|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 835 Records
-
2010 (4) TMI 1222
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of communication services.
2. Deletion of addition on account of labor charges.
3. Deletion of addition on account of workers mess expenses.
4. Deletion of addition u/s 40A(3) for cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Communication Services:
The AO disallowed Rs. 7,00,000/- claimed by the assessee for communication services provided by Radio Link Agency Pvt. Ltd. (RLA), citing lack of documentary evidence and considering it a sham transaction. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision, noting that similar expenses were allowed in the preceding year, the payments were confirmed, and the payee was identifiable.
2. Deletion of Addition on Account of Labor Charges:
The AO disallowed 15% of labor charges amounting to Rs. 44,24,355/- on the grounds of inflated expenses and lack of proper documentation. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision, stating that the labor contractors were identifiable, had filed their income tax returns, and the expenses were paid wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
3. Deletion of Addition on Account of Workers Mess Expenses:
The AO disallowed 15% of workers mess expenses amounting to Rs. 52,440/- on an estimated basis. The CIT (A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision, noting that these expenses were wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
4. Deletion of Addition u/s 40A(3) for Cash Payments Exceeding Rs. 20,000:
The AO disallowed cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- amounting to Rs. 51,79,290/- made to contractors, invoking section 40A(3). The CIT (A) deleted this addition, and the ITAT upheld this decision, noting that the payments were made in remote areas of Bhutan where banking facilities were not available, and thus were covered under Rule 6DD.
Conclusion:
The ITAT upheld the order of the CIT (A) on all grounds, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on April 9, 2010.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1221
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(Appeals) regarding revised working of fringe benefit tax, applicability of exemptions, and jurisdictional High Court's decision.
Issue 1 - Revised working of fringe benefit tax:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to accept the revised working of fringe benefit tax submitted by the assessee company during assessment proceedings. The Revenue argued that exemptions should have been claimed by filing a revised return of fringe benefits. The AO rejected the revised computation by the assessee on this ground. However, the first appellate authority applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and directed the AO to accept the revised workings submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO should not assess the incorrect income offered by the assessee, which is not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Act.
Issue 2 - Value of fringe benefits:
The Revenue contended that the assessed value of fringe benefits cannot be less than the returned value. However, the Tribunal found that the revenue authorities did not verify the revised computation and exemptions claimed by the assessee from the value of fringe benefits declared in the return. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the revised computation and dispose of the case in accordance with the law. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes.
Issue 3 - Applicability of judgment in M/s Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT:
The Revenue argued that the judgment in the case of M/s Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) is applicable in this case. However, the Tribunal did not specifically address this argument in its judgment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to accept the revised working of fringe benefit tax by the assessee and directed the AO to verify the revised computation and exemptions claimed. The appeal of the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, and the matter was remanded to the AO for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1220
Issues involved: Entitlement to tax exemption u/s Ext.P1 SRO 1092/99, inordinate delay in finalizing proceedings, coercive steps by respondents.
Entitlement to tax exemption: The Writ Petition addressed the issue of whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from tax liability as per Ext.P1 SRO 1092/99. The Court noted that despite previous directions, the matter was pending before the State Level Committee, causing undue delay. The Court directed the first respondent to expedite the finalization of the proceedings within three months from the date of the judgment, with a stay on coercive actions until final orders are passed.
Inordinate delay in finalizing proceedings: The petitioner had previously approached the Court due to delays caused by the respondents, leading to the filing of W.P.(C) No. 34831 of 2007 and subsequent judgment. The Court emphasized the lack of justification for the prolonged delay in determining the petitioner's liability. The State Level Committee was directed to conclude the proceedings promptly, in accordance with previous directives.
Coercive steps by respondents: The Court ordered that all coercive measures against the petitioner be suspended until final orders are issued following the conclusion of the proceedings as per Ext.P3 judgment. This decision aimed to ensure fairness and prevent undue pressure on the petitioner during the resolution of the tax exemption issue.
