|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 770 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 650 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d as interest paid. The High Court has not agree with the Revenue and has held that bill discount cannot be equated and treated as interest paid and therefore the tax at source was not liable to be deducted. The present appeals are directed against recipient Cargill Financial Services Asia Pvt Ltd. who had entered into the transaction/agreement with Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. The issue being identical and squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Cargill Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra), no substantial question of law arises and the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 649 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Assessment under section 153C - Held that:- The determination of undisclosed income consequent to search action and framing assessment under section 153C of the Act is different from regular assessment or it is not substitute for regular assessment. Being so, the AO shall frame assessment on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search action under sec. 153C of the Act. The AO without bringing any incriminating material on record for the purpose of determination of undisclosed income on estimate basis is not possible in the present circumstances to frame the assessment under section 153C of the Act. Therefore,, after considering the totality of facts and the circumstances of the case and after going through the order of the CIT (A) in the instant case, we find the CIT (A) is perfectly justified in allowing the claims of the assessee.
-
2012 (4) TMI 648 - SUPREME COURT
Applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to the unaided non-minority schools - Held that:- So far as unaided educational institutions both minority and non-minority are concerned the obligation cast under Section 12(1)(c) is only directory and the said provision is accordingly read down holding that it is open to the private unaided educational institutions, both minority and non-minority, at their volition to admit children who belong to the weaker sections and disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood in their educational institutions as well as in pre-schools.
1. Article 21A casts an obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory education to children of the age of 6 to 14 years and not on unaided non-minority and minority educational institutions.
2. Rights of children to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A and RTE Act can be enforced against the schools defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, except unaided minority and non-minority schools not receiving any kind of aid or grants to meet their expenses from the appropriate governments or local authorities.
3. Section 12(1)(c) is read down so far as unaided nonminority and minority educational institutions are concerned, holding that it can be given effect to only on the principles of voluntariness, autonomy and consensus and not on compulsion or threat of nonrecognition or non-affiliation.
4. No distinction or difference can be drawn between unaided minority and non-minority schools with regard to appropriation of quota by the State or its reservation policy under Section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Such an appropriation of seats can also not be held to be a regulatory measure in the interest of the minority within the meaning of Article 30(1) or a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution.
5. The Appropriate Government and local authority have to establish neighbourhood schools as provided in Section 6 read with Sections 8 and 9, within the time limit prescribed in the Statute.
6. Duty imposed on parents or guardians under Section 10 is directory in nature and it is open to them to admit their children in the schools of their choice, not invariably in the neighbourhood schools, subject to availability of seats and meeting their own expenses.
7. Sections 4, 10, 14, 15 and 16 are held to be directory in their content and application. The concerned authorities shall exercise such powers in consonance with the directions/guidelines laid down by the Central Government in that behalf.
8. The provisions of Section 21 of the Act, as provided, would not be applicable to the schools covered under sub-Section (iv) of clause (n) of Section 2. They shall also not be applicable to minority institutions, whether aided or unaided.
9. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the appropriate Government under Section 38 of the RTE Act, the Government shall frame rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and in particular, the matters stated under sub-Section (2) of Section 38 of the RTE Act.
10. The directions, guidelines and rules shall be framed by the Central Government, appropriate Government and/or such other competent authority under the provisions of the RTE Act, as expeditiously as possible and, in any case, not later than six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
11. All the State Governments which have not constituted the State Advisory Council in terms of Section 34 of the RTE Act shall so constitute the Council within three months from today. The Council so constituted shall undertake its requisite functions in accordance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Act and advise the Government in terms of clauses (6), (7) and (8) of this order immediately thereafter.
12. Central Government and State Governments may set up a proper Regulatory Authority for supervision and effective functioning of the Act and its implementation.
