|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1382 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1266 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - full deduction - as the assessee has failed to maintain evidence to segregate non-deductible input tax relating to exempt transactions it has failed to establish the claim of deductible input tax on direct method as explained to segregate non-deductible input tax - Held that: - it is clear that the input tax in relation to any registered dealer means tax collected or payable under this Act on the sale by him on any goods for use in the course of his business. Output tax in relation to any registered dealer means, the tax payable under this Act in respect of any taxable sale of goods made by the dealer in the course of his business. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 makes it clear that subject to input tax restrictions specified in Sections 11, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19, net tax payable by the registered dealer in respect of each tax period shall be the amount of output tax payable by him for that period less input tax deductible by him, as prescribed in that period.
Merely because the said de-oiled cake also has a value and he sells the same, there is no justification to deny the benefit of deduction to the assessee, because there is no direct nexus between the sunflower oil cake and the de-oiled cake. Sunflower oil cake was purchased for the purpose of extracting oil from the said cake and for the sale of the de-oiled cake, the assessee has not put-up a separate unit. Therefore, it is not the case that assessee has put-up a separate industry for the purpose of manufacture of de-oiled cake and merely because the de-oiled cake has some value and it is sold, that would not take away the benefit conferred on the assessee by the statute. A harmonious interpretation of Sections 10, 11(a)(1) and 17 of KVAT Act and Rule 131 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005, makes it very clear that it is only when there is direct relationship to the taxable sales, the assessee is entitled to the benefit.
The assessee is entitled to the benefit of 'Full Input Tax Deduction' - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1265 - ITAT KOLKATA
Compensation for giving up right to receive pension - nature of receipt - assessee had to surrender his right to receive pension on account of the partners of the erstwhile Arther Anderson joining S.R. Batliboi & Co - Held that:- The ratio decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Khanna and Annadhanam [2013 (1) TMI 681 - DELHI HIGH COURT] applies in all force, thus respectfully following it, the Assessing Officer is directed to treat the lump sum received by the assessee on giving up the right the receipt of retirement benefit as capital receipt in the hands of the assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1264 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benefit of Section 54(1) in respect of the second residential property purchased by him - whether purchase of “a residential house’ as mentioned in Section 54(1) means ‘one residential house’ only? - Held that:- From the facts it is clear that having sold the property in Basavanagudi, probably, as the assessee could not secure a proper residential house sufficiently big to invest the entire sale consideration derived from the sale of residential house, he has chosen to purchase two properties nearby. In fact to purchase a second property, the balance consideration was not sufficient.
Therefore, in the sale deed in respect of the second residential house, the name of his wife who is a doctor by profession as well as his father’s name are included who might have contributed the balance sale consideration. So it is not a case where the assessee is attempting to evade tax. He had made a bonafide attempt to invest the sale consideration from the sale of residential premises in purchasing two residential premises in the very same locality situated nearby. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (7) TMI 1263 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowance of depreciation claimed on Wind Mill on the reasons that it has been incurred for development of the infrastructure of the land - Held that:- From the nature of various payments, it is clear that separate amounts towards earth work and the foundation; erection and commissioning have already been paid to Suzion Infrastructure Ltd. Hence, in our opinion, the payments made to TNEB are not towards development of land infrastructure, foundations, erection and installing and commissioning etc., which in the sense of terminology of development of windmill are actually infrastructure charges.
we are of the opinion that these charges paid to TNEB are for evacuation of land, towards fee of NOC of land and its registration and supervision charges to make unhindered land available and ensure technical specifications. Accordingly, the same cannot form part of the plant and machinery of windmill to be eligible for depreciation. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the lower authorities are right in treating the payment towards permission for land utilization, NOC and registration of land and has rightly capitalized them with the cost of land and denied deprecation on this payment - Decided against assessee
Addition towards interest on investment expenditure incurred in new the line of business - Held that:- In order to allow as the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business must be of an existing business. In this case, as the business was not set up at the time of incurring the interest; therefore, no question of allowance of interest is allowable u/s 36(1)(iii). Whether this was a part of new business or not was a fact, which was for the assessee to establish and the assessee was failed to establish the fact even before us. Being so, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the assessee. In the premises, the lower authorities were right in disallowing the proportionate interest expenditure relating to the investment made in the new line of business - Decided against assessee
-
2014 (7) TMI 1262 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- The disallowance has been made only on the reason that TDS has not been deducted by the assessee on the said expenditure.