Conclusion: The Writ Petition was disposed of with a directive for the expeditious finalization of the proceedings by the first respondent, emphasizing adherence to the timeline set by the Court. The judgment sought to address the delays and uncertainties faced by the petitioner regarding tax exemption, providing clarity and protection from coercive actions until a final decision is reached.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1219
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit is within limitation.
2. Whether the defendant rejected five bills totaling Rs. 2,23,190.87.
3. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action.
4. Whether the suit has been signed, verified, and filed by a competent person.
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate.
6. Relief.
Summary:
Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is within limitation
The Trial Court dismissed the suit based on the conclusion that there was no running account between the parties, and each bill gave rise to a separate cause of action, thus the claims were barred by time. However, the High Court found that the last payment was made by the defendant on 12.07.2001, and according to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a fresh period of limitation would commence from this date. The High Court held that the Trial Court's findings were unsustainable and set them aside.
Issue No. 2: Whether the defendant rejected five bills totaling Rs. 2,23,190.87
The High Court found that the defendant failed to provide any evidence or particulars regarding the alleged rejection of the five bills. The onus of proof was on the defendant, which it failed to discharge. The High Court noted that the defendant did not even state when the bills were rejected or provide proof of the reason for such rejection. Thus, the assertion of rejection was not credible, and the issue was decided in favor of the appellant.
Issue No. 3: Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of cause of action
The High Court held that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving misjoinder of causes of action. The respondent did not produce its books of account despite being served with a notice to produce them. The High Court found no substantiation of the respondent's contention and decided the issue in favor of the appellant.
Issue No. 4: Whether the suit has been signed, verified, and filed by a competent person
The High Court found that PW1, Ramesh Goyal, was authorized to act on behalf of the appellant-company, as evidenced by the extract of the Board of Directors' meeting. The respondent's counsel could not provide a cogent reason to dispute this. Thus, the issue was decided in favor of the appellant.
Issue Nos. 5 and 6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, and if so, at what rate; Relief
The High Court held that the appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 2,27,588.81, the principal amount of the unpaid bills. Regarding interest, although the invoices mentioned 21% per annum, the High Court awarded interest at 12% per annum from 12.07.2001 until realization, considering the prevalent rate of interest. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1218
Issues involved: Challenge to order on registration under Section 12A of the Act.
Issue i: Tribunal's authority to examine registration application after stipulated time.
The revenue challenged an order regarding registration under Section 12A of the Act, questioning the tribunal's decision to grant registration based on equity and justice after the application was considered beyond the six-month time limit. The High Court noted the revenue's argument and referred to a previous case involving M/s. Karnataka Golf Association where the matter was remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The High Court decided to remand the current case to the tribunal for reevaluation, considering the observations made in the previous case.
Issue ii: Granting registration without examining merits after limitation period.
The revenue also contested the tribunal's decision to allow registration without assessing the merits once the application exceeded the prescribed time limit, emphasizing the absence of a deeming provision under the act for such registration. The High Court, taking into account the previous case involving M/s. Karnataka Golf Association, directed the tribunal to reconsider the matter comprehensively and make a fresh decision, keeping all arguments open for both parties. The High Court deemed it necessary to answer the substantial questions of law raised and instructed the tribunal to issue new orders in light of the observations made.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1217
Issues involved: Jurisdiction u/s 147 for reopening assessment, validity of reassessment proceedings, sufficiency of reasons for reopening assessment, suppressed production, correctness of production calculation.
Jurisdiction u/s 147 for reopening assessment:
The Revenue appealed against the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O. u/s 147, contending that it was correctly reopened in accordance with the Income-tax Act. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, followed by a search and block assessment. The A.O. reopened the assessment based on information from the Kerala State Excise Technical Manual, suspecting suppression of production and sales outside the books. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the reassessment proceedings were not validly initiated as there was no evidence to show that income had escaped assessment. The Revenue argued that the sufficiency of reasons could not be questioned and the A.O.'s action was lawful. However, the Tribunal held that the A.O.'s action was merely based on suspicion and not valid reasons, thus upholding the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment proceedings.
