facts no case is made out for recalling of the order sanctioning the scheme. The reason cited by the Company for seeking to recall the order sanctioning the scheme is essentially that the Scheme is not workable and is adversely affecting the interests of the Companies. Apart from the fact that this can hardly be a ground for seeking cancellation of the scheme at this stage, not a single piece of evidence is produced before this Court to show that the contracts already entered into by the Demerged Company with their clients have been cancelled by the said clients or that they have refused to allow the Resulting Company to execute and complete the said contracts. There is nothing produced on record to even show that any of the proposed clients have refused to deal with the Resulting Company because the name of the Resulting Company does not include anything about the Facility Management Services or because the proposed clients are revaluating the entire process of the Resulting Company in terms of net worth, technical know how, qualification, ability to perform such contracts etc.
In any event, all these factors were surely considered by the applicants before proposing the scheme of arrangement and inter alia stating therein on oath that the said scheme is in the interest of the Company and its shareholders. Again, in any event if the scheme is not workable then the Company can certainly seek directions or modifications to the scheme in order to make it workable. It cannot cancel the scheme on this ground. However, if the Applicants are determined to have the scheme rescinded/cancelled, in view of the facts and law set out hereinabove, they will have to follow the procedure prescribed u/s 391 of the Companies Act and revert back to status quo ante.
Thus, both the Applications are dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1122 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... he disallowance is deleted. Balance disallowance of ₹ 1,78,174/- has been made out of administrative expenses to the extent of 0.5 of the average investment of ₹ 356.35 lacs. We find that as per the balance sheet submitted before us, the opening balance and closing balance of each investment is the same and there is no purchase or sale of investment in the present year and hence, in our considered opinion, disallowance of ₹ 1,78,174/- with regard to administrative expense is excessive and unreasonable in the facts of the present case. We also feel that in spite of this, some disallowance is justified and in our considered opinion, the disallowance of ₹ 50,000/- will meet the ends of justice in the facts of the present case. We hold accordingly. This ground is partly allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas C.O. of the assessee is partly allowed. 11. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1121 - ITAT AMRITSAR.
... ... ... ... ..... re also taken into consideration. The assessee under bonafide belief that the provisions of section 44AB are not attracted and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no penalty can be imposed when the assessee had acted deliberately. The reliance has been placed on the following case laws i) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26(SC) ii) ITO vs. Nanak Singh Guliani 171 CTR 195 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Abhyeshwar 153 CTR 372 (MP) iv) CIT vs. Tea King (2000) 158 CTR 413 (Guj) v) R. Wadiwala & Co. vs. ACIT (2001) 72 TTJ (Ahd) 34 6.3. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the AO is not justified in levying the penalty u/s 271B of the Act and he is directed to cancel the penalty so levied and accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Thus, all the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assesse in ITA No.185(Asr)2012 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... shall have to be undertaken by the respondents. 33.We therefore, direct the respondents to refund the excess octroi collected from the petitioners, however, only after examining the question of unjust enrichment. For such purpose, the petitioners shall approach the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation within four weeks from today, producing necessary materials showing whether or not burden of excess octroi was passed on to consumer or third party? After verifying of such details, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Surat shall grant necessary refund to the petitioners to the extent the same is available. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of representation. Refund to the extent found payable shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of collection till payment as provided by the Supreme Court. 34.Petitions are disposed of. Rule made absolute to above extent with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1119 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... 006 (ix) Company Application No.149 of 2010 (Nirma Limited) decided on 13.05.2010 It is submitted by Mr.Rao that in view of the judgments referred to hereinabove, it is not necessary for the Holding Company to take out separate proceedings for amalgamation of the wholly owned subsidiary Company. 5. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant and upon perusal of the material on record and in view of the judgments stated hereinabove, holding that separate proceedings are not necessary for the Transferee Company, being the Holding Company, it is held that the applicantCompany, the Holding Transferee Company, is not required to take out separate proceedings under Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, to the proposed Scheme of Amalgamation of its wholly owned subsidiary with itself. Hence, the proceedings as required to be held under the provisions of Section 391(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, are dispensed with. 6. The application is disposed of, in the above terms.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1118 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s in paragraph 5 of the said order, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹ 25 Lacs (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) with the department within a period of 12 weeks instead of ₹ 55 Lacs (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Only). The said mistake be corrected in the order dated 2.7.2012. Order accordingly. The note for speaking to minutes stands disposed of.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1117 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ... ... ... ..... y with reference to the fact that the issue is identical and squarely covered by the appellant’s own case in A.Y. 2003-04 by the order of jurisdictional ITAT Ahmedabad. It is also seen from the records that the CIT(A) VIII, has deleted the same addition for AY 07-08. Thereafter, the department filed the appeal in the ITAT, Ahmedabad against the order of the CIT(A). The ITAT confirmed the order of the CIT(A) vide ITA No.80/Ahd/2011 dated 2/12/2011. In view of the above, and respectfully following the decisions of jurisdictional ITAT, the addition made by the A.O. is deleted for the year under appeal. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5. Since the ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by placing reliance on the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case on identical facts, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by him and the same is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 08.08.2012
-
2012 (8) TMI 1116 - ITAT DELHI
... ... ... ... ..... e utilized for any work, the same was redeposited in the bank on the same day. Thus, effectively, on 07.04.2006, the net cash of ₹ 50,000/- was deposited in the bank (Rs. 3,00,000 withdrawn and ₹ 3,50,000 deposited). We have also seen the copy of the cash book for the period 01.04.2006 to 08.05.2006 placed in the paper book and, we find that even before 08.05.2006, substantial amounts of ₹ 3,50,000/- and ₹ 2,00,000/- were deposited in the bank time and again, which the Assessing Officer has never doubted. Considering the totality of above facts, we are of the opinion that the assessee had sufficient cash balance on 08.05.2006 to enable it to deposit the sum of ₹ 7,90,000/- in the bank account. We, therefore, delete the addition of ₹ 7,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... the petitioner that the surrounding circumstances (communications dated 18.03.2005, 10.11.2005 and 20.08.2006 admit of a jural relationship between the parties is a misdirected argument. These are letters written by the petitioner to the respondent wherein he has sought for his outstanding payments; they do not in any manner fit into the ambit of an "acknowledgment"; they are not circumstances which lead to the inference that the respondent has acknowledged the debt of the petitioner. 10. The receipt of 21.07.2006 by the respondent (even presuming it to be correct although denied by the respondent) only states that Form 3B has been received by the respondent; the whole argument of the petitioner is based on this Form 3B. As noted (supra) this Form 3B does not amount to an acknowledgement. The present petition filed in June 2009 for a debt for which part payment had been made on 30.11.2004 is clearly time barred; it is not maintainable; it is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1114 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Demand of stay - Held that:- As we have disposed of the appeals of the assessee by the order of Tribunal even dated, these Stay Applications have become infructuous and dismissed accordingly.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1113 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw the application with liberty to take out independent legal proceedings in accordance with law. Liberty granted. Dismissed as withdrawn.
............
|