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AT & T Communications Services India Pvt. Ltd.(2012 (2) TMI 8 - DELHI HIGH COURT ), has held that invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) for making disallowance should not be ground for the levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Also, in the case of New Horizon India Ltd. Vs. DCIT ( 2010 (5) TMI 653 - ITAT DELHI) the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act on the ground that the assessee cannot be held guilty of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income on account of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1261 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Disallowance of expenses incurred on temporary erections and site accommodation - Held that:- The assessee has been maintaining proper books of account and in the light of the nature of activities undertaken by the assessee, we find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee that at every site temporary constructions are made and a particular percentage of expenditure is debited to the account under the head "temporary site accommodation" and whatever materials were left out from the site they are being reutilized further. Therefore, no excess claim was raised by the assessee. Since no disallowance was ever made in earlier assessment years, we find no justification in the disallowance made in this very assessment year, as the AO cannot blow not and cold in the same breath by admitting the claim of the assessee in one assessment year and denying the same in the succeeding assessment year. We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of the assessee is reasonable and is allowable - Decided in favour of assessee.
Disallowance of expenses incurred on shuttering, centering, scaffolding, etc. - Held that:- The assessee has been debiting a particular amount per cubic metre to the cost of the project as expenses incurred in shuttering, centering, scaffolding, etc. keeping in view the complexity of nature of work. Copy of the office circular is available at p. 54 of the compilation of the assessee, in which guidelines have been laid down for debit of ₹ 600 per cubic metre on account of shuttering, centering, scaffolding, etc. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of complexity of the work, we are of the view that the assessee's claim of expenses on shuttering, centering, scaffolding, etc. raised as per circulars issued by the department is an allowable expenditure in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case. It is also evident from the record that in earlier year no disallowance was made on this account. Therefore, following the rule of consistency, disallowance cannot be made in the impugned assessment year without any valid reason. We accordingly find no merit in the disallowance and we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and delete the addition in this regard.
Disallowance of deduction under s. 80-IA - Held that:- We find that the claim of deduction under s. 80-IA of the Act was allowed in asst. yrs. 2005-06 and 2007-08 by the AO himself and in asst. yr. 2003-04 the claim was disallowed, but later on it was allowed by the learned CIT(A) and the Revenue has not challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) before the Tribunal. Therefore, it attained finality. Therefore, in the light of these facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee under s. 80-IA of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue.
Addition of provision for "foreseen loss" - Held that:- we find that the assessee has not placed any evidence on record to demonstrate the basis for making provision for "foreseen loss". No doubt, foreseen loss may be possible in the business of the assessee as it is engaged in complicated construction work, but without any basis provision for foreseen loss cannot be created. We are, therefore, of the view that whenever loss is suffered, it can be debited to its P&L a/c and the Revenue may allow the same after making necessary verification. Accordingly, we hold that in the impugned assessment year provision for foreseen loss cannot be allowed, but the assessee will be allowed to debit the actual loss suffered by it in any of the assessment years and the same would be allowed by the Revenue after making necessary verification.
Disallowance of prior period expenses booked in this year - Held that:- As we have confirmed the addition having noted that the assessee could not place any evidence to establish that the prior period liabilities have been crystallised in the impugned assessment year. Similar is the position in the instant case, as nothing is placed on record to establish that the liabilities for earlier years have been crystallised in the impugned assessment year. Accordingly, following the view taken in the foregoing paras, we confirm the addition.