Suppressed production and correctness of production calculation:
The Revenue also challenged the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the merits of suppressed production. After considering submissions from both parties and reviewing the assessment order, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppressed production as per the manufacturing process explained. The A.O.'s calculation of production based on the Kerala State Excise Manual was also deemed incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on this ground as well.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT INDORE upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to quash the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 for lack of valid reasons and dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding suppressed production and incorrect production calculation.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1216
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the issue of proper investigation into an alleged offence u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on a change of Investigating Officer directed by the High Court.
Judgment Summary:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed against the common impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated September 08, 2009. The High Court had changed the Investigating Officer and appointed a Special Investigating Officer to investigate the alleged offence. However, the Supreme Court referred to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors., stating that the proper remedy for a grievance regarding FIR registration or investigation lies in approaching the concerned Magistrate u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for FIR registration or proper investigation to avoid being flooded with such petitions. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, directing the concerned Magistrate to ensure proper investigation u/s 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and recommend a change of Investigating Officer if necessary. The Magistrate was also authorized to monitor the investigation process. Parties were allowed to submit material before the Magistrate, who was instructed to disregard any observations in the High Court's order.
Separate Judgment by Judges:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1215
Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the petition by a foreign company. 2. Allegation of arbitrary and unreasonable conditions in the Request for Proposal (RFP). 3. Compliance with General Financial Rules (GFR) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) guidelines. Summary:1. Maintainability of the Petition by a Foreign Company:The first question that arises is whether the petition in the present form is maintainable at the instance of Petitioner No.1 which happens to be a Russian company. Although Petitioner No.2 is its Managing Director and is an Indian citizen, the challenge is in fact by Petitioner No.1 whose bid was unsuccessful for the contract of visa outsourcing. As long as the writ petition only seeks enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution which fundamental right is available to all persons, there should be no difficulty in entertaining such writ petition on behalf of Petitioner No.1. If, however, as is contended by the learned counsel for Respondents, what is sought to be enforced is a right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, then obviously the writ petition would not be maintainable. 2. Allegation of Arbitrary and Unreasonable Conditions in the RFP:The precise conditions contained in the above RFP which according to the Petitioners, are arbitrary and unreasonable are as under: "(b) The bidder must have experience of operating a centre for visa services on behalf of a Diplomatic Mission or Missions for at least one year with electronic data entry, dealing with at least 250 applications per day on an annual average basis." The Petitioners argue that this condition is "arbitrary and tailor-made to ensure a monopoly is created in favour of M/s. VFS Global Ltd." The Court, however, finds that the Respondents were entitled to insist upon possession by bidders of appropriate and adequate experience in handling of visa centres for Diplomatic Missions abroad. The experience of a visa agent, which is what the Petitioner No.1 was, is very different from running a full-fledged visa centre. The number of applications that are required to be dealt with on a daily basis also is best left to the assessment of the Respondents. This Court is unable to hold that any of the above conditions is either arbitrary or unreasonable. 3. Compliance with General Financial Rules (GFR) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Guidelines:Turning to the requirement of the GFR, this Court finds that although Rule 137 states that the specifications worked out "should meet the basic needs of the organisation without including superfluous and non-essential features," under Rule 160 it has been emphasised that "all Government purchases should be made in a transparent, competitive and fair manner, to secure best value for money." It has further been emphasised in Rule 160 (i) that the text of the bidding document "should be self-contained and comprehensive without any ambiguities". Even the CVC in its guidelines has emphasised that the conditions for qualification should not be too onerous. However, it has been emphasised that tender should be invited from "firms having requisite experience depending upon the size of the contract in a fair and transparent manner." This Court does not find anything in the impugned conditions which are inconsistent with the requirements of the GFR or the CVC guidelines. Conclusion:For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds that the impugned conditions in the RPF for visa outsourcing in the Indian Embassy in Moscow cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. No ground is made out for holding that the impugned conditions are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- which will be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent UOI within four weeks. The applications are dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1214
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act regarding cash payments made by an Assessee in the transport business.