13. Madrasas, Vedic Pathshalas etc. which predominantly provide religious instructions and do not provide for secular education stand outside the purview of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 647 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ngs of the AO in the light of directions of the DRP in para 5 of their order dated 12th September, 2011. In view thereof, ground nos. 1 & 2 in the appeal are dismissed. 6. Adverting now to ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, we find that the AO while completing the assessment levied interest of ₹ 12,08,163/- u/s 234D of the Act whereas in the ground of appeal before us, the assessee disputed only the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. Since the issue of levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act does not emanate from the impugned order while levy of interest u/s 234D of the Act was neither disputed before the DRP nor even before us, accordingly ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act, being academic ,is dismissed. 7. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 8. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 9. In result, appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 646 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... indicated by the Division Bench in its judgment in Kotak Securities Limited. 4. As regards VSAT and lease line charges, the issue again is covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 28 July 2011 in The Income Tax Commissioner v. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd. (ITXAL 475 of 2011). While dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue on this issue, the Division Bench held in that case that VSAT and lease line charges paid by the assessee to the Stock Exchange constitute reimbursement of the charges paid/ payable by the Stock Exchange to the Department of Telecommunications. Hence, the VSAT and lease line charges paid by the assessee do not have any element of income and deducting withholding tax while making such payments would not arise. Following the judgment in Angel Capital, we hold that no substantial question of law would arise. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 645 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ryana High Court and the same has to be followed in preference to the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the ground raised before us.” 8. Thus it is clear that after considering the decision as relied upon by the learned AR, this Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue by following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. H. G. Gupta and Sons (supra) as well as the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Aravali Engineers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR (supra). Since the issue is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, therefore, by following the earlier order of this Tribunal, we decide this issue against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 644 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to April 1, 2005.” 6.2 Therefore, as per the pre-mended provisions of sec 80IB(10), once the project has been approved by the local authorities, then in the absence of any such condition of commercial area in the provisions of sec. 80IB(10), deduction cannot be denied on this point. Hence, we do find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A), qua this issue. 7 Now, we turn to ground no.1 regarding disallowance of addition of ₹ 4,33,366/-. 7.1 We have heard the ld DR as well as the ld AR of the assessee and considered the relevant material on record. In view of our finding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IB(10), the issue of addition has become infructuous as it become revenue neutral. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue also. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 25th, day of April 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 643 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ttestation charges etc. Since the AO did not point out any specific item of expenditure which was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee nor the ld. DR placed before us any material in order to controvert the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter, we are not inclined to interfere. Therefore, ground no.3 in the appeal of the Revenue for the AY 2007-08 in the case of G4S Security Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed. 14. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.2 in the appeals of the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 and ground no.4 in their appeal for the AY 2007-08 , accordingly, all these grounds are dismissed. 15. No other plea or argument was made before us. 16. In result, appeals of the Revenue for the AY 2008-09 are dismissed while their appeal for the AY 2007-08 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court.
-
2012 (4) TMI 642 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nsidered opinion and respectfully following the above judgments, that the learned CIT (A) was justified in upholding the assessee’s stand.” 8. We find that so far as present assessee is concerned in the preceding years the A.O. had no reservation in accepting the capital gains, short-term as well as long-term, declared by the assessee inspite of the fact that in the preceding years also there is no much of a difference in the nature of the share transactions entered into by the assessee considering the volume of the share transactions, into, holding period and frequency. Moreover, in the above cited two cases of the family members, the Tribunal has accepted the contention of the assessee on the ‘rule of consistency’. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). We accordingly confirm the same. 9. In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 641 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment - Computation of deduction under Section 10A - whether it is to be done before or after taking into account the brought forward losses and depreciation? - Held that:- In this case queries and questions regarding computation of deduction under Section 10A were raised by the Assessing Officer and were answered by the assessee at the time of original assessment. Failure or mere absence of finding or averment in the assessment order is not material.We dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is a clear case of change of opinion.
-
2012 (4) TMI 640 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion and bring transparency in obligation of discharge of duties of public authorities whose legal obligation is to disclose information as desired by the person and who is not supposed to disclose his locus or interest, unless exempted under the RTI Act. However, this Court can take judicial notice that even after the RTI Act having come into force since 21/06/2005; but still public authorities are not prepared in providing/ disclosing information which a person/citizen has a right to claim under RTI Act and orders of the Information Officer & appellate authority are consistently coming up being assailed by public authorities. In the light of what has been observed (supra), this Court finds no apparent manifest error being committed warranting interference in the order impugned. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed and the petitioner is directed to provide information in terms of order of the Commissioner RTI within fifteen days positively. No costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 639 - ITAT PUNE
Disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Held that:- Lay out plan/key plan is different from sanction of plan and commencement thereof. Assessee entered into development agreement dated 2-8-2004 with regards to portion of property of Smt. Sunita Mahadkar. So there is no question of any sanction and commencement prior to it. The commencement took place on this property of assessee admeasuring 52245 sq.ft. out of holding of Smt. Sunita Mahadkar acquired by assessee vide development agreement dated 28-2004. So, there was no question of commencement prior to 2-8-2004. The date of layout of previous owner i.e. 1-10-1998 should not be confused with date of sanction of plan and commencement thereof as held in the case of Aditya Developers (supra). Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by way of disallowing the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 80-IB(10) of the Act.