Non-deduction of TDS - assessee has submitted that the payment was made in the nature of advance, therefore, the same cannot be disallowed on non-deduction of TDS - Held that:- This issue requires a fresh adjudication by the lower authorities after necessary verification with regard to the nature of payment. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to adjudicate this issue in the light of evidence with regard to the nature of payment. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is disposed of.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1260 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Allowability of deduction under Section 80-IB - whether the activity undertaken by the assessee qualifies to be a manufacturing activity? - Tribunal allowed the claim - Held that:- The Division Bench of this Court in "CIT v. Arts & Crafts Exports" [2011 (12) TMI 338 - Bombay High Court] held that whether the decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee for earlier year that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing activity and, therefore, entitled to deduction under Section 80-IB, had been accepted by the revenue and no argument was advanced to establish that the said decision of the Tribunal was erroneous, allowability of deduction under Section 80-IB of the Act during relevant previous year could not be assailed by the revenue. The facts of this case and present cases are similar. The ratio of this decision, in our view, is perfectly applicable to the present cases. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (7) TMI 1259 - ITAT CUTTACK
Application filed u/s 12A - rejection of claim holding that the Assessee was not engaged in charitable activities - Held that:- It is not the case of the Assessee that it is running a normal schooling for sports. Therefore, we hold that the Assessee‟s activities do not fall within the term “education”.
CIT has used material behind the back of the Assessee for rejecting the registration and has not given him proper opportunity, we, therefore, with our above observation set aside the order of CIT and restore this issue to the file of CIT with the direction that the CIT shall look into the matter of registration of the institution afresh after giving proper and sufficient opportunity to the Assessee to prove that the objects for which the Assessee institution is created are genuine and are for charitable purposes. We may clarify that while considering the application of the Assessee for registration, the CIT should not apply proviso to Sec. 2(15) retrospectively. If he so choses that in view of the proviso inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2009 the activities carried on by the Assessee no more remains charitable as per the amended definition of Sec. 2(15), he may pass an order u/s 154 rectifying his order withdrawing the registration of the Assessee in case he grants registration to the Assessee w.e.f. 1.4.2009 by passing a specaking order. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1258 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Illegal arrest and unlawful detention of husband Dr. N. Pravakar Babu (hereinafter 'the detenue') of petitioner - fundamental rights alleged to have been violated in the present case by the arresting officer while arresting and detaining the detenue - Whether 1994 TOHO Act will be applicable since the donor and the recipient belong to State of Odisha in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when no approval/no objection certificate has been taken from the Authorisation Committee constituted by the State of Odisha under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of section 9 of the said Act? - Whether the concerned hospital authorities have followed the procedure laid down in 1995 A.P. TOHO Act and the Rules framed thereunder so also the guidelines issued by Govt. of Andhra Pradesh in this case while carrying out kidney transplantation operation? - Whether an F.I.R. under section 19 (subsequently added section is section 18) of the 1994 TOHO Act can be registered at Mangalabag Police Station and whether Mangalabag police has jurisdiction to investigate such case and arrest the detenue? - whether arrest is illegal, unauthorized and is in violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India?
Held that:- We are of the view that since in the present case the donor and the recipient both belong to State of Orissa, the Authorisation Committee constituted under clause (b) of sub-section (4) of Section 9 of 1994 TOHO Act by the State Government is the competent authority and no objection certificate should have been obtained from such Authorization Committee. In the case in hand, as no approval/No-Objection Certificate of the Authorisation Committee constituted by the State Government of Odisha has been taken, we are of the prima facie view that the provisions of 1994 TOHO Act and the rules framed thereunder have been violated.
Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. Section 50(1) Cr.P.C. states that every police officer or other person arresting any person without warrant shall forthwith communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest. The two requirements of clause (1) of Article 22 are meant to afford the earliest opportunity to the arrested person to remove any mistake, misapprehension or misunderstanding in the mind of the arresting authority and also to know exactly what the accusation against him is, so that he can exercise the second right, namely, consulting a legal practitioner of his choice and to be defended by him. The fundamental right secured to a arrested person by Article 22(1) is to give protection against such arrest as are effected otherwise than under a warrant issued by a Court on the allegation or accusation that the arrested person has or is suspected to have committed or is about or likely to commit any offence prejudicial to the public or the State interest.