Summary:
Issue 1: Violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act
The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the Assessee's violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act by making cash payments exceeding Rs. 10,000 without proper examination or evidence. The Tribunal's finding that the payments were genuine for the business operation was upheld, considering the practical aspects of the transport business and compliance with Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules.
Issue 2: Justification of Addition by Assessing Officer
The Assessing Officer disallowed cash payment of Rs. 7,00,036 under Lorry Hire Account, citing violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also rejected the appeal. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, considering the necessity of cash payments for business operations and compliance with Rule 6DD of the Rules.
The High Court noted that the Assessee's business of transport and fleet operations required cash payments for drivers, cleaners, and other employees, as well as for fuel and miscellaneous expenses. These payments were essential for the smooth operation of the business and fell within the scope of Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules.
The Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the Assessee was justified as the payments were made to ensure the proper functioning of the transport business and were identifiable to the Department. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1213
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 14,35,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allowing relief of Rs. 50,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 2,32,000/- under various heads due to absence of proper regular vouchers.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Rs. 14,35,000/- on Account of Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs. 14,35,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) had added the amount received as loans from four individuals, totaling Rs. 14,35,000/-, as unexplained cash credits. The assessee provided evidence including account payee cheques, PAN details, income tax returns, bank statements, and affidavits confirming the loans. The CIT(A) observed that the cash creditors were regular assessees, and the loans were received through account payee cheques, with the sources of deposits in the creditors' bank accounts reasonably explained. The CIT(A) concluded that the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors were established, and thus, the addition was deleted.
The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The ITAT emphasized that the A.O. should not reject the explanation without proper basis and confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's ground.
Issue 2: Allowing Relief of Rs. 50,000/- out of Total Addition of Rs. 2,32,000/-
The A.O. disallowed Rs. 2,32,000/- on an adhoc basis due to the absence of proper supporting bills and vouchers for various expenses. The CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to Rs. 50,000/-, reasoning that the expenses were incidental to the business and that proper vouchers were not always practicable for such expenses. The CIT(A) upheld a partial disallowance for vehicle running, telephone, and mobile expenses, considering the possibility of personal use.
The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning, noting that the disallowance was made on an adhoc basis and that the nature of the expenses did not warrant a full disallowance. The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's ground, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, with the ITAT confirming the CIT(A)'s order on both issues. The deletion of the addition of Rs. 14,35,000/- u/s 68 was upheld, and the relief of Rs. 50,000/- out of the total addition of Rs. 2,32,000/- was also confirmed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1212
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
2. Nature of proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
3. Interpretation of relevant sections of the SARFAESI Act, Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, and the Limitation Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act:
The core issue in this appeal was whether an application for condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act beyond the prescribed 45 days can be allowed by exercising power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal initially dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside this order, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the application for condonation of delay on its merits.
The High Court, upon appeal, held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court reasoned that the provisions of the Limitation Act apply "as far as may be" to applications made to a Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, but Section 5, which pertains to condonation of delay, does not apply to original proceedings like suits. The Court emphasized that Section 5 is not applicable to original proceedings, which include applications under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, as these are in the nature of original proceedings similar to suits.
2. Nature of Proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act:
The Court examined whether proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act are appellate or original in nature. Referring to the Supreme Court decisions in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and Transcore v. Union of India, the Court concluded that proceedings under Section 17(1) are original and not appellate. The Supreme Court had clarified that these proceedings are initial actions brought before a forum to challenge measures taken by a secured creditor, akin to filing a suit in a civil court.
