|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1043 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 935 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Vandana Properties Income Tax Appeal No.3633 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.4361 of 2010 decided on 28th March, 2012 in favour of the respondent-assessee. 3. However, it is the grievance of the revenue that the observation in the impugned order and approval of the layout plan is different from the approval of the building plan and while granting the benefit under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 what has to be considered is the sanction of the building plan and not the layout plan needs consideration. Since the question raised in the appeal is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Vandapa Properties (supra), we dispose of the appeal on the basis of the aforesaid decision. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the deduction under Section 80IB based on the aproval of the layout plan / building plan and leave it tobe decided in an appropriate case. 4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 934 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... income as such. There is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars. So it is not at all necessary even to mention the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 306 ITR 277 (SC). 11. This is a simple case where the Assessing Officer has for valid reasons disallowed a portion of the depreciation claimed by the assessee. The said disallowance was added to the income of the assessee. This is a normal exercise of any scrutiny assessment. This case cannot be stretched beyond this. This case cannot be made out as a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 12. The Assessing Officer has erred in law in levying penalty in this file. We find that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly deleted the penalty. His order is upheld. 13. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 14. The order pronounced on Wednesday, the 30th day of January, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (1) TMI 933 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... estion of a holding company having to obtain sanction for a scheme of amalgamation involving its subsidiary company has been considered by several High Courts, including this Court, in many cases, such as Auto Tools India Pvt. Ltd. Co. Appl. (M) No. 41 of 2010 , Sharat Hardware Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1978) 48 Com. Cas. 23 (Delhi), Mahaamba Investments Ltd. v. IDI Limited (2001) 105 Com. Cas. 16 (Bom.), Andhra Bank Housing Finance Ltd. (2004) 118 Com. Cas. 295 (AP) and the order dated 23rd April 2012 passed by this Court in Co. Appl. (M) 63 of 2012 (Prosell Field Marketing Pvt. Ltd.). It has been held in the above decisions that there is no requirement to file a separate or joint application on behalf of the Transferee Company for sanction of the Scheme. 8. In view of the settled legal position, the application is allowed and the requirement of the Transferee Company having to approach the Bombay High Court for sanction of the Scheme is dispensed with. 9. Order be given Dasti.
-
2013 (1) TMI 932 - SUPREME COURT
Dowry Death - Inquest Report under Crpc - Dealth of wife within 1 year of marriage - Father of deceased made a complaint to the Police Control Room alleging, that he suspected that his daughter had been poisoned. This suspicion was based on the fact, that the body had turned blue. On the aforesaid complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 176 of the Crpc, initiated inquest proceedings. On the basis of Medical reports the reason for death was observerd that death is consequent to cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect & pulmonary hypertension. No definite opinion can be given about falciparm Malaria, histopathological assessment and also gave negative tests for common poisons.
HELD THAT:- The criminal proceedings against the appellants-accused Rajiv are hereby set aside.The order of the High Court is accordingly also set aside. the facts of the case which needed to be kept in mind that the respondent-complainant had continued to represent before the SDM, Delhi, that he would produce the mother of the deceased, who knew the facts best of all. Despite that, the mother of the deceased did not appear in the inquest proceedings to record her statement, even though a number of opportunities were afforded to the respondent-complainant to produce her. The permissible inference is that he was himself not privy to the facts. The fact that the mother of the deceased had not appeared to record a statement against the appellants-accused has to have some reason/justification.