In the present case, the arrest was made without an order from a competent Magistrate and without a warrant. The ground of arrest was not communicated to the detenue. Thus, we are of the view that there is violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India read with Section 50 Cr.P.C. Section 57 Cr.P.C.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are granting interim bail to the petitioner till final disposal of this writ petition. Let the petitioner be released on interim bail on furnishing bail bond of ₹ 10,000,00/- (Ten lakh) with two solvent local sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., (Sadar) Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 950 of 2014 arising out Mangalabag P.S. Case No. 98 of 2014 with a further condition that he shall deposit cash security of ₹ 2,000,00/- (Two lakh) in the shape of fixed deposit in his name or in the name of any of his family members in any Nationalised Bank which shall be pledged in the name of the concerned Court and shall be renewed from time to time till disposal of the case and may be appropriated as compensation, if any, found payable by the petitioner. The learned S.D.J.M., (Sadar), Cuttack is at liberty to fix any other suitable terms and conditions.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1257 - ITAT KOLKATA
Allowing the deduction u/s 80IA - Held that:- This is an undisputed fact that the assessee made a claim u/s 80IA of the Act for the first time in A.Yr.2004-05 which was disallowed by the AO. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed an appeal for A.Yr.2004-05 but the ld.CIT(A) has for the first time allowed the eligibility of the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act during A.Yr.2006-07 as that appeal was heard first. In the appellate order for A.Yr.2006-07, the CIT(A) after examining the claim of the assesee took a view that the assessee is eligible for the claim of deduction u/s 80IA.
The order for A.Yr.2006-07 had been followed in A.Yr.2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 by the CIT(A). In view of this fact in A.Yr.2006-07 in which the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA was examined on merit for the first time by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) not serving the notice to the AO has violated the provision of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 250 of the IT Act and thus denied the natural justice to the Revenue so that the Revenue could have placed its case before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore we hold that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is in violation of principles of natural justice and we therefore set aside the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction to the ld.CIT(A) to give the AO proper and sufficient opportunity of being heard and to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.
Since we have set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) for A.Yr.2006-07 in which the CIT(A) for the first time allowed the claim of the assesse u/s 80IA of the Act and in subsequent year CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 80IA of the Act by following the order for A.Yr.2006-07. We, therefore, set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) for A.Yr.2004-05, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09 also and restore the issue involved to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with the direction that the ld. CIT(A) shall redecide the appeal for all these assessment years afresh after deciding the appeal for the A.Yr.2006-07. - Appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1256 - SUPREME COURT
Conviction and sentence passed against the appellants for the offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC - murder of Manikandan - Held that:- In the FIR, Valarmathi (PW-1) had not disclosed the presence of Amirthavalli (PW-2) and Murugan (PW-4) at the scene of occurrence at Mariyamman Temple. Nothing was stated with regard to Amirthavalli (PW-2) and Murugan (PW-4). Valarmathi (PW-1) did not disclose the presence of Amirthavalli (PW-2) at the scene of occurrence. The deceased was last seen with accused Nos.1 and 4 by Village headman by name, super supparayan, who said to had been present at the place where the deceased was last seen in the company of accused, was neither named as prosecution witness nor examined. There was inordinate delay of more than six days in filing the complaint about the missing of Manikandan but Valarmathi (PW-1) has not explained the delay in lodging such complaint.
In the present case as noticed above, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of last seen version emanating from eye witness Valarmathi (PW-1), Amirthavalli (PW-3) and Murugan (PW-4) and as per the prosecution case is also doubtful, there being contradiction about place where the accused were last seen with the deceased Manikandan. The High Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge.
