Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2014 2014 (11) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 1278 Records

• 2014 (11) TMI 1161 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Disallowances in respect of capital gains - allowable expenditure u/s 48 - legal right in the compensation amount - Diversion By Overriding Title - Held that:- It is an obligation created as part of the agreement and there is no dispute that the amounts are collected from the buyers and paid to the developer. Since, these amounts are included in the sale consideration, assessee can certainly claim the amount in order to arrive at full value of consideration. Since, there is contractual obligation to pay the above amounts, Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the amounts.

  Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manohar Rao, Managing Director [1984 (10) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court] considered the scope of full value of consideration in a case and held that capital gain had to be computed by taking into account only the amount which was actually received by assessee. In that case, assessee owns 4.27 gts of land, had entered into an agreement to sell the land at ₹ 25,000 per acre. Subsequent to that, the land was acquired by Government and only an amount of ₹ 2,20,220 was received by assessee. As assessee has entered into agreement, assessee paid an amount of ₹ 1,05,220 immediately on receipt of compensation to the agreement holder and offered the balance amount of ₹ 1,20,000 as capital gain. Considering the facts of the case and the fact that there is a legal right in the compensation amount, Hon’ble High Court held that this is a case of diversion of income by overriding title. Since, in assessee’s case also there is contractual right in paying amounts, we confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss Revenue grounds.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Winding up petition - Held that:- The Company is unable to pay its debts and deserves to be wound up. The above Company Petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b), which are reproduced hereunder :

  “(a) that the Respondent Company, i.e. M/s. Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd., be ordered to be wound up by an order of this Hon'ble Court.

  (b) that the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay be appointed as Liquidator of the Respondent Company with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956 including the power to take possession of all the assets, books of account, stock in trade, cash on hand, movable properties including future and fixtures as well as all immovable properties of the Respondent Company".

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1159 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  TPA - comparable selection -Held that:- Assessee provides services in the fields of Software Technology Services, Outsourcing Services and Customized software development services to its AEs, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need not to be selected to final comparability list.

  Reducing the loss of loss making unit from profit making units for the purposes of section 10A - Held that:- As relying on case of Unilever Ltd. vs DCIT [2010 (4) TMI 206 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein held the loss of one unit under section 10A of the Act shall be adjusted against the income liable for deduction under the same but in relation to the income from other unit, we direct the AO to recompute the exemption under section 10A

  Exclusion of telephone expenses from the computation of exemption under section 10A - Held that:- We set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and direct the AO to delete the disallowance and compute the exemption as per law and keeping in view the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of the assessee.

  Treatment of grant received by the assessee from government - revenue or capital expenditure - Held that:- Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ponni Sugars (2008 (9) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT ) we reverse the orders of the revenue authorities and direct the AO to treat the grant as capital in nature and delete the disallowance.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1158 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D - computation of claim - Held that:- As consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier year, we also order accordingly. Thus, AO is directed that, so far as the disallowance of interest is concerned in the working of rule 8D, no addition/disallowance should be made. As regards the disallowance on account of indirect expenses, by adopting 0.5% of the average investment, we confirm the disallowance as worked out in accordance with the rule 8D. Lastly, with regard to the disallowance on account of amount invested in share capital of partnership firm, we direct the AO to follow the earlier order of the Tribunal in A.Y. 2008-09 and work out the disallowance. Accordingly ground raised by the assessee is treated as partly allowed.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1157 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Method of computation of ALV - Held that:- See Smitaben N Ambani vs. CWT [2009 (1) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein it was held that rateable value of the properties determined by the Municipal Authorities shall be the yard stick. In any case, the percentage of investment in the impugned properties is no basis for arriving at the ALV of the properties. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1156 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Disallowing the claim for payment of commission made to the two parties on the basis of misconception of law or misreading - Held that:- In the present case there is a binding contract between the parties by which the \recipients of the commission had the right to enforce realisation of commission stipulated between the parties. We also find from the communication between the parties that the payment was duly received by the parties and paid by the assessee by account payee cheques. The revenue has not alleged that the parties to the transactions are related to each other or that the payments are not genuine or that the payments having been made by the assessee to the recipients have found their way back to the assessee some way or the other. Such being the case, we find that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee for payment of commission. Since all the ingredients necessary for genuine business transaction exist in this case, we do not find any merit in the addition made by the AO and in the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1155 - ITAT JAIPUR
  

  Addition u/s 68 - Held that:- In all the three creditors, the assessee has proved the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors by filing copy of confirmation with PAN number, copy of return, copy of bank statement and admission before the Assessing Officer U/s 131 of the Act. The sources have been explained by the cash creditors, therefore, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has called remand report from the Assessing Officer, therefore, no violation under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1154 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Disallowance of expenditure on account of non-compliance with TDS provisions - delay in depositing TDS - Held that:- It is not in dispute that the TDS amount was deposited by the assessee prior to the due date of filing return. An amendment to Section 40[a](ia) of the Act of 1961 was introduced by the Finance Act, 2010 and that was applied w.e.f. 01.4.2010. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order impugned was of the view that the TDS was not paid before the due date specified in Sub-Section (1) of Section 139 and amendment to Section 40[a](ia) came into force on 01.4.2010, therefore, no question was there for disallowance of expenditure on account of non-compliance with TDS provisions. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1153 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Liability on director Petitioner-Smriti Thingbaijam - Held that:- In the facts of the present case, Petitioner-Smriti Thingbaijam had resigned from the Company on 16.02.2013 and the Board of Directors have accepted her resignation on 18.02.2013 and petitioner-Naveen Kumar Aggarwal had tendered his resignation on 21.02.2013 i.e before the cheque was issued. and is full time employee of Bank of America since 11.12.2006. The said change was communicated to the Registrar of Companies in June, 2013.

