|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1382 Records
-
2014 (7) TMI 1246 - SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Fraudulent fund mobilization - activities of 'collective investment scheme' in terms of Section 11 AA of the SEBI Act - Held that:- It is noted that PCL was advised to respond to the preliminary enquiry conducted by SEBI, through SEBI letters dated September 17, 2013 and emails dated March 13, 2014 and April 03, 2014. However, on all these occasions, PCL delayed submission of the requisite information and also failed to furnish the scheme wise list of investors and their contact numbers and addresses as sought by SEBI. In these circumstances, find that reasonable opportunity has been afforded to PCL to respond to SEBI. When considered in the context of the abovementioned prima facie finding, the inescapable conclusion is that non-submission of the information especially scheme wise list of investors and their contact numbers and addresses to SEBI is nothing but an attempt to conceal the true nature and operation of the fund mobilizing activity of PCL.
From the material available on record, it is observed that Mr. Sudhir Shankar Moravekar (PANAADPM2933M), Mrs. Shobha Ratnakar Barde (PAN-ASLPB1204C), Mrs. Usha Arun Tari (PAN-ABYPT8841M), Shri. Manish Kalidas Gandhi (PAN-AITPG8933H), Shri. Chandrasen Ganpatrao Bhise (PAN-AADPB6103E) and Shri Ramachandran Ramakrishnan (PAN-AAIPR9196G) are the Promoters/Directors/persons in charge of the business of PCL. Further, in order to safeguard the assets/property acquired by PCL and its promoters/directors using the funds collected from the investing public until full facts and materials are brought and final decision is taken in the matter, it is incumbent on SEBI to take preventive action by way of an immediate measure. In the light of the above, I find no other alternative but to take recourse to an interim order against PCL and its Directors for preventing them from further carrying on with its existing fund mobilizing activity by launching 'collective investment scheme', without obtaining registration from SEBI in accordance with law.
We in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under sections 11(1), 11B and 11(4) of the SEBI Act read with Regulation 65 of CIS Regulations, hereby direct PCL and its Directors, namely, Mr. Sudhir Shankar Moravekar (PANAADPM2933M), Mrs. Shobha Ratnakar Barde (PAN-ASLPB1204C), Mrs. Usha Arun Tari (PAN-ABYPT8841M), Shri. Manish Kalidas Gandhi (PAN-AITPG8933H), Shri. Chandrasen Ganpatrao Bhise (PAN-AADPB6103E) and Shri Ramachandran Ramakrishnan (PAN-AAIPR9196G):
• not to collect any fresh money from investors under its existing scheme;
• not to launch any new schemes or plans or float any new companies to raise fresh moneys;
• to immediately submit the full inventory of the assets obtained through money raised by PCL;
• not to dispose of or alienate any of the properties/assets obtained directly or indirectly through money raised by PCL;
• not to divert any funds raised from public at large, kept in bank account(s) and/or in the custody of PCL or group companies or promoters or LLPs or Proprietary concerns or any person directly or indirectly controlled through shareholding or management by PCL ;
• to furnish all the information/details sought by SEBI within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, including,
i. Details of amount mobilized and refunded till date,
ii. Scheme wise list of investors, investment amount and addresses with contact numbers, if any.
iii. Details of agents along with address, money mobilized and commission paid
-
2014 (7) TMI 1245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings - seeks appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the mortgaged property described in Exh. I to the petition - interim injunction in respect of the said property and for other reliefs - Held that:- The case is made out for appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the property described in Page Nos. 101 to 106 of the petition. It is made clear that the Court Receiver shall not dispossess respondent No. 1 or any third party found in possession but shall take formal possession until further orders. Till the Court Receiver takes symbolic possession of the property, there shall be ad-interim injunction as prayed in prayer clause (d) excluding the word "dealing with".