For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras and impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1255 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Lenders exclusive charge on a specific asset - lenders assets of the project kept outside the ambit of the proposed CDR package - proof of Curtailment of contractual rights of the plaintiff - modifications in the proposed CDR Package seeked - Held that:- It is rightly argued by Mr.Sethi and it appears to the Court that the defendant No.3 (ICICI Bank) has given consent to the CDR Package because they are a part of the CDR Mechanism in question and as the defendant No.3 has a higher exposure in the working capital facility as opposed to the term loan facility. Therefore, the defendant No.3 has joined the CDR scheme even if ICICI Bank has consented and other banks who are not a party to the Rupees Term Loan agreement dated 17th May, 2011, there is no obligation on the plaintiff to consent as well.
From the entire gamut of the case, this Court is of the view that the lenders having exclusive charge on a specific asset cannot be forced to share their charge on the security. The said assets are to keep outside the ambit of the proposed CDR package. The said assets of the project shall continue to be charged exclusively to the term lenders of the said project and security on the said assets of the project shall not be shared with other lenders of the defendant No.1. The defendants No.1 & 2 in the present case want to proceed with a CDR package by violating the contractual rights of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in the present case admittedly sought modifications in the proposed CDR Package as the plaintiff and the defendant No.3/pro-forma defendant had extended financial assistance for purposes of funding the said project and that as a security, a first charge was created in favour of the Security Trustee exclusively for the benefit of inter alia the plaintiff and the defendant No.3/pro-forma defendant herein qua the said assets of the said project.
Therefore, the prayer made in the application under Section 151 CPC for modification and under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC for vacation of ex- parte order, cannot be allowed as there is no merit in the said applications. The same are dismissed. However, it is clarified that if defendants No. 1 and 2 shall keep the said assets of the project outside the ambit of the proposed CDR package, they may continue with the said scheme but they cannot force the plaintiff to share their charge on the security. In view of the aforesaid reason, similar is the position filed by defendant No.3. The prayer made in the applications cannot be granted. The said application filed by defendant No.3 is accordingly dismissed. Another application filed by State Bank of Patiala under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also infructuous and the same is dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1254 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, MUMBAI
Maintainability of petition - Transfer/transmission of all the shares - time limitation - Whether petition is barred by limitation? - Held that: - from bare reading of the contents of the correspondences dated 26th November, 1992 (Annexure 11), 28th October, 1992 (Annexure 12), and 10th February, 1998 it is seen that the petitioners were having knowledge of the entire affairs with respect to the shares in question from beginning - In the present case, although it has been argued that the petitioner came to know only in the year 2009 when their application for transmission/transfer of shares was refused by the respondent-company, however, from the appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties discussed hereinabove, in my opinion, it is proved that the petitioners had knowledge since for the last so many years, but despite having knowledge they did not approach the CLB for the appropriate reliefs knowing fully-well that they have not genuine claim in respect of the shares in question - the petition is time barred and is liable to be dismissed.
Whether reliefs sought by the petitioners relate to question of title of immovable property and complicated question of facts and law are involved and, therefore, the Company Law Board ('CLB') has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, and, thus, the parties are required to be relegated to civil court? - Held that: - As is evident from the perusal of the pleadings, the present dispute relate to transmission of shares by a claimant claiming on the basis of legal heir-ship as well as a legatee of the Will executed by his late Father. It has nothing to do with the property and, therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that under sections 111 and 111A of the Act, is entitled to entertain the petition one has jurisdiction to try the same - no serious question of facts and law is involved and the parties need not be relegated to the civil court for the purpose of adjudication of their rights as to the title of the shares in question. I, therefore, do not find any force in this objection of the respondents and the same is rejected.
Whether, the petitioners have suppressed material and vital fact and have not approached this forum with clean hands, if so its effect? - Held that: - This issue was not seriously agitared by the learned counsel for the respondents. I also do not see any substance in this plead. It is, therefore, answered in negative.