  A photocopy of Form 32 is Annexure P-7 colly. In the case of Smriti Thingbaijam, the Registrar of Companies was informed about her resignation on 16.09.2013 and in the case of petitioner- Naveen Kumar Aggarwal, the Registrar of Companies was informed about his resignation in June, 2013. But this gap would not make the petitioners liable for dishonor of the cheques, which was presented on 27.05.2013 and was dishonored as they had resigned from the post of Directors and their resignation had been duly conveyed to the Registrar of Companies. Thus, they were not involved in day to day affairs of the company and no liability can be thus fastened upon them.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1152 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Suit for recovery - documents sought to be summoned - Held that:- We not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Joint Registrar on 6th December, 2012 on the following reasons:-

  (a) Firstly, it appears that the present suit is a simple suit for recovery of the amount which was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. It also appears from the averments made in the application as well as the grounds raised in the appeal that the defendant seeks production of the documents for investigation which is pending against various parties in collateral proceedings. The power of investigation, if any, under Section 11C of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 is with Securities Exchange Board of India.

  (b) The operation of the letters issued by the defendant has already been stayed by the Calcutta High Court.

  (c) It is also a matter of fact that under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the impugned order is not an appealable order. Order XLIII CPC does not contemplate an appeal against the order passed in application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC.

  (d) It also appears from the record that the defendant has attempted on many dates to delay the completion of the trial on one pretext or the other. The suit filed by the plaintiff is merely a suit for recovery of the amount. The said fact has not been denied. The said documents cannot be summoned from the plaintiff at the time of cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses. It is evident that those documents are actually required by the defendant for pending investigation for the purposes of collateral proceedings.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1151 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Disallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) being the commission paid to the managing director and working director of the company - Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that the amount paid was reasonable in comparison to the remuneration paid for the services in the market. There is no denial of the fact that the dividend of ₹ 3 crore was declared in the year under consideration. There seems merit in the contention of the ld. AR that the company has 29 shareholders and 4 directors whereas the commission was paid to two working directors only. So far the reliance of the Ld. D.R. on the special bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of “Dalal Broacha Stock Broking P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT” (2011 (6) TMI 251 - ITAT, Mumbai) is concerned, we find that the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable. In the said case there were only three shareholders who were directors of the company and no dividend was declared and there was no explanation as to why the dividend was not declared. Under such circumstances, we find force in the contention of the Ld. A.R. that company was justified in paying the commission to the working directors which was quite reasonable. The lower authorities have not noticed these facts while deciding the issue under consideration.

  Disallowance of professional fees paid to three relatives under section 40A(2)(b) - Held that:- We find that the amount of remuneration paid was quite reasonable in view of the qualification of the said persons. It is not the case of the Revenue that the amount is excessive in comparison to market rates. The above said relatives of the assessee are duly qualified in their respective fields and in our view the assessee did not commit any illegality while availing their services and paying them reasonable remuneration for the purposes of business necessity. We, therefore, allow this issue in favour of the assessee.

  Disallowance being the consultation and legal charges - Held that:- Shri R. Vaze family filed a petition for operation and mismanagement before the Company Law Board. Due to the above disputes, company was not functioning efficiently with a view to bring settlement between the brothers/directors’ consultancy and legal fees were incurred for valuation purposes. The fee was also incurred for operation of new manufacturing facilities at Vashivali near Panvel, Raigad district. From the above arguments it is clear that most of the legal and consultancy charges were incurred were related to inter-se dispute between two factions of the directors of the company. Even the other expenses as observed by the AO are of capital nature and are not allowable as revenue in nature. We do not find any infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities while disallowing the said expenditure. This issue is accordingly decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1150 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  

  Insertion of second proviso w.e.f. 01.04.2013 to section 40(a)(ia) - prospectivity OR retrospectivity - Held that:- CIT(A) directed assessee to furnish necessary certificates as per principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court [2007 (8) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P. ltd., (supra) wherein it was held that if the payees have admitted the receipt of income, there is no need for the payee to deduct the TDS. Since the provisions of section 201(1) allow such assessee to be not an “assessee in default”, consequently, the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) also comes into operation even though the said provision was introduced from 01.04.2013. Since, it is for removal of hardship that may also be applied for pending proceedings. Moreover, the directions of Ld. CIT(A) are also categorical. In case, there is failure on the part of assessee to furnish such certificates, disallowance stands confirmed. Since, it has to be examined by A.O. we are of the opinion that Revenue appeal is not maintainable on the facts of the case and ground raised by Revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1149 - ITAT MUMBAI
  

  Disallowance of interest and other administrative expenditure u/s. 14A - Held that:- There is no denial that assessee’s own funds are much more than the investment made by the assessee. Drawing support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power ltd.[2009 (1) TMI 4 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for considering interest expenses for the purpose of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the Act.