3. Interpretation of Relevant Sections:
The Court analyzed Sections 17, 35, 36, and 37 of the SARFAESI Act, Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, and Section 29 of the Limitation Act. The Court noted that Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act states that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall dispose of applications in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the rules made thereunder. Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, applies the provisions of the Limitation Act to applications made to a Tribunal "as far as may be."
The Court concluded that while the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, Section 5 does not apply because the proceedings are original in nature, similar to suits. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar, which held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to original proceedings initiated by applications, such as those under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
The High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, holding that the Tribunal rightly refused to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, as these proceedings are original in nature, akin to suits. The Tribunal's decision to reject the application for condonation of delay was upheld, and the learned Single Judge's order was set aside. The writ application was dismissed, and the Court provided a stay of operation for four weeks to allow the writ petitioners to seek relief from a higher forum.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1211
Issues involved: Interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (the 2006 Act) in relation to the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (the 1975 Act) and other related enactments.
Summary:
1. Background and Common Questions:
The judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions involving corporate agencies and individual landowners seeking clarification on the conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural purposes and the requirements under the 1975 Act and the 2006 Act.
2. Provisions of the 1975 Act and Non-agricultural Land Assessment Tax Act:
The 1975 Act and the now-repealed A.P. Non-agricultural Land Assessment Tax Act regulated the development of urban areas and levied taxes on converting agricultural land for non-agricultural use, respectively.
3. Introduction of the 2006 Act:
The 2006 Act was enacted to prohibit the conversion of agricultural lands without specific permission, with prescribed fees, aiming to prevent indiscriminate land use changes.
4. Petitioners' Contentions:
Petitioners argued that the 2006 Act should not apply to their cases, as the 1975 Act and related laws govern land use permissions, and the 2006 Act's requirements are unnecessary and legally baseless.
5. Government and UDA Stand:
The Government and Urban Development Authorities (UDAs) asserted that the 2006 Act's purpose differs from the 1975 Act, focusing on preventing agricultural land conversion, and permissions under both laws are distinct.
6. Judicial Analysis - 1975 Act vs. 2006 Act:
The judgment distinguishes the 1975 Act's urban development focus from the 2006 Act's land use regulation, emphasizing that the latter applies to both rural and urban areas for agricultural land conversion control.
7. Precedents and Legal Interpretation:
Citing legal precedents, the judgment emphasizes that special enactments like the 1975 Act prevail over general laws like the 2006 Act, especially when conflicts arise.
8. Decision and Conclusion:
The writ petitions were disposed of, clarifying that UDAs and Local Authorities can require clearance under the 2006 Act for releasing layouts, except when the land was already non-agricultural before the 2006 Act's enforcement date.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1210
Issues involved:
Challenging order on substantial questions of law regarding property valuation and capital gains assessment.
Issue 1: Comparative sale instance for property valuation
The Tribunal's decision on the reliance of comparative sale instance for property valuation was challenged by the Revenue. The Assessee contended that the property was under litigation without supporting evidence, which the Revenue did not controvert. The Tribunal's consideration of this circumstance and rejection of the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer were deemed as shifting the burden of proof to the Revenue.
Issue 2: Consideration of property location for valuation
The Tribunal's decision to consider a property with a residential building situated away from the main road for valuation, as opposed to a vacant site on the main road, was questioned. The Revenue argued that the property in question was under litigation and might not have fetched a good value, but no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Tribunal justified its decision by stating that properties on main roads generally have higher value, and the valuation by the Sub Registrar's office is only a guidance value, not reflecting the true market value.
Judgment Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order on substantial questions of law related to property valuation and capital gains assessment. The Assessee sold a nursing home in 1995 and offered tax on capital gains, splitting it into long term and short term gains. Disagreement arose regarding the valuation of the property as on 1.4.1981, with the Assessing Officer and the Assessee citing different values per sq.ft. The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal on long term capital gains, leading to the Revenue's challenge.