Whether the name of the late Mr. Mohanlal Dalwani in respect of 15 shares and 49 shares in question was illegally entered by the respondent No. 1-company in violation of AoA of the company, if so its effect? - Are the petitioners entitled to the shares in question related to Flat No. 6B in dispute? - Held that: - I have no hesitation to hold that the company had rightly distributed the shares on the basis of the Will. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the recording of the names of the shareholder by the company in the register of members. Therefore, the impugned resolution is perfectly valid and does not require to be cancelled.
The petitioners have failed to prove that the company has refused the transmission/transfer of shares without sufficient cause. They have further failed to prove that the name of late Mohanlal Daliwani was wrongly entered in the register of members of the company without sufficient cause, I have already held hereinabove that the petition is time barred. Thus, the petition is without devoid of substance and deserves to be dismissed.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1253 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interim mandatory injunction - Arbitration and Conciliation - restraining the appellants from withdrawing the amounts retained by the Corporation Bank in the appellants' account to the extent of USD 60 Million and in the event the balance in the said account with the Corporation Bank is less than USD 60 Million, a direction to the appellants to deposit the short fall in the said account, so as to maintain the balance of USD 60 Millions - Held that:- As noticed an interim mandatory injunction can only be granted in exceptional cases and that too preserve or restore status quo of the last non-contesting status, which preceded the controversy. The grant of interim mandatory injunction must not amount to grant of pre trial decree. Such relief is essentially an equitable relief and discretion in that regard has to be exercised in light of facts and circumstances of each case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that interests of justice would be served, if the appellants are directed to deposit an additional amount equivalent to USD 20 Million in its Corporation Bank Account at Mumbai, so that total deposit in the said account is maintained at USD 30 Million. This is on the basis that the HSBC can be said to have made out a fairly strong case, of a standard higher than a mere prima-facie case, for an award of such amount in the arbitral proceedings at Singapore. This direction to deposit, is certainly, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal at Singapore. Accordingly, we may not be taken to have expressed any final opinion either upon the merits of the contentions of either parties or quantum of damages.
Thus we partly allow the present appeal. The direction to the appellants to deposit the shortfall in the Corporation Bank Account at Mumbai, so as to maintain balance of USD 60 Million is substituted by a direction to the appellants to deposit the shortfall in the said account, so as to maintain a balance of USD 30 Million within four weeks from today. Save and except the aforesaid modification, rest of the directions in the impugned judgment and order dated 22 January 2014, are hereby upheld and maintained.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1252 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - meditation - Held that:- In order to promote mediation as a process for an Alternative Disputes Resolution in monitory transactions as in the cases under Section 138 of the Act as it was really a civil dispute which was converted into a criminal prosecution with a view to make the drawer of the cheque to honour the cheque than to send them to prison as mentioned in the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (2010 (5) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), Court can allow reasonable time to parties to fulfill the terms of the agreement so as to avoid prolonged litigation for realisation of the amount So, under the said circumstances, in order to promote the settlement arrived at in the mediation if a reasonable time is provided in the mediation agreement namely, up to 6 months and if the parties are willing to abide by the condition, then it is always better that court can wait for that much time to allow the parties to honour the settlement that has been arrived in the mediation and the purpose of the mediation is to restore the relationship between the parties and that can be achieved by that and that will give a boost for a process of mediation to be used by the parties to resolve their disputes amicably.
So, under the circumstances, this court feels that since six months period is provided will be over by 17.08.2014, the learned Magistrate is directed to keep the case till that date without insisting for evidence so as to allow the parties to honour the settlement which has been arrived in the mediation process and if the amount is not paid and the application for compounding is not filed within that time, then the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case, considering the principles laid down in this decision regarding the mediation agreement which has not been honoured by the accused and dispose of the case in accordance with law. If a compounding application is filed on the basis of the same agreement later, then that can be taken only as a delaying process by the accused and it can be accepted only in terms of the guidelines provided in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).