The respondents are directed to file affidavit-in-reply within four weeks from today and the copy thereof shall be served on the learned Advocate for the petitioner simultaneously. In the said affidavit, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall disclose on oath all the details of their movable and immovable properties whether encumbered or unencumbered.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1244 - ITAT PUNE
Waiver of Principal amount of long term loans - revenue receipt OR capital receipt - nature of receipt - Held that:- The waiver of amount represents waiver of the principal amount of loan utilized for acquisition of capital assets and not for the purposes of trading activity and accordingly the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. (2003 (1) TMI 71 - BOMBAY High Court ). Following it has to be held that the waiver of the 10 principal amount of loan granted by the DEG, Germany to the extent of ₹ 29,63,27,000/- in terms of OTS Scheme is in the nature of capital receipt not chargeable to tax. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Suo-motu disallowance by the assessee in the computation of income - assessee had voluntarily offered an amount under the heading ‘other disallowances’ in the computation of income - Held that:- No doubt a claim of deduction or disallowance is to be worked out on the basis of the prevalent legal position and is not dependent on what stand the parties may profess. Therefore, any error or omission made in the return of income or any wrong claim in the return of income can be subject to rectification as per law. So however, in the present case, the CIT(A) has clearly established that assessee has not brought out the details of any discrepancy in anticipation of which the impugned disallowance was made by the assessee. There is no material before us, apart from generalized assertions, that the aforesaid disallowance was under any particular misconception of law or facts. The onus on this aspect is entirely on the assessee which has not been discharged, therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order of the authorities below. Thus, on this Ground assessee fails.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1243 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - As per the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, when a matter comes up for compliance of pre-deposit and the appellant is before the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant should be given 15 days time to get interim directions. In the present case, 15 days period got over almost five months back. Even though almost six months are over, the appellant has failed to get any interim directions from the Hon’ble High Court and the appellant has been enjoying extension of stay without any valid reason - we dismiss the appeal of the main appellant, M/s. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - As regards the co-appellants their stay petitions may be listed separately for hearing on 28th July, 2014 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1242 - SC ORDER
Rectification of mistake - the decision in the case of NEWTON ENGINEERING AND CHEMICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2015 (1) TMI 800 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said Special Civil Application with a request to grant further time to the petitioner to comply with the order of pre-deposit and, therefore, we permitted him to withdraw Special Civil Application and extended time to make payment of pre-deposit - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1241 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Grant of registration under Section 10(23C) - proof of charitable activities - Held that:- The only requirement for granting registration under this Section is the satisfaction of the prescribed authority with regard to the genuineness of the activities of the assessee. It has been categorically recorded by the Tribunal that the assessee is a Trust registered under Section 12AA of the Act which makes it quite clear that the assessee is pursuing the charitable activities. It was further observed that the provisions of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, are not applicable to the assessee being an unaided Society. Since the Pr. CCIT had not doubted the genuineness of the activities of the Society, the Tribunal correctly directed the Pr. CCIT to grant registration under Section 10(23C) of the Act.
Learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue has not been able to point out any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against revenue
-
2014 (7) TMI 1240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - Deduction claim under Section 80 HHC - Held that:- Jurisdictional requirement of having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment was not satisfied, as the applicable facts were not considered. The order disposing of the objections records that the effect was given to the order dated 29 December 2013 by him on 15 February 2005. This was undisputedly much after the impugned notice. Therefore, admittedly the impugned notice has been issued on the basis of incorrect facts. On this ground also, we find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
In any view of the matter, the stand of the petitioner on merits with regard to interest income being included while computing the claim for deduction under Section 80HHC has been upheld not only by the CIT(A) but also by the Tribunal in its order dated 22 November 2006. Besides the amendment to Section 80HHC (3) of the Act by addition of fifth proviso thereto with retrospective effect will work to the benefit of the petitioner. In the above view of the matter, allowing reassessment proceedings would be a mere academic exercise only because the Assessing officer would bound by the orders of the Tribunal. Moreover, the very basis of the impugned notice dated 10 January 2005 will not be sustainable. In view of all the above reasons, we set aside the impugned notice dated 10 January 2005.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1239 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Entitlement to benefit under Section 10A - substantial value addition made before the product is delivered - products manufactured and produced by third parties - assessee is in the business of providing medical transcription facilities - Held that:- Assessee is in the business of transcribing medical transcription. It has outsourced portion of its work as done by the sub contractor is in crude form and cannot be delivered in such form to the overseas customers.