The Court noted that the property in question was on the main road, which typically commands a higher value. The Tribunal's decision to accept the Assessee's valuation over the Assessing Officer's was deemed justified, as the Sub Registrar's valuation is considered a minimum and not reflective of the true market value. Therefore, the substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1209
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty u/s 271D for cash loan transactions.
2. Revenue appeal regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.
3. Addition towards difference in cost of construction u/s 69.
Summary:
Issue 1: Penalty u/s 271D for cash loan transactions
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs u/s 271D for accepting a cash loan from his son, arguing that the transaction was a family loan and should be exempt under section 273B. The Tribunal referenced the case of Vanamadi Satyanarayana, Kakinada Vs. ACIT, emphasizing that penalties u/s 271D should consider the surrounding circumstances and the bona fide nature of family transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not justified and deleted it, stating, "In case of family transactions, the bonafide of the assessees should not be doubted."
Issue 2: Revenue appeal regarding monetary limits for filing appeals
The revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed because the revenue effect was less than Rs. 2,00,000, in line with the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in C.I.T. Vs A. Rajendra Prasad. The Tribunal noted, "the revenue has to necessarily follow them and if a case falls under one of the exceptions provided in the circulars, a specific ground should be raised in that regard." Since no such ground was raised, the appeal was dismissed.
Issue 3: Addition towards difference in cost of construction u/s 69
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 5,26,199/- made by the A.O. towards the difference in the cost of construction of a house. The A.O. had referred the matter to the D.V.O., who estimated the cost at Rs. 23.69 lakhs. After allowing for self-supervision charges and rate differences, the A.O. arrived at a difference of Rs. 5,26,199/-. The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s calculations were incorrect and that the proper rebates were not applied. The Tribunal concluded, "If the rebate on account of self-supervision and the rate difference and also investment in further years are allowed to the assessee no addition is called for on account of unexplained investment in the construction of the property." Consequently, the addition was deleted.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the penalty u/s 271D and the addition u/s 69, while dismissing the revenue's appeal due to the monetary limit. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside accordingly.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1208
Issues Involved:1. Treatment of short-term capital gain and exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of disallowance under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain'. Summary:Issue 1: Treatment of Short-Term Capital Gain and Exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961The revenue contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in law by treating the capital gain as short-term and allowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO scrutinized the evidences and found discrepancies in the dematerialized (D-mat) account transactions. The AO argued that the shares were not held for more than 12 months and thus should be treated as short-term capital gain. The assessee claimed that the period of holding should be calculated from the date of the contract note as per Board's Circular No.704 dated 28-4-1995. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation and held that the shares were long-term capital assets, thus eligible for exemption u/s 10(38). Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowance under the Head 'Long Term Capital Gain'The AO disallowed Rs. 56,81,483/- under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' on the grounds that the shares were transferred through an off-market transaction and not through the stock exchange. The ld. CIT(A) reversed this disallowance, stating that the shares were initially transferred to the HUF's D-mat account by mistake and later corrected. The ld. CIT(A) held that the date of the contract note should be taken as the date of purchase, making the capital gain long-term and exempt u/s 10(38). Tribunal's Findings:The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not furnish sufficient evidence to support the claim that the shares were delivered on 12-2-04. The Tribunal referred to Circular No.768 dated 24-6-98, which clarified that Circular No.704 is applicable only to physical share scripts and not dematerialized shares. The Tribunal concluded that the date of acquisition should be the date when the dematerialized shares were entered in the assessee's D-mat account. As the shares were entered in the D-mat account on 22-5-04, the Tribunal held that the capital gain should be treated as short-term. The Tribunal reversed the ld. CIT(A)'s finding and restored the AO's decision. Conclusion:The appeal of the revenue was allowed, and the Tribunal held that the capital gain of Rs. 56,81,483/- should be treated as short-term capital gain, not eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Order Pronounced on 23.04.2010
-
2010 (4) TMI 1207
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC is bailable or non-bailable in the State of Tamil Nadu.
