Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2010 2010 (4) 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 141 to 160 of 831 Records

• 2010 (4) TMI 1097 - ITAT DELHI
  

  Deduction u/s 10B denied - STP unit cannot automatically be regarded as a 100% EOU - whether CIT(A) has erred allowing deduction u/s 10B to the assessee company which is in contravention of the statutory requirement contained in Explanation 2(iv) of section 10B which stipulates a mandatory condition that a hundred per cent export oriented undertaking means an undertaking by the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951)and the rules made under the Act?

  HELD THAT:- We find that this issue has been decided by Ld CIT(A) on the basis of Instruction No.1 dated 31.3.2006 issued by CBDT and Minutes of Industrial Ministerial Communication vide letter dated 23.3.2006 issued by the Ministry of Communication and Technology. Since the facts are identical in the present case, this Tribunal decision rendered in the case of regency Creations Ltd.[2011 (5) TMI 943 - ITAT DELHI] is directly applicable in the present case and respectfully following this Tribunal decision, We hold that the STIP registration granted to the assessee on 16.11.1998 is valid for allowing deduction to the assessee u/s 10B and hence we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld CIT(A) on this issue.

  We would also like to point out that in an earlier year i.e. AY 2004-05, the AO himself has allowed deduction u/s 10B to the assessee in a scrutiny assessment. It is also not brought on record by the revenue that this order is revised u/s 263 or reopened u/s 147. Under these facts, we feel that having decided in assessment year 2004-05 that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 10B, it cannot be denied in this subsequent year on the basis that the assessee is not an 100% EOU for the reason that necessary approval is not with the assessee.

  This is against the rule of consistency. For this reason also, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld CIT(A). In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1096 - ITAT DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e in support of 1 provision is bona fide, and therefore, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable in the present case and hence, in spite of part disallowance having been confirmed by the Tribunal on account of provision for warranty expenses, we feel that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) because such disallowance of part expenses does not take the character of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income because of bona fide explanation furnished by the assessee which is not found to be false and although the assessee could not substantiate this explanation, but in our humble opinion such explanation is bona fide and all necessary facts are disclosed and hence, the section 271(1)(c) is not applicable and we, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the order of CIT(A) as per which he has deleted the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in open court on 23.04.2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1095 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Jessica Lal Murder Case - Appeal u/s 379 CrPC - HC reversed the order of acquittal - Conviction u/s 302, 201/120B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life - Section 27 of the Arms Act - The Incident took on night intervening 29-30.04.1999, at restaurant also called "Tamarind Cafe". The liquor was being served by the bartenders, namely, Jessica Lal (since deceased) and one Shyan Munshi (PW-2). At about 2.00 a.m., Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma along with his friends came there and asked for two drinks. The waiter did not serve him liquor as the party was over. On refusal to serve liquor, the appellant took out a pistol and fired one shot at the roof and another at Jessica Lal which hit near her left eye as a result of which she fell down. Jessica Lal was rushed to Ashlok Hospital from where she was shifted to Apollo Hospital. On 30.04.1999, in the early morning hours, Jessica Lal was declared brought dead at Apollo Hospital.

  HELD THAT:- It is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma after committing the murder of Jessica Lal fled away from the scene of occurrence. It is further proved from the testimony of PW-100, PW-101, PW-87 Raman Lamba, PW-85 and PW-80 that from afternoon of 30.04.1999 search was made for the black Tata Safari bearing Regn. No. CH-01-W-6535 and for Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma, Director of Piccadilly Sugar Industries at Bhadson, Kurukshetra, Chandigarh, his farmhouse at Samalkha and Okhla Delhi. It is also proved that even after the seizure of vehicle on 02.05.1999 the search for accused Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma continued and search was made at Piccadilly Cinema, Piccadilly Hotel, his residence at Chandigarh, PGI Hospital where his father was subsequently admitted. However, accused Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma was not found nor anybody informed his whereabouts and it is only on 06.05.1999 that accused Sidharth Vashisht @ Manu Sharma surrendered at Patiala Guest House, Chandigarh in the presence of Shri Harish Ghai, advocate and Sh. Vinod Dada. The above evidence of the witnesses clearly establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused Manu Sharma absconded after committing the crime and surrendered on 06.05.1999 after extensive searches were made.