The assessee has to process the said product so as to make it marketable. In other words, as rightly pointed out by the appellate authorities value addition has to be done.
It is only when that value addition is made, the said product is exported, foreign exchange is earned. The manufacture or production done by the assessee, which is eligible for exemption under Section 10A would be applicable because the transaction done by the sub- contractors in the crude form undergoes a change in the process of the assessee. Therefore, as rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 10A - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1238 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 10A computation - Held that:- Communication expenses should be excluded from both export turnover as well as total turnover for the purpose of computing deduction under Section 10A.
TPA - comparable companies selection - Held that:- On the question of comparable cases, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 15 of the judgment and order has held that the Coordinate Benches have already decided that these companies are not to be selected for comparable cases for various reasons. Similarly, on the question of software segmentation, the learned Tribunal in paragraph 17 has followed various judgments of the Coordinate Benches. No substantial question of law.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1237 - ITAT JODHPUR
Trading addition - rejection of books of account - Held that:- After rejection of books of account facts of the earlier years are found to be same and similar, then it would be reasonable to adopt net profit rate of the earlier year without mentioning the words. However, when the assessee further explained the fall in ratio of profit and same is plausible, it is also to be considered as has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Amrapali Jewels P Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 470 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that abnormal increase in the turnover definitely compromises its margins and same has to be definitely considered while making fair estimation. It has been found in this case that during the relevant period, the assessee has made heavy investment in plant and machinery which is evident from the closing balance of the fixed assets which were produced before the A.O.
The steep rise in the cost and consumption are also relevant which are found to be correct. The fact that from the table itself it has been noted that in A.Y. 2007-08, net profit ratio was 3.85% and it has been accepted by the A.O. showing that in this assessee’s case, there has been variance in the net profit rate for various reasons applicable to that particular A.Y. The ld. CIT(A) has considered these factors and has given part relief to the assessee. Thus it would be fair and reasonable to sustain a lumpsum addition of ₹ 2.5 lakhs to answer the fall in net profit. Accordingly, we partly allow the assessee’s ground raised in its cross objection and cannot allow revenue.
Treating the interest income arising from compulsory FDRs deposits as income from other sources - Held that:- It is an undeniable fact of this case that the deposits were made for obtaining contracts in question and as per the settled position of law in this regard, this interest income has to be treated as income from assessee’s business and not income from other sources. In this regard, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. K & Co. [2013 (4) TMI 284 - DELHI HIGH COURT] for ready reference. Otherwise we have been taking this view consistently in contractor’s cases. Accordingly, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1236 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Natural justice - validity of assessment order - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the orders of assessment have been made ex parte inasmuch as the petitioner was not given adequate notice or time to represent its case - Held that: - we are convinced that the orders of assessment have been made in hot hurry without granting proper opportunity to the writ petitioner - The orders of assessment will be made afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner to present its case - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1235 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowance of Portfolio Management Services (PMS) fees paid while computing capital gain - Held that:- Portfolio Management Fees is allowable expenditure as held in KRA Holdings & Trading Pvt. Ltd.[2012 (8) TMI 195 - ITAT, Pune]
-
2014 (7) TMI 1234 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
DEEC scheme - benefit of N/N. 96/2009 Cus. dt. 11.09.2009 - condition of export obligation - Tribunal by Final Order dt. 22.1.2004 decided the appeals against OIO dt. 22.11.2012 and OIO No.20684/2013 dt. 12.6.2013. In that Final order, it was recorded that it appears that importers M/s.Shree Maruti Impex had not filed any appeal against the impugned order. Now, it transpires that M/s.Shree Maruti Impex and other co-noticees filed appeals against the impugned OIO No.20685/2013 dt. 13.6.2013 against which the present appeals are filed before the Tribunal.