2. Validity of the Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu declaring the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC as non-bailable.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC is bailable or non-bailable in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The court examined the classification of the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC under different legal frameworks. Initially, u/s 506(i) of IPC was bailable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. However, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 empowered the State Government to declare certain offences as cognizable and non-bailable. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification in 1970 declaring offences u/s 506(ii) of IPC as non-bailable. The confusion arose with the introduction of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which again classified the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC as bailable. The court concluded that the notification under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, continues to hold statutory force, making the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC non-bailable in Tamil Nadu.
Issue 2: Validity of the Notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu declaring the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC as non-bailable.
The court reviewed conflicting judgments from various High Courts. The Delhi High Court in Sant Ram v. Delhi State and Narendra Kumar v. State upheld the validity of similar notifications, while the Allahabad High Court in Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. declared such notifications illegal post the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Gujarat High Court in Vinod Rao v. State of Gujarat supported the continuity of such notifications under the new Code. The Madras High Court, acknowledging these conflicting views and the unresolved status from a previous Division Bench decision in K.M. Sundaram v. Inspector General of Police, decided to refer the matter to a Division Bench for a definitive ruling.
Interim Order:
Pending the Division Bench's decision, the court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners, ordering their release on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and directed them to be available for police interrogation as required. The Registry was instructed to place the petitions before the Chief Justice for referral to a Division Bench to address the validity of the 1970 notification and the bailability of the offence u/s 506(i) of IPC in Tamil Nadu.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1206
National waste of seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences - Insurance on vehicles - seeking directions so that national waste with regard to the seized vehicles involved in commission of various offences may not become junk and their road worthiness be maintained - Facts of the present case, the report of 2005 of NCRB, 84,675 vehicles were reported lost, out of which 24,918 vehicles were recovered by the police and out of these, only 4,676 vehicles were finally co-ordinated. As a result, several hundred crores worth of assets were lost. Further, by the time the recovered vehicles are released, the same are reduced to junk at the respective police stations.
HELD THAT:- Petitioners have submitted that information with regard to all insured vehicles in the country is available with the Insurance Information Bureau created by IRDA. This information could be utilised to assist the police to identify the insurer of the vehicle. Upon recovery of the vehicle in police station, insurer/ complainant can call an All India Toll Free No. to be provided by Insurance Information Bureau to give the information of the recovered vehicle. Thereafter, the insured vehicle database would be searched to identify the respective insurer. Upon such identification, this information can be communicated to the respective insurer and concerned police stations for necessary coordination.
In our considered opinion, the information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer.
We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai [2002 (10) TMI 773 - SUPREME COURT] considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given, like insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdictional Court, The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with and Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle does not vest with the insurer.
It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles become unworthy of being driven on road.
We direct that all the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and further direct that the activities of each and every police stations, especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.
In case any non-compliance is reported either by the Petitioners or by any of the aggrieved party, then needless to say, we would be constrained to take a serious view of the matter against an erring officer who would be dealt with iron hands. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1205
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the payments made by the assessee to the parent company for the purchase of designs are in the nature of 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the DTAA between India and Austria.
2. Whether the assessee was required to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act on these payments.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Nature of Payments as 'Royalty'
The primary contention was whether the payments made by the assessee to its parent Austrian company for the purchase of designs should be classified as 'royalty'. The Assessing Officer (AO) argued that the payments were for the use of designs, which fell under the definition of 'royalty' as per Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Income Tax Act and Article 12 of the DTAA. The AO emphasized that the designs were not sold outright but were provided for limited use, and the parent company retained proprietary rights over them. The AO also noted that the designs were specific to the parent company's technology and were not available off the shelf.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], however, observed that the transaction was one of sale and purchase of goods on a principal-to-principal basis. The CIT(A) held that the definition of 'royalty' under the DTAA should prevail over the domestic law, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India Vs Azadi Bachao Andolan. The CIT(A) concluded that the payments did not give rise to any income in India and were not in the nature of royalty under the DTAA.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and material on record, agreed with the CIT(A). It noted that the designs were procured for specific projects and were handed over to the buyers of the plant and machinery. The Tribunal emphasized that the transaction was a purchase of a copyrighted article, not a transfer of copyright. It held that the payments were not 'royalty' as per the DTAA and confirmed the findings of the CIT(A).