-
2014 (7) TMI 1251 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - tour operator service - rent-a-cab service - N/N. 1/2006 - Held that: - on the very same issue in respect of the very same appellant for the earlier period, vide Final Order No. 20187/2014 dated 06.02.2014, this Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication - the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the issue along with the matter already remanded vide Final Order referred above - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1250 - SC ORDER
Confiscation - Misdeclaration - the decision in the case of TRIVENI STEELS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [2009 (5) TMI 792 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - there are no merit in these appeals - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1249 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
TPA - Rejection of comparable - Tribunal rejecting Companies on the ground of exceptionally large scale of operations and functional difference and failing the RPT filter being more than 15% - Held that:- Tribunal followed the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s.Intoto Software India (P) Limited (2013 (10) TMI 599 - ITAT HYDERABAD). Learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the above order of the Tribunal has been confirmed by this Court. The issue therefore needs no further reconsideration
communication expenses should be excluded both from export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A - Held that:- Tribunal merely followed the decision of the Karnataka High Court in CIT. v. Tata Elxsi Limited (2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) which was also followed by the Tribunal in ITO v. Sak Soft Limited (2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D). Though the learned Standing Counsel states that an appeal has been preferred against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, it holds good till set aside. We are not persuaded to disagree with the reasoning of the Karnataka High Court in the above decision. Np question of law.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1248 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Addition on unexplained sales - Held that:- The Tribunal while adjudicating the issue against the assessee had noticed in its order dated 30.8.2013, Annexure A.3 that the dispute was relating to three sales bills amounting to ₹ 37,30,300/- under which alleged cash sales were made. There was no mention of any quantity sold. The name of the parties to whom the goods were sold was also missing. There was totalling errors in each bill and the mode of transportation of those goods also could not be explained by the assessee. On consideration of entire material on record, it was concluded that the genuineness of the transaction could not be established. The Tribunal was, thus, justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 37,30,300/- as unexplained sales.
Disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and part disallowance out of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses - Held that:- Where the respondent is aggrieved against any disallowance or addition sustained by the CIT(A) which is not under challenge at the behest of the appellant, the only remedy available with the respondent is to either file separate appeal or agitate the issue by way of cross objections in the appeal filed by the appellant impugning the disallowance or the addition sustained. Thus, no error could be pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent-assessee in the approach of the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court under Section 260A of the Act. The Tribunal had rightly not allowed the assessee to urge relating to disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and part disallowance out of car expenses, car depreciation and telephone expenses.
No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1247 - ITAT JAIPUR
Disallowance of payment of commission - Held that:- The assessee is manufacturing of current and potential transformers & electrical control equipments. The appellant had been assisted by M/s Sadem India Ltd., Bhiwadi to execute the tender of various electricity boards. The genuineness of the payments in form of commission has not been doubted by the Revenue. The TDS has been deducted and paid to the government exchequer. The documents filed by the appellant before the lower authority supported that M/s Sadem India Ltd. has rendered service to the appellant by providing information of tender, attending the tender on behalf of the appellant, liaisoning with the various electricity boards, helping in recovering the payments, providing number of tenders, providing experience with the government department etc. The appellant had submitted all the details before the Assessing Officer to prove the services rendered by M/s Sadem India Ltd., which has not been controverted by the Revenue.
The agents have rendered the services like procurement of orders, ascertaining the quality, timely payment etc. The recipient has declared the commission in his return of income and has confirmed to have rendered the services to the assessee. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. and has rightly directed to enhance the allowance of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act.
Deduction u/s 80IB on interest on Bank FDRs - Held that:- The FDRs were made for providing bank guarantee to the Electricity Board. Apparently, the interest on FDRs directly connected with the industrial undertaking. Even the assessee’s argument of netting of interest income is accepted. It automatically increased the profit of the assessee undertaking and the deduction U/s 80IB of the Act is also increases. We find that FDRs were made for business purposes and for getting the tender from the Electricity Board and income from interest income is directly connected with the industrial undertaking. Therefore, we confirm the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we dismiss the Revenue’s appeal on this ground.
............
|