Held that: - as the Tribunal already remanded the matter in respect of other adjudication orders dt.22.11.2012 and 12.6.2013, it is appropriate that the present appellants also should be given an opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the claim of the ownership of the seized goods as claimed by M/s.Nupur Impex in terms of the order of the Hon'ble High Court on the basis of documents and provisions of Customs Act and thereafter to decide the case in respect of the other co-notices in accordance with law.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1233 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
TPA - whether Tribunal is wrong in concluding that M/s.Vishal Information Technology Limited cannot be considered as a comparable case? - Held that:- M/s.Vishal Information Technologies cannot be considered as a comparable case as this company was rejected by coordinate Bench while deciding similar issue in the case of M/s.Brigade Global Services Pvt. Ltd [2014 (9) TMI 143 - ITAT HYDERABAD] as held the employee’s cost to total cost ratio is worked out at 2% as compared to the industry average of 30 to 40%. The assessee’s employee’s cost to total cost ratio is worked out at 47%. Since the employee’s cost form major cost base in ITES service industries, the low ratio of comparables implies that it would not be providing services by employing its own sources. Being so, the assessee is not alike to M/s.Vishal Information Technologies Ltd.Tribunal is not wrong in deciding the issue maintaining the rule of consistency.
Consider profit before depreciation and interest (PBDIT) as profit level indicator as directed by ITAT - Held that:- Tribunal on fact found that the depreciation has an impact on the profit margin. Based on the aforesaid findings, we feel that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Tribunal does not appear to be unjust and inappropriate.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1232 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Interest on delayed refund - whether the respondent is entitled to get the interest for the period of delay in late sanction of the refund amount? - Held that: - On a conjoint reading of Sections 11B and 11BB of the Act (discussed supra), it transpires that once an order is passed by the competent Central Excise authorities pursuant to the refund application filed by the applicant, then the refund shall be paid forthwith within a period of three months; and if claimed amount is not paid within such stipulated time frame, then under the statutory obligations, the authorities are required to pay interest on the refund amount paid belatedly.
The time limit for payment of the refund amount to the respondent by the Central Excise authorities (without interest) expired on 18-6-1998. Since, claimed amount was finally paid to the respondent on 22-8-2005, the respondent is entitled for the statutory interest from 19-6-1998 to the date when the refund was eventually paid, i.e., 22-8-2005
Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1231 - ITAT CHENNAI
Addition u/s 14A - Held that:- We find from section 14A(2) that in arriving at such a dissatisfaction over an assessee’s claim of not having incurred any expenditure relatable to its ‘exempt’ income in books of account, the concerned Assessing Officer has to take into account the said books and then only, he can resort to computation of such expenses under Rule 8D. In this case, the Assessing Officer has only drawn an inference that some indirect expenditure is always involved in supervision of such huge investments. And that too, without even specifically stating anything regarding the entries in the assessee’s books. In our view, this approach is nowhere a part of the relevant statutory provision in section 14A(2) of the Act. So, both the lower authorities have wrongly made the disallowance in question u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D. The same stands deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee
Disallowance to provision for insurance settlement - Held that:- Admitted factual position is that the assessee being a bulk drug manufacturer had exported its produce to a Dutch consignee. A part of this consignment has been rejected for quality reasons because the produce was kept in a ‘customs bonded house’ instead of immediate delivery resulting in deterioration of its quality. Before us, there is no cogent evidence produced to conclude that mere rejection of such a produce wholly or in part by whatsoever reasons gives rise to a compensation claim. The fact also remains that till date, the consignee entity is yet to raise its claim. The damages’ amount is yet to be ascertained. In these circumstances, we observe that the assessee has failed to prove the nature of liability claimed as an ascertained one. Therefore, we find no fault with the CIT(A)’s order affirming the impugned disallowance - Decided against assessee