-
2012 (4) TMI 638 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ooks of the assessee, the corresponding depreciation would also have to be allowed. This part of the reasoning does not suffer from any error and no substantial question of law would therefore arise. 9. As regards question H, the Tribunal has in paragraph 91 of its decision adverted to the facts. The assessee claimed depreciation in respect of rolling mill rolls in the tubes division. The Tribunal overruled the finding of the CIT(A) that the tubes division did not fall in the category of the iron and steel industry and that only rolling mill rolls used in the iron and steel industry qualify for depreciation. The finding of the Tribunal that the tubes division was a part of the iron and steel industry is not shown to be in error. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal will not raise a substantial question of law on any of the questions urged. The Appeal will accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Gain on sale of shares - LTCG or business income - ITAT accepted STCG on sale of shares - Held that:- The reply given by the assessee was clear and categorical that the five shares had been purchased in the last financial year and the average period of holding in the shares in question was more than four months. There were 12 shares and the transactions were not frequent. The purchases were out of surplus funds. Their main business was not trading in shares but was an occasional independent activity. The assessee had also pointed out that the short- term transactions were the result of either a mistake, or wrong information. The reasons given by the Assessing Officer noted in paragraph 5 above do not justify the plea of the Revenue that the share sold was stock-in-trade. The assessee was not maintaining a separate heads in the books of accounts for shares held as stock in trade or investment, as the shares were held and treated as investment. Further, the number of transactions, 19 in all in one year cannot be considered as continuous and regular. The provision for diminution in value was as per the Accounting Standard 13 regarding Accounting of Investments. The Assessing officer ignored several other aspects and questions which have been raised and noticed and form the basis of finding recorded by the Tribunal. The order by the Tribunal therefore does not require any interference.
-
2012 (4) TMI 636 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a default in payment of duty from PLA and duty has been paid from cenvat credit account contrary to the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Rules, penalty under Rule 27 is only imposable. Under these circumstances, the imposition of penalty under Rule 25 equal to duty demanded cannot be sustained and therefore is required to be set aside. The ld. consultant on behalf of the appellants submitted that the appellants have already paid penalty under Rule 27. 5. In view of the above, the penalty imposed under Rule 25 is set aside and penalty of ₹ 5,000/- each in respect of each show cause notice issued to the appellants is confirmed under Rule 27 of the Rules. It was submitted during the hearing that the appellants have already paid the penalty and if the same has not been paid, the ld. consultant stated that the appellants would pay the same without any further delay. All the stay applications and appeals are disposed of in above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (4) TMI 635 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Entitled for exemption u/s. 11 - approval u/s. 10(23C)(vi) - Held that:- In the present case, the issue is relating to allowability of exemption under S.11 or under S.10(23C), and while adjudicating on this issue one has to see the eligibility of claiming of deduction under S.11. This aspect has not been proper addressed by the CIT(A) while granting the alternative claim of the assessee for exemption under S.11. Since the Assessing Officer has no occasion to examine the claim of the assessee under S.11, we have given suitable directions, in the preceding para, to the Assessing Officer for verification.
Claim under S.32(1) - Held that:- Assessing Officer is directed to verify in respect of each asset on which depreciation claimed, whether the value of such asset was in fact allowed under S.11, and if it was so allowed, the depreciation would not be allowed in respect of such asset. Only if the value of the asset was not allowed as expenditure under S.11, the Assessing Officer is required to allow depreciation thereon, as per the rate applicable to those assets, as held in the case of Mahila Sidh Nirman Yojna, cited supra. This issue raised by the Revenue is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, in the light of the above observations.
-
2012 (4) TMI 634 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the Assessing officer and remanded the matter. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have been interfered with the same. Whether the grounds (a) to (h) relied upon by the Commissioner are considered by the Assessing Officer or not is a question of fact. 8. On perusal of the order of remand, the questions (a) to (h) are not taken note by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the order of the Commissioner since the Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we answer the substantial question of law in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 9. In the result the appeals are allowed. The order dated 31.10.2008 passed in ITA No.662/2008 and 663/2008 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal are hereby set aside. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is confirmed. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration to complete the assessment.
-
2012 (4) TMI 633 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was passed on the submission of the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Authorized Officer, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, that removal of the foreign body was permissible. In this case, the Authorized Officer has neither appeared nor supported the case of the petitioner. The Court had no occasion to consider whether the question of feasibility of removal of foreign matter within the customs area. The order does not clarify whether the cleaning was to be done within the customs area, possibly because the Court was not rendered proper assistance by Counsel appearing in the matter. Affidavit in opposition be filed within May 2, 2012. Let the writ application be listed as “For Orders” on May 3, 2012. If the petitioner deems it necessary to file affidavit in reply the prayer of the petitioner may be considered on 3rd May, 2012. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (4) TMI 632 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... cks. Further, Section 2(f)(iii) states that manufacture includes any process in relation to the goods specified in third schedule involves packing. Therefore, I find force in the appellant’s argument that as the said goods were repacked in combi-packs which amounts to manufacture, they are eligible for rebate. Moreover, in the case of Om Sons Cookware P. Ltd, reported in 2011 (268) E.L.T. 111 (GOI), it was held that- “Rebate/drawback are Export Oriented Schemes and unduly restricted and technical interpretation of procedure to be avoided - Liberal interpretation should be given when substantive fact of export is not doubted.” Further, it is policy of the Government that the domestic duty shall not be exported. In short, what ever duty was paid by the exporter, the same has to be paid back so as to encourage them. Hence, I hold that the appellant is eligible for rebates. 6. In view of the above, the impugned orders are set aside and appeals are allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the appeal effect has to be given/undertaken by the Assessing Officer. In the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT, ITA No.687/2009 similar directions have been issued. The application is disposed of.
............
|