  Accused Manu Sharma was sent to judicial custody on 15.05.1999 and the statement of witnesses continued even thereafter and thus resort to photo identification was properly taken by mixing the photograph of accused Manu Sharma with number of other photographs and asking the witnesses to pick up the photograph of the person they had witnessed on the fateful night and the morning thereafter i.e. 29/30.04.99. This mode of photo identification was resorted to vis-`-vis Deepak Bhojwani PW-1 on 24.05.1999 at Delhi, Shiv Dass PW-3 and Karan Rajput PW-4 on 29.05.99 and Shyan Munshi PW-2 on 19.05.99 at Calcutta. Thus there is no merit in the contention of the defense that the dock identification was a farce as it was done for the first time in the Court.

  the appellant-Manu Sharma has, inter alia, has taken false pleas in reply to question nos. 50, 54, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 67, 72, 75 and 210 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.(ii) Adverse inference qua non explanation of Pistol Appellant/Accused - Manu Sharma was holder of a pistol .22" bore P Berretta, made in Italy duly endorsed on his arms licence. It was his duty to have kept the same in safe custody and to explain its whereabouts. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt on record that extensive efforts were made to trace the pistol and the same could not be recovered. Moreover as per the testimony of CN Kumar, PW-43, DSP/NCRB, RK Puram there is no complaint or report of the said pistol. Thus an adverse inference has to be drawn against the accused-Manu Sharma for non- explanation of the whereabouts of the said pistol.

  Similarly another plea not supported by any positive evidence led by the appellant-Manu Sharma is that his pistol i.e. the weapon of offence and the arms licence was recovered from his farm house on 30.04.1999, when in fact it is an established fact that the pistol could not be recovered and that the licence was surrendered on 06.05.1999 at the time of his arrest. It defies all logic and ordinary course of conduct to allege that the prosecution has withheld the pistol after seizing the same from his farmhouse. The fact that he has failed to produce the pistol, a presumption shall arise that if he has produced it, the testing of the same would have been to his prejudice. The burden thus shifts on him.

  As per the disclosure of accused-Manu Sharma, the pistol was given to accused - Ravinder Sudan @ Titu (PO). It has been proved by the testimony of PW- 37, Martin Raj and PW-49-Inspector Mahender Singh Rathi that accused, Ravinder Sudan @ Titu left the country by Gulf Airways on 04.05.1999. Accused-Manu Sharma surrendered on 06.05.1999 only after accused Ravinder Sudan @ Titu left the country. It is pointed out by the State that calls were made from PCO, Ambala and PCO Hazrat Nizamuddin which have been duly proved by the testimony of PW-36, Ram Lal Jagdev, PW-16-Raj Narain Singh, PW-17-Mohd. Jaffar. This conduct of accused-Manu Sharma which is relevant and admissible u/s 8 of the Indian Evidence Act an adverse inference has to be drawn against Manu Sharma for this conduct.

  Summary of our Conclusion:

  The appellate Court has all the necessary powers to re-evaluate the evidence let in before the trial Court as well as the conclusions reached. It has a duty to specify the compelling and substantial reasons in case it reverses the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In the case on hand, the High Court by adhering to all the ingredients and by giving cogent and adequate reasons reversed the order of acquittal.

  The presence of the accused at the scene of crime is proved through the ocular testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 6, 20, 23, 24 and 70, corroborated by Ex PW 12/D-I as well as 3 PCR calls Ex PW 11/A, B and C.

  Phone calls made immediately after an incident to the police constitutes an FIR only when they are not vague and cryptic. Calls purely for the reason of getting the police to the scene of crime do not necessarily constitute the FIR. In the present case, the phone calls were vague and therefore could not be registered as the FIR. The FIR was properly lodged as per the statement of Shyan Munshi PW-2.

  Delay in recording the statement of the witnesses do not necessarily discredit their testimonies. The court may rely on such testimonies if they are cogent and credible.

  The laboratory reports in the present case are vague and ambiguous and, therefore, they cannot be relied upon to reach any specific conclusion regarding the incident.

  The evidence regarding the actual incident, the testimonies of witnesses, the evidence connecting the vehicles and cartridges to the accused - Manu Sharma, as well as his conduct after the incident prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court has analyzed all the evidence and arrived at the correct conclusion.

  The public prosecutor is under a duty of disclosure under the Cr.P.C., Bar Council Rules and relevant principles of common law. Nevertheless, a violation of this duty does not necessarily vitiate the entire trial. A trial would only be vitiated if non-disclosure amounts to a material irregularity and causes irreversible prejudice to the accused. In the present case, no such prejudice was caused to the accused, and therefore the trial is not vitiated.