TDS u/s 195 - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) - non deduction of TDS on export commission payments made to overseas agents - Held that:-no cogent material has been placed on record to prove rendering of any technical or managerial services u/s 9 of the Act or that the payments are taxable as income in India. The assessee’s overseas agents have procured export orders and rendered marketing services outside India and in lieu thereof payments have been made in foreign countries. hence no TDS liability arises to an assessee. See GE India Technology Centre Private Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. [2010 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] .- Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (7) TMI 1230 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Condonation of delay - maintainability of appeal - Held that: - date of communication of the copy of the adjudication order will be construed as 2-2-2007 (communicated under the cover of the letter of Range Superintendent). Since the appeal has been filed on 2-4-2007, the same is not barred by limitation of time - matter on remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing reasoned and speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1229 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - steel racks - denial on the ground that the disputed goods, by nature of their use, neither qualify as inputs nor capital goods - Held that: - in view of the statutory definition of input and the requirement under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 regarding the manner of storing the raw material and finished product, it can be said that the disputed goods are very much essential to be considered as inputs, used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the limitation should be confined to a period of one year because there is no suppression or misstatement involved.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1228 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Import of stone chips from Bangladesh - whether the stone chips are exigible to tax under the TVAT Act? - Whether the petitioner is a dealer and liable to file returns in respect of the import of stone chips from Bangladesh? - Held that: - Section 5 of the TVAT Act which deals with levy of tax on sale the legislature was conscious of the fact that it had no authority to levy tax on inter-State sales or import or export of goods within or outside the territory of India and therefore, incorporated Section 5(2)(b) - This clearly shows that sales of goods which take place in the course of the import of the goods into or export of the goods out of the territory of India are not sales within the meaning of the TVAT Act. If they are not sales then no notice or assessment can be made in regard thereto - sales which takes place during the import of goods into the territory of India are not exigible to tax under the TVAT Act.
Assessment orders quashed - it is for the Department to find out what the petitioner did with the goods and take further action - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2014 (7) TMI 1227 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Model Know How Fee - disallowance by AO as capital expenditure and covered under Section 35AB - Held that:- This issue has been decided against the revenue and in favour of the respondent- assessee, in the earlier years by the Delhi High Court. Special Leave Petition filed before the Supreme Court was dismissed. The aforesaid factual position stated by the Tribunal in the impugned order on the aforesaid question is accepted as correct by the Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
Provision of warranty - why and for what reason the claim for warrantee can be categorized as exaggerated or untenable in terms of the observations in Rotork Controls India Limited (2009 (5) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that:- The only reason given by the learned Standing Counsel is that in the present case, the data relied upon by the assessee pertains to two years; whereas, in Rotork Controls India Limited (supra) only one year data was considered. The argument fail to notice in that in this case, the warrantee was for two years. Even otherwise, this reason does not appeal to us. Data and figures should truly and correctly reflect and support the claim for provision for warranty. It should not be excessive. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court provides for and stipulates adjustment, in case an excessive or higher claim is made by an assessee. It is not the case of the Revenue that in fact, it was found that any excessive or wrong claim was made. Figures for warranty claims actually made would be available with the Revenue but were not pointed out to the Tribunal or before us.
Expenditure incurred on purchasing software - should been treated as capital expense or revenue expenditure - Held that:- The aforesaid expenditure was for purchase of application software and not on customerized or operating software. Tribunal in the impugned judgment has followed decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Asahi India Safety Glass, (2011 (11) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). It is not shown to us that the software in question had enduring benefit and why and for what reason, the software purchased should be treated as a capital asset. The third issue therefore does not require consideration of this Court as a substantial question of law.
............
|