  In so far as other expenses are concerned, we find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel. In the computation of income, the assessee has suo moto disallowed stamp duty and registration charges of ₹ 2,25,000/- and loss on sale of investment at ₹ 3,23,44,976/- in addition to the disallowance out of interest at ₹ 27 lakhs. Considering all these facts in totality, we direct the AO to recompute the disallowance after taking into consideration the auditors remuneration at ₹ 1,70,760/-, legal and professional charges at ₹ 49,000/- and miscellaneous expenses & professional tax at ₹ 4,760/-. We further direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to the total actual expenditure incurred and claimed by the assessee. Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1148 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal under section 10F of the Companies Act - Held that:- Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and upon perusing the application for stay along with the memorandum of appeal, it appears that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the appeal is required to be heard. The appeal is, therefore, admitted for hearing and shall be heard on the basis of the papers which are already on record. All formalities for filing of paper books etc. stand dispensed with. The application for stay, however, is disposed of with an observation that the Company Law Board may continue hearing C. P. 23(Kol) of 2009, but shall not pass any final order therein without leave of this Court.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Additions u/s 40(a)(ia) - payment made by the assessee to HRTC towards the reimbursement of expenses - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of the same assessee [2013 (12) TMI 1641 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] no tax was required to be deducted u/s 194J. TDS is not applicable on the payments made to HRTC as being reimbursement of expenses - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1146 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Bail application - Summons received under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Held that:-'Reasonable' would mean fair and sensible. The applicant is facing the principal charges under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offence under PMLA 2002 is an `ancillary' offence. Proviso (ii) to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not denude the court of the discretionary powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The said proviso would contemplate abundant caution while granting bail in economic offences. 'Reason to believe' is an expression of state of mind which has to be drawn by `inference' and the Court cannot record such a finding at the pre-trial stage. It would cause prejudice to prosecution or defence . Hence, this Court is only considering the issue of `further incarceration' pending trial which cannot be completed in near future.

  Taking into consideration that the applicant has been in custody for almost three months and also co-operated with the investigating agency for the past five years, the inordinate delay in filing the formal complaint is not explained by the prosecution. Hence, the applicant would be entitled to be enlarged on bail.

  It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature. That the co-accused shall not claim parity with the present applicant and their application needs to be decided on its own merits. The Designated Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove as they pertain to consideration of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The application is allowed. The applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1145 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Valuation - seizure of Gold - Held that: - the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) directed the appellant herein, to refund the said sum of ₹ 26,24,867/- to the respondent within two months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Hon'ble Court to be obtained and served by the respondent on the appellant - the department that the department would refund the value of the said eight pieces of gold biscuits weighing 933.12 gms as on 7.3.2012 - demand upheld.

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1144 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Disallowance of business expenses - assessee had not commenced its business during the relevant accounting period - whether the most of work done during the year is capital work in progress for acquiring fixed assets? - Held that:- On the ground that the assessee has obtained approval of the said special economic zone from the Ministry of Commerce and as the assessee entered into an agreement with TCS for the lease of the SEZ area, is proof of the facts that the assessee has set up his business, the first appellate authority directed the AO to allow the revenue expenditure incurred by the assessee. We find no infirmity in this order of the first appellate authority. - Decided against revenue

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1143 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Trial for an offence punishable under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - prosecuting any Director under section 138 N.I. Act - Held that:- Mere allegation, the accused in-charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its day to day business without anything more, as to the role of such Director in running the business is not sufficient and complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner such person was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company in the conduct of its business.

  Going to the averment made in the complaint annexed with this application, find it is the case of the complainant that accused no. 4, Sujit Chakravorti although along with other designated as non-Executive Director still they are on various Committees of the Board of Directors overseeing financial, audit and other matters directly related to the conduct of the business of the accused no. 1, the Company. It was also alleged that they were all in charge of and responsible for the conduct and management of the day-to-day business and affairs of the accused no. 1, Kitply Industries Ltd. during the material time.

  Having regard to what have been stated in paragraph 4 of the complaint as aforesaid, this court is of the opinion, there is no lack of necessary averment as required for prosecuting any Director under section 138 N.I. Act, with the aid of section 141 of the said Act in all the aforesaid criminal revisions.

  Here in this case, there is specific averments that the present petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the day to day affairs of the accused No. 1, the Company during the material time when the offence was committed. Thus criminal revisions under consideration stand dismissed

  ---

• 2014 (11) TMI 1142 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Reduction of capital seeked - Held that:- Having considered the averments made in the petition and having perused the decision taken by the Board of Directors and also the resolution passed in the Annual General Meeting of the petitioner company, it is of the opinion that the prayer made in the instant petition is liable to be granted. Reduction of paid up share capital and Securities Premium Account subject to the approval of the share holders of the company and confirmation by this Court allowed.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 64