  No prejudice had been caused to the right of the accused to fair trial and non-furnishing of the copy of one of the ballistic reports had not hampered the ends of justice. The right of the accused to disclosure has not received any set back in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  The High Court has rightly convicted the other two accused, namely, Amardeep Singh Gill @ Tony Gill and Vikas Yadav after appreciation of the evidence of PWs 30 and 101.

  Normally, the judgment/order should be set aside or affirmed as the case may be but preferably without offering any undesirable comments, disparaging remarks or indications which would impinge upon the dignity and respect of judicial system.

  Every effort should be made by the print and electronic media to ensure that the distinction between trial by media and informative media should always be maintained. Trial by media should be avoided particularly, at a stage when the suspect is entitled to the constitutional protections. Invasion of his rights is bound to be held as impermissible.

  In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond doubt against the appellants and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court, consequently, all the appeals are devoid of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1094 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tion issue which has been remanded the equal amount of penalty of ₹ 66,00,257/- imposed under Rule 57U (6) of Central Excise Rules 1944 and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- is set aside and the appeal is allowed to this extent. 12. In these circumstances, it is hereby ordered that (i) In case of MODVAT credit amounting to ₹ 20,53,765/- and ₹ 18,20,000/- the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (ii) In case of MODVAT credit amounting to ₹ 4,26,502/- the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is dismissed (iii) The equal amount of penalty of ₹ 66,00,257/- imposed under Rule 57U (6) of Central Excise Rules 1944 and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- is set aside and the appeal is allowed to this extent (iv). In case of MODVAT credit amounting to ₹ 23,00,000/- the case is remanded to the ld. Commissioner for deciding the issue relating to limitation and penalty afresh. 13. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1093 - ITAT DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rabandhak Committee AIR 1940 PC 116. From the above it appears that the word ‘institution’ is wide enough to include a school, which has been established for imparting education. Merely because the assessee-school does not have power to purchase, acquire or sell the property, does not mean that the school will cease to exist as an institution. The status of the assessee could be AOP in the absence of any memorandum of association or trust deed. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the ld. DIT (Exemption) has not examined the status of the assessee-school right perspective. We, therefore, set aside the issue to the file of the ld. DIT (Exemption) with the directions to examine the status of the school as an institution and decide the issue relating to restoring the grant of registration under section 12-A of the Act. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes. The order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1092 - ITAT AGRA
  

  Third member appointment - difference between the ld' JM and the ld' AM - sale of shares and genuineness of receipts of money - Addition in Income from undisclosed and unexplained sources - JM decided the case in favour of the assessee that sale transaction of the assessee has to be treated as genuine and the claim of the assessee has to be accepted. while the learned AM decided the case against the assessee.

  HELD THAT:- The assessee, purchase of the shares has duly been proved and there is no dispute on the purchase of the shares being made by the assessee. The shares were purchased in earlier year. From the entire appreciation of the evidence, I noted that the assessee had acquired the shares, the purchase made on 15th July, 1999 was duly declared by the assessee in earlier years which stand accepted by the Revenue. The shares were sold through stock brokers who were registered with the stock exchange. Shares were sold at the prices quoted at the stock exchange at the relevant time.

  The payment of sale consideration has also flown from the bank account of the broker where the fund came through clearing, not in cash. The decisions of the lower authorities are influenced by the general observation of the Investigation Wing that arose a suspicion turned into conclusive proof in the minds of the authorities that everybody who has sold the shares at a high price has converted his unaccounted money through accommodation entries. This approach does not have any leg to stand. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT [1959 (5) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly laid down that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.

  From the entire appreciation of evidence, I noted that AO has failed to establish that the assessee has introduced her own unaccounted money in the shape of alleged sale proceeds of shares. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT has observed that "the amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of assessee in the absence of positive material brought by the Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to assessee as the burden lay on the Revenue".

  It was the duty of the AO to bring on record sufficient evidences and materials to prove that the documents filed by the assessee were bogus, false or fabricated and the long-term capital gain shown by him was actually his income from undisclosed sources. The only material to support such conclusion of the lower authorities is either the findings of the DDI in general investigations or the twisting statements of M/s P.K. Jain & Associates which remain untested by the AO himself. None of the judicial precedents supports the case of the Revenue. While making addition as income from undisclosed sources, burden on the Department is very heavy to establish that the alleged receipt was actually income of the assessee from the undisclosed sources.

  the action of the CIT(A) was not correct in confirming the assessment as the income from undisclosed sources as against the sale consideration of shares declared by the assessee. The CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the claim of long-term capital gain of the assessee from sale of shares. I accordingly direct the AO to assess the income declared from the sale of shares under the head income from long-term capital gain.