The instant appeal, accordingly succeeds
-
2013 (1) TMI 931 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ovides that the applicant must have been duly enrolled as an advocate and has practised for a period not less than seven years. Since we have already held that these five private appellants did not cease to be advocate while working as Assistant District Attorney/Public Prosecutor/Deputy Advocate General, the period during which they have been working as such has to be considered as the period practising law. Seen thus, all of them have been advocates for not less than seven years and were enrolled as advocates and were continuing as advocates on the date of the application. 90. We, accordingly, hold that the five private appellants (Respondent Nos. 9,12,13,15 and 18 in CWP No. 9157/2008 before the High Court) fulfilled the eligibility under Article 233(2) of the Constitution and Rule 11(b) of the HSJS Rules on the date of application. The impugned judgment as regards them is liable to be set aside and is set aside. 91. Appeals are allowed as above with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 930 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; 9,08,800/- was payable by the Petitioner in six installments and the last installment of ₹ 1,58,800/- was payable on 26.10.2012. We are in the month of January, 2013. Out of sum of ₹ 9,08,800/-, the Petitioner has paid only a sum of ₹ 2.5 lacs which sufficiently reflects the conduct of the Petitioner. On an amount of ₹ 9,08,800/- adjournment costs of ₹ 25,000/- particularly by moving an application to change the terms of settlement cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive. 10. Once the settlement reached is accepted by the Court or an undertaking is given, it becomes binding on the parties. Moreover, the Petitioner’s conduct does not entitle him of any indulgence. 11. In my view, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the learned MM and order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the learned ASJ. 12. The Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 13. Pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
-
2013 (1) TMI 929 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Interest on Fixed Deposits - Netting of interest income on FD with interest expenses on borrowings for setting up of business u/s 57(iii) - Assessee had obtained large amount of secured loan, out of which it had invested an amount in FD in banks, from which it had earned interest. Since the assessee had not commenced business operation, the AO was of the view that the said amount of interest earned on that FDS in banks, is taxable as income under the head ‘income from other sources.’ - HELD THAT:- The interest income earned during the year by the assessee, from the FDs made out of borrowed funds was rightly taxed by the AO. Interest payable on borrowed funds has no connection with the receipt of interest. The interest payable on the loans out which the FDs were made is not allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii).
Decision in the case of TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT], relied upon.
Decided against the assessee.
-
2013 (1) TMI 928 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition in respect of unverifiable Sundry Creditors - addition u/s 41 - Held that:- We find that ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by holding that no condition required to make addition towards remission or cessation of liability as per provisions of section 41(1) of the Act is fulfilled in this case, therefore the A.O. was not justified in making the addition by invoking the provisions of this section - Decided against revenue.
-
2013 (1) TMI 927 - SUPREME COURT
Interim Relief under Specific Relief Act - Execution of Power of Attorney - The plaintiffs claim that they along with deceased were residing in Suit flat and they were also in occupation of an suit office from where the first plaintiff was carrying on her profession of advocate and solicitors .The suit flat was gifted in favor of the first plaintiff whereas a general power of attorney was executed in favor of the first plaintiff. Both the properties were self-acquired properties of deceased.
Whether Interim relief for Possession against Power of Attorney can be provided to Plaintiffs - HELD THAT:- there were inconsistencies and improbabilities in the case of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the interim relief of direction to be put back in possession, as claimed by the plaintiffs, was declined. The version of the plaintiffs that the visiting card showing her office at Ashoka Centre was a forged document and also the claim that the plaintiff had used the said premises temporarily as the suit office was under renovation was accepted by the learned Appellate Court as sufficient explanation to counter the stand taken by the defendants. On the aforesaid basis the order of the learned Trial Judge was found fit for reversal and refusal of interim relief to the plaintiffs was held to be unjustified. Accordingly, interim relief(s) was granted in the appeal. The interim relief granted to the plaintiffs by the Appellate Bench of the High Court in the present case is a mandatory direction to handover possession to the plaintiffs. Grant of mandatory interim relief requires the highest degree of satisfaction of the Court; much higher than a case involving grant of prohibitory injunction.
Considering all the relevant facts, We find that the learned Appellate Bench of the High Court was not correct in interfering with the order passed by the learned Trial Judge we wish to make it clear that our aforesaid conclusion is not an expression of our opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. Our disagreement with the view of the Division Bench is purely on the ground that the manner of exercise of the appellate power is not consistent with the law laid down by this Court in the case of Wander Ltd. [1990 (4) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT]. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 09.10.2012 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court and while restoring the order dated 13.04.2012 of the learned Trial Judge we request the learned Trial Judge, or such other court to which the case may, in the mean time, have been transferred to dispose of the main suit as expeditiously as its calendar would permit with the expectation that the same will be possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal shall stand disposed of in terms of the above.