Issue 2: Requirement to Deduct Tax at Source
The AO held that the assessee had failed to deduct tax at source under section 195 of the Income Tax Act on the payments made to the parent company, which were considered 'royalty'. The AO raised a demand under section 201(1) and interest under section 201(1A).
The CIT(A) disagreed, stating that since the payments were not in the nature of royalty and did not give rise to any income in India, section 195 was not applicable. The Tribunal upheld this view, confirming that the payments were for the purchase of copyrighted articles and not royalties, thus not requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the revenue, confirming that the payments made by the assessee to its parent company for the purchase of designs were not 'royalty' under the DTAA and the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on these payments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the transaction as an outright sale of copyrighted articles rather than a transfer of copyright.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1204
Issues involved:
The issue involves a petition seeking direction to waive the interest levied u/s 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for block assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98 based on a settlement between the Petitioner and the Respondents.
Judgment Details:
1. The Petitioner requested the third Respondent to waive the interest levied u/s 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for block assessment years 1987-88 to 1997-98, as per a settlement dated 29-7-1997. The interest amount sought to be waived was Rs. 80,58,639.
2. Following a search at the Petitioner's premises, a demand of Rs. 3,60,00,000 was raised after accepting block returns. Subsequently, interest of Rs. 80,58,639 was charged u/s 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the first Respondent.
3. The third Respondent, after evaluating the case, rejected the petition for interest waiver u/s 220(2) stating that the conditions u/s 220(2A) were not met. The Assessee's representation for waiver was dismissed.
4. The Petitioner argued that all conditions u/s 220(2A) were satisfied, but the third Respondent still rejected the waiver plea. The Respondents contended that the order was considered and did not require interference.
5. A settlement was reached between the department and the Petitioner after the search, leading to completion of block assessment. The Petitioner provided documents and securities to the department for debt collection and the amount was adjusted against tax demand.
6. The court found that the default in payment was due to circumstances beyond the Assessee's control. The Assessee cooperated in the assessment and recovery process, facing genuine hardship due to lack of funds, mainly from book debtors.
7. The court held that the third Respondent should have exercised discretion in waiving the interest for the block assessment period. The impugned order u/s 220(2A) was quashed, directing the third Respondent to waive the interest for the specified years. The writ petition was allowed without costs.
-
2010 (4) TMI 1203
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act based on deletion of addition in quantum assessment for asst. year 1998-99.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The appeal was filed by the revenue against the deletion of penalty of Rs. 9,54,080/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had imposed the penalty based on the addition made in the quantum assessment, which was later deleted by the Tribunal in its order dated 7.12.2007. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty after considering that the addition in the quantum assessment had been deleted. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, stating that no interference was called for since the basis for imposition of penalty no longer existed.
Issue 2: Computation of long term capital gains
The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), had received a total consideration of Rs. 59,94,000/- on account of the sale of property to a builder. The capital gains were worked out at Rs. 55,39,603/- after claiming exemption u/s 54 amounting to Rs. 53,60,400/- and the balance was offered to tax as long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 54, resulting in the entire amount being taxed as long term gains. The CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 54 in respect of only one flat, leading to a revised computation of long term capital gains and tax payable.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to cancel the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) based on the deletion of the addition in the quantum assessment. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on 13th April, 2010.
........
|
9911796707
