|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1719 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n 46-B of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. Since the 1956 Act is a Central Legislation and 1959 Act is a State Legislation, and the former legislation is subsequent in point of time, the non obstante clause contained in Section 529 A of the 1956 Act will override the non obstante clause contained in Section 38-C of the State Act. Even from the plain language of Section 38-C of the 1959 Act, it is clear that the non obstante clause contained therein operates subject to any other provision contained in the Central Act by which the first charge is created. Section 529-A of the 1956 Act declares that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, for the winding up of a company, the dues of the workers shall be paid in priority to all other dues. In view of the above, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment under challenge. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1718 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on has been preferred with a prayer to allow the first petitioner to produce evidence before the Central Sales Tax Authorities to establish that the goods were despatched on consignment basis and not by way of interstate sale. In the alternative, validity of Section 6A of the Act is also challenged. After arguments on the question of validity of Section 6A of the Act and as the Court was, prima facie, not inclined to accept such submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will not desire to challenge the validity of Section 6A of the Act. On the other reliefs, the case may be heard. In that view of the matter, while we hold that the prayer to challenge the validity of Section 6A of the Act is not pressed and that the writ petition to that extent is closed, allow the petitioner to pursue other prayer before the appropriate Court. Post the writ petition before the Bench hearing Sales Tax (Admission) matters on 1st April 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1717 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he quantum of the components, in order to claim the benefit of the presumption laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra). This is a factual exercise which needs to be carried out by the Assessing Officer. We therefore deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall take a fresh decision with regard to the applicability of section 14A of the Act in respect of the interest after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We also make it clear that the Assessing Officer shall not invoke Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules which has been held to be applicable only from the assessment year 2008-09 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2010) 328 ITR 81 (Bom). We direct accordingly and allow the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No costs. Order pronounced in the Open Court at the time of the hearing on 29th March 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1716 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... permissible. The order of the CIT A was accepted by the assessee. Revenue, however, challenged the same before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, rejected the Revenue's appeal. Hence, the present appeal before us. As already noted, the CIT A 's order confirming the disallowances has been accepted by the assessee. That being so, we do not find any infirmity with the view taken by the CIT A as well as the Tribunal that on the enhanced profit, the assessee would be entitled to proportionate benefit under Section 80IB of the Act. The Tribunal, relying on previous orders with respect to benefits U/s. 80HHC of the Act, under similar circumstances, upheld the order of the CIT A . We have noticed that similar question came up before us in Tax Appeal No. 1382 of 2009, in which, by an Order dated 1st March 2011, the view of the Tribunal was upheld. In view of the fact-situation, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1715 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the orders on record, we find that the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ, on the ground that the entire duty along with interest was paid by 31-7-1999, by the assessee. The Commissioner also, in his appellate order, recorded that the appellant did not deposit the amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- by due date i.e. 6-9-1999, but, instead deposited such amount on 31-7-2009. It, thus, becomes clear that instead of depositing the duty within the first half of the month, as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ, the assessee did deposit the amount before the end of the month, that too with interest. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any defect in the order passed by the Tribunal, which considering the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ, in the facts of the case, reduced the penalty. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1714 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... say for sure that even if the statement of 14.06.2010 is ignored, the detaining authority would have come to the conclusion that she did, solely on the basis of the statement of 23.07.2010. It is for this reason that the decision in Madan Lal Anand (supra), on which the respondents had placed reliance, would be inapplicable in the facts of the present case. 14. This discussion makes it clear that the non-placement of the retractions of 11.03.2010 and 15.06.2010 before the detaining authority has vitiated the detention order. In view of this conclusion of ours, we are not considering the other pleas of the parties. 15. Consequently, the impugned detention order no. 673/26/2010-Cus. VIII dated 27.08.2010 in respect of the detenu (Manish Jalhotra) is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the said detenu (Manish Jalhotra) forthwith unless he is required to be in custody in some other case. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1713 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y case, merely because an eligibility criteria has been fixed, that does not mean the same cannot be changed. The eligibility criteria for grant of permit of ground handling facilities were laid down. It is obligatory on the part of the airline operator to provide the ground handling facility, if the authority so directs. When the condition has been altered, that by no stretch of imagination, would vitiate the Regulations issued under Section 42 on the foundation that it violates Rule 134 of the Rules. We perceive no justification in such a stand. Therefore, we repel the aforesaid submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 118. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons, we do not find any substance in any of the proponements that have been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners and consequently we perceive no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition and all the interim applications stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1712 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... bunal allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act. 4. We further find similar disallowances were made by the Assessing Officer in subsequent assessment years but the Tribunal vide its order in ITA No. 495/PN/2006 for A.Y. 2003- 04 dated 30-6-2008 and in ITA No. 1336/PN/2008 for A.Y. 2005-06 dated 28-11-2008 has confirmed the orders of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of assessee. Nothing contrary was sbrought to our knowledge on behalf of revenue. We are therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. This view is fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd & Others Vs. CIT (231 ITR 841 (SC). We accordingly, uphold the order of the CIT(A) in allowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) of the Act. 5. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 23rd March 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1711 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ng as fully trader nor acting as fully investor which is evident from the fact that even the AO has held part of the profit on sale of shares as long term capital gains and, therefore, it cannot be said that assessee is not an investor but only a trader. Applying the test laid down in the case of Shri Sugamchand C. Shah (supra) we direct the AO to work out the profits on sale of shares which are held for less than one month and treat the profits thereon as business profit and profits earned on sale of shares which are held for more than one month till 12 months should be treated as short term capital gains. With the above direction we partly allow the appeal of the assessee and restore it to the file of AO for making necessary calculation. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but for statistical purposes. Order was pronounced in open Court on 25/3/11.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1710 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hat the appellant- revenue was not even aggrieved by the aforesaid finding recorded by he Tribunal and had not even proposed a question on this issue when the tax appeal was filed as the memorandum of tax appeal reveals. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the lease rent paid by the assessee to GIDC was allowable as revenue expenditure. The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs “ 5.5. We further note that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue vide SLP No.33784/09 has also been dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court vide order dated 4.12.2009 reported in 325 ITR (st) 6. Hence the order passed by the Gujarat High Court has attained the finality. Respectfully following the above mentioned decision of the Hon.Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V/s Sun Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd. (Guj), we decide this issue in favour of the assessee. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 Mar,2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1709 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat as regards units set up in assessment year 2004-2005, deduction has been denied on technical ground namely, that audit report was not correctly filed or that a separate balance sheet was not filed. When the tribunal has remanded the issues for fresh consideration by the Assessing officer by directing the assessee to furnish all necessary information including certificate from an auditor for the purpose of computing eligible profit of such units, we see no reason to interfere. We do not find that there is anything in the tribunal's observations to mean that since units set up in financial year 199394 and 1997-98 were considered as eligible units for benefits under 80IB of the Act, automatically for extension of unit in the financial year 2004-2005, such benefit should follow. Tribunal has directed assessee to supply necessary information on the basis of which the Assessing Officer is to examine the benefit claimed. In view of above discussion, tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1708 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd learned advocate Mr. S.N.Divatia of the respondent. 4. This Court had earlier issued notice for final hearing. Both the learned advocates for the parties have taken this Court through the various documents and the orders passed by all the three adjudicating authorities. Learned counsel, when apparently questioned with regard to the legal issue involved in the matter, has fairly pointed out the discussion made by the Tribunal based on the order of the CIT(Appeals). This Court in a cognate matter being Tax Appeal No.1042 of 2009 has upheld order of remand. Considering the entire gamut of facts and the reasons as well as discussion of the Tribunal, this Court is of the firm opinion that there is no error or perversity in the order of Tribunal of remand and as the matter is decided basing essentially on the facts and applying concerned provisions appropriately with no question of law arising for the determination of this Court, resultantly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1707 - ITAT DELHI
Tax treaty between India and USA (DTAA) - Payment of receipts taxed u/s 09(1)(vii) - HELD THAT:- We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. that the assessee has received payments from persons residents in India. However, the receipts have been taxed u/s 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2, Clause (vi) thereunder. The decision in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Company Limited [2011 (1) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is to the contrary and in favour of the assessee. It is also a matter of fact on record that the assessee is a tax resident of USA and, therefore, the provisions contained in the DTAA are applicable. However, we are of the view that we need not go into the provisions of the DTAA because of the provision contained in Section 90(2). This provision provides that where the Central Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of any country outside India under sub-section (1) for granting relief of tax, or as the case may be, avoidance of double taxation, then, in relation to the assessee to whom such agreement applies, the provisions of this Act shall applied to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee. The assessee is found to have incurred no liability to tax . Therefore, even if the provisions of the treaty go against the assessee, it has to be granted the benefit under which no liability to tax can be fastened on the assessee.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1706 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... - towards excess realisation of sale of cement, upon perusal of the orders under challenge, we find that while selling cement, margin of ₹ 2/- per bag remained with the assessee, which was taxed as it is income by the assessee. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) deleted such addition, which was confirmed by the Tribunal in further appeal, at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal held that such excess amount in the hands of the assessee was not its income but only a receipt. It was to be refunded to the parties including the State Government and various NGOs. 7. We are broadly in agreement with the logic adopted by the Tribunal. It cannot be stated that the margin of excess price of the cement bags was the income of the assessee and it is not in dispute that the assessee was not in the business of buying and selling cement. We find no fault with the logic adopted by the Tribunal. We find that no substantial question of law is arising. 8. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1705 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st ground on which show cause notice had been issued viz., for cancellation of custodianship is concerned, it was within the powers of concerned authority to cancel the same if the circumstances so required. However, there is no power vested in the respondent No.2 to levy interest in respect of the cost recovery charges payable by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the levy of statutory interest at the prescribed rate on purported arrears of salaries of customs staff to be paid by the petitioner imposed vide order of respondent No.2 dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-L) and 23.3.2001 (Annexure-H) being in excess of powers vested in respondent No.2, cannot be sustained. 26. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-L) and 23.3.2001 (Annexure-H) to the extent that the same levy interest at the statutory rates, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1704 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 8,150/- on the basis of the Order-in-Original dated 22nd December, 2000 which came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 10th May, 2002. As a consequence of the restoration of the order of Commissioner, the refund claim filed by the petitioners would stand revived and the respondents herein would be required to process the same in accordance with law including the claim of interest under section 11BB of the Act. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 04th March, 2002 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 22nd December, 2000 passed by the 2nd respondent stands restored. As a further consequence, the refund application dated 8th March, 2001 also stands restored and the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law including the claim for interest under section 11BB of the Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1703 - SUPREME COURT
Challenging the judgment of HC for transferring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the CBI - Money Laundering - amassing of illicit wealth - unprecedented amounts - investment in property, shares - in India and abroad - former Ministers - In present case, the basic allegation is amassing of illicit wealth by various former Ministers of the State. The money alleged to have been so earned is of unprecedented amounts and their investment in property, shares etc. not only in India but also abroad. Therefore, he HC also observed that the Central Govt. should exercise the powers u/s 45(1A) of the PML Act for transferring investigation from the ED to the CBI. If such an order is not passed by the Central Govt, any material found by the CBI during investigation, which leads to an inference of money laundering will be shared by the CBI with the ED from time to time, to enable the ED to take such action, as may be necessary. The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment preferred this appeal.
HELD THAT:- On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are clearly of the view that no interference is called for. the CBI is investigating into the commission of these offences alone and presently is not investigating any offence under the PML Act as the investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the ED, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Govt. u/s 45 (1-A) of the Act.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1702 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the issue of concept of principle of mutuality has not been adjudicated. Similarly, the CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee in paragraph 7.4 as under “7.4 in view of the above facts and legal position, I am not in a position to interfere with the order of the AO. The disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80IA(4) at ₹ 47,69,410/- made by the AO is, therefore, confirmed” 10. From the orders of the lower authorities, it is manifest that the issue of principle of mutuality has not been adjudicated. We note that the assessee has raised this issue before the AO as recorded by the AO as reproduced above and before he CIT(A) vide letter dated 9.7.2008. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the issue of mutuality to the record of the AO for consideration and adjudication of the same as per law. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th Mar,2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1701 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ons. It is further pointed that Ext.P3 letter is taken only on 5.3.2011 and the writ petition is filed even before the assessing authority could receive the same. 3. However, in view of the observations contained in Ext.P2, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given liberty to approach the assessing authority seeking the benefits under the Amnesty Scheme by filing proper application in the prescribed format. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to submit such application within a period of one week. It is made clear that if any proper application is received by the first respondent assessing authority, the same shall be considered and disposed of without any further delay, at any rate within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application. 4. If any application as directed above is submitted, within the time stipulated recovery steps shall be kept in abeyance till a decision is taken on such application.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1700 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty forthwith unless his presence is required in jail in connection with any other case.” 10. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as here also there is no explanation for the unreasonable delay in executing the detention order, we set aside the detention order and direct that the detenue be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case. We may point out that on 16.12.2010 by virtue of our order dated 16.12.2010, which is extracted above, the detenue was directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. In view of the order passed in this petition today, the bail bond stands cancelled and the sureties stand discharged. The writ petition stands allowed as above. There shall be no orders as to costs.
............
|