-
2013 (1) TMI 926 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge.” There is no reason given by the first respondent in response to the notice in the writ petitions contradicting the facts. 20. For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and the notification under challenge is set aside, holding that it does not satisfy the requirements of Section 8A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 925 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). 2. Recording the submission, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore (Tribunal) dated 1-12-2004 in Final Order No. 1885 of 2004 2005 (183) E.L.T. 403 (Tri. - Bang.) is confirmed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (1) TMI 924 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court in granting bail to the appellant and in particular, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. We have carefully perused the order so passed by the High Court. We have also seen the custody certificate produced by the appellant. In our opinion, since the appeal is pending before the High Court and the possibility of the appeal is taken up for hearing in the near future is remote, the appellant is entitled for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. 10. In the result, we allow this appeal, suspend the sentence of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and direct that the appellant shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. We also direct the appellant to pay the fine amount awarded by the Trial Court, if it is not already paid. 11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case. 12. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (1) TMI 923 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... addition of ₹ 1,00,000/- only on the same issue and the Tribunal dismissed the department appeal vide order dated 17.09.2010. Since the assessee has shown better results in the assessment year under appeal as compared to the earlier years and has maintained the same nature of business, therefore, it would not be appropriate to apply the profit rate of 6 in order to make addition against the assessee. Considering the earlier history of the assessee and orders of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee, it would be reasonable and appropriate to maintain addition of ₹ 2,50,000/- in all on this issue instead of directing to apply profit rate of 6 . The orders of the authorities below are, therefore, modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (1) TMI 922 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... cts. The Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned appeal, allowed certain expenditure vide page 7 & 8 of his order. 31.3 The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the A.O. 31.4 The Ld. counsel; for the assessee, Mr. R.K. Gupta, CA, relied upon the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). 31.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. We concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A) that certain expenditure were crystalised during the year as mentioned at page 7 & 8 of the order and therefore, the same are allowable during the impugned year. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this regard and he has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenses. Thus, ground No.7 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 32. In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 43, 53, 85, 86 & 418(Asr)2012 are dismissed and C.O Nos. 04, 05,06 & 33(Asr)/2012 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 921 - ITAT CHENNAI
Whether the order passed u/s 144C is valid - Held that - the assessee could have filed the objections there against before the DRP within 30 days of the receipt of the said order - while the assessee filed the objections before the DRP with delay of 13 days and that there was no liberty with the DRP to condone such delay - DRP has also not given any direction to pass the order as per the draft assessment order - instant appeal is not covered by the provisions of section 253(1)(d) of the Act - Decided against the assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 920 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 810 kgs which is very huge and voluminous and it is not feasible to take the case property to the Court complex at Patiala House. In view of the volume of goods involved the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to hold the necessary court proceedings at Central Warehouse Corporation Godown at DSIDC Complex, Narela, Delhi at the date and time convenient to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. All arrangements necessary for holding the Court at the Central Warehouse Corporation Godown, Narela will be done by the Petitioner. Petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (1) TMI 919 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... Officer was to be directed to adopt the fair market value of the asset on 1.4.1981. Since the registered valuer’s report was filed in the course of assessment itself but Assessing Officer had not rejected the same on merits, the Assessing Officer was to be directed to accept the value ₹ 3,80,000 as on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of working out the capital gains after due examination..” 2.8 In view of the above decision of Coordinate Bench whose facts are identical to the facts before us, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to consider fair market value as on 01-04-1981 on the basis of report of registered valuer and also to take into account the indexed cost of improvement and thereafter compute Long term capital gain and tax liability. Accordingly, we uphold her order and reject the ground of appeal taken by the Department. 3. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 23-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 918 - ITAT CHENNAI
Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- Since an addition under section 68 or for that purpose cannot be taken as income under any specific heads of income, it cannot also be treated as ‘business income’. In this view of the matter, we hold that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the addition under section 68 of the Act in assessee’s case is liable to be treated as assessee’s ‘business income’. Therefore, we allow the instant appeal and restore the findings of the Assessing Officer. Revenue’s appeal stands accepted.
-
2013 (1) TMI 917 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ng u/s 263 of the Act. That apart the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Emico KCP Limited V/s. CIT (242 ITR 659) was also not considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench in SSI Limited V/s. DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 was also considered by the co-ordinate Bench in its order passed for the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The issue involved in the present appeal being same and identical with the issues decided in case of the assessee for the preceding assessment years by the co- ordinate bench as referred to above, we respectfully follow the same and hold that the expenditure claimed by the assessee on account of allotment of shares under ESOP is not allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT (A) is confirmed. Grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court on 31 -01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 916 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ngs A & B have complied with the conditions contemplated u/s.80IB but the project as such could not be treated as completed within the stipulated period. Therefore, in view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the opinion that on account of assessee being incapacitated in completing the project within the stipulated period, proportionate deduction u/s.80IB should be allowed in the ratio of area completed to sanctioned area. We may clarify that for the purpose of sanctioned area, the size of plot is to be taken at 5100 sq. ft. In the result, this ground is partly allowed". 5. Since the CIT (A) also followed the order of ITAT in assessment year 2005-06 while giving relief, we do not see any reason to differ from the findings of the CIT (A). Respectfully following the Coordinate Bench decision, we reject the Revenue grounds. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
............
|