  In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed and that of the Revenue is treated as dismissed.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1091 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... as separate business income and not to reduce them from the cost of purchases-Therefore, in the scheme of s. 80HHC, the face value of DEPB cannot be reduced from the purchase cost but is separate income under s. 28(iiid), which accrues at the time of making application pursuant to exports-Only the profit element on the sale of DEPB, that is the amount in excess of sale proceeds over the face value, is covered under s. 28(iiid)-Since the necessary facts for the determination of the quantum of deduction under s. 80HHC are not available on record, the impugned orders are set aside and the AO is directed to compute the amount of relief in accordance with law” Respectfully following the above decision of the Special Bench, we direct the AO to re-compute the deduction under Section 80HHC in the light of the above decision. 6. In the result, appeals of the Revenue’s are to be treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30th April, 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1090 - ITAT JAIPUR
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... stimate if it is excessive of the 15 per cent of the actual cost then such estimate cannot be made a ground for making the addition. However, in a case where it is noticed by the valuation expert that certain items have not been fully counted then the addition on account of estimate which is less than 15 per cent of the investment shown by the assessee can be added. We feel that the estimate of cost of construction in respect of building is to be taken at ₹ 2.45 crores as against ₹ 2,32,51,711. The AO is, therefore, to ascertain the undisclosed investment in the cost of construction in the same percentage as the cost of construction made during the year vis-a-vis the total cost of construction of the building. Hence the addition made in respect of cost of construction is partly upheld. It is further held that for allowing depreciation, the Revenue will take the cost of building as held by this order. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1089 - ITAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... alf of the assessee nor any adjournment application had been received. It can, therefore, be reasonably concluded that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 2. In such cases Courts’ and Tribunals’ have the inherent power to dismiss the proceedings for non prosecution as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Chemipol vs. U.O.I in order dated 17-9-2009 in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009. On the facts of the case, we are convinced that this is a fit case for dismissal for nonprosecution and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as unadmitted. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open Court on this 28th day of April, 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1088 - ITAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ul perusal of the assessment order shows that Assessing Officer has computed the capital gains at para 4.10 and there he has taken the value of consideration at ₹ 94,79,69,059/- which is the same amount as returned by the assessee. It seems that the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the issue regarding taxability of profits under section 45(2) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has later on changed the amount of capital gains but he has dealt with only regarding the cost of acquisition i.e. fair market value as on 1.4.1981 which he has revised as per the report of the DVO and he also seems to have not dealt with the issue regarding profits u/s.45(2) of the Act. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. with direction to re-examine the issue after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 92. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 6th day of April, 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1087 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ree funds were sufficient to meet the investments. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the CIT(A) and Tribunal.” 17. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, as the interest free funds available with the assessee was much more than the interest free advance given by it and therefore, in our considered opinion, no disallowance out of interest expenditure was warranted. We therefore, delete the disallowance of interest of ₹ 1,38,988/- and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee. 18. The third issue involved is regarding of initiation of penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 19. At the time of the hearing, no arguments were made by the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee on this ground of the appeal. Hence the same is dismissed for want of prosecution. 20 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 01/04/2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1086 - ITAT BANGALORE
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... company and assessee was staying outside India for more than 182 days. The salary payable to the assessee is on broad the Ocean Liner and the salary is not payable in India. It is only the receipt of the salary that is in India on instructions of the assessee to credit the salary in the bank account of the assessee in India. In this context, Hon’ble ITAT Calcutta Bench in the case of Ranjit Kumar Bose reported in 25 TTJ 368 under similar factual matrix has held that the salary accrued outside India cannot be taxed in India merely because it is received in India. The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case". 9. The facts being similar, respectfully following the coordinate bench of the Tribunal cited supra, we hold that the order of the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law and no interference is called for. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. The order is pronounced on 12th April, 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1085 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lf of the assessee has fairly placed before the Court a copy of the order dated 22 February, 2010 passed by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.1202 of 2009 pertaining to the assessee. Following the earlier decision dated 22 February, 2010, we hold that the principle laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer V/s. Arihant Tiles & Marbles P. Ltd. (2010) 320 I.T.R. 79 will be applicable to the facts of the present case. The decision of the Supreme Court will cover the issue against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1084 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... mine the details filed by the assessee before the learned CIT(A) if any, we are of the view that the mater requires reconsideration at the level of the AO. The AO has every right being the Assessing Authority to examine the issue in accordance with law. Since no detail was filed before the AO and no opportunity was given by the learned CIT(A) before arriving at any finding in the matter either in the absence of the record or on the basis of record, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore this issue to the file of the AO with direction to re-decide the issue in accordance with law by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce sufficient material before the AO to dispose of the issue in accordance with law. With this observation this ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. As a result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced on -04-2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1083 - ITAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... agreements clearly provide for the maintenance and repairs of the building called Litolier building, the amenities provided in the building, etc. The labour charges incurred by the assessee appear to be covered by the assessee’s obligations under the agreements. The disallowance of 50 of the labour charges thus appears to be not justified. The same is deleted and the ground is allowed. 25. As regards Ground No.4, which is directed against the disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of ₹ 2,68,317/-, the facts are the same as in ITA No 2795/Mum/2007. In line with the view taken by us therein, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the entire repairs and maintenance expenses. The ground is thus allowed. 26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 27. To sum up - ITA No 2795/Mum/2007 is dismissed; CO No 86/Mum/2010 is dismissed in limine; ITA No 2222/Mum/2008 is allowed; and ITA No 1055/Mum/2008 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 30th April 2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1082 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... adition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.” Applying the said principle laid down by the Supreme Court to the facts of this case and having regard to the fact that a huge amount of ₹ 30,33,157/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Seven only) being claimed as rebate, the second respondent is bound to give a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing any order. In the light of the said finding and having regard to the fact that no personal hearing is given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remitted to the second respondent to give personal hearing to the petitioner and pass revised orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1081 - ITAT KOLKATA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e assessee Company in the said transaction has made a profit of ₹ 10,80,822 in the above arrangement though the said arrangement was not in conformity with the agreement/MOU entered into by the assessee company with it’s Principal, namely Symphony Comfort Systems Ltd., we are of the considered view that it will be fair and reasonable to allow 50 of the expenses of ₹ 6,49,096, the amount shown in the debit note raised by M/s.LM & Co., copy of which is placed on record. In view of the above, the orders of the authorities below is modified to the extent indicated above and ground No.3 of the revised grounds of appeal taken by the assessee is allowed in part by allowing 50 of ₹ 6,49,096 towards marketing expenses as against ₹ 6,62,922 claimed by the assessee (i.e., the amount stated in the grounds of appeal taken before us). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 30.04.2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1080 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... btained or not is a question of fact. This question having been raised before two lower authorities and both authorities having factually found and having answered this question against the appellant, a question of fact of this nature cannot be examine in an appeal under Section 260 of the Act, even though the question as to whether reopening is permitted in law or otherwise may be a question of law. 9. However in the facts and circumstances of the instant case we find that the question of existence of sanction in terms of Sec. 151 of the Act has been answered by the lower authorities against the appellant. 10. Therefore in view of this finding of fact recorded by two authorities, there is no scope for interference in an appeal u/s 260 of the Act. 11. We do not find any question of law much less a substantial question of law arising in the facts and circumstances if this case arising for examination in this appeal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1079 - ITAT HYDERABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sions of statute, therefore, the failure on this count is in violation of the statutory provisions of law and assessment so completed is ab initio void. In the above ground, the assessee contended that the assessing officer failed to issue notice under S. 143(2) of the Act as required under the provisions of the said statute and therefore the failure on this count is in violation of the statutory provisions of law and the assessment so completed is ab initio void. This ground was not taken before the CIT (A) and we find that this ground goes to the root of the matter and hence in the interest of justice, we remit this issue to the file of the CIT (A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Since we are remitting this issue to the file of the CIT (A), we are not adjudicating the other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 16 -04-2010.

  ---

• 2010 (4) TMI 1078 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d over and above the regular income earned by the assessee. Due to this fact, the assessee did not challenge the addition before the learned CIT(A) specifically. Considering the facts and circumstances noted above, we do not find any justification to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel that since ₹ 3,00,000 is declared in the regular return, therefore, no addition can be made in block assessment. We accordingly, reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee and confirm the findings of the authorities below that ₹ 3,00,000 is undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period. Therefore, the authorities below rightly assessed the same in the block assessment. We accordingly, do not find any justification to interfere with the orders of the authorities below, we confirm their findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 13. No other point is argued or pressed. 14. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 42