|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 782 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 824
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and the applicability of section 194A to the facts of the case.
Issue 1: Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act
The appellant, a company engaged in manufacturing, had shown work payment to a contractor. The Assessing Officer disallowed the job-work payment due to a default in crediting the amount by the last day of the year. The first appellate authority affirmed this view but excluded the amount where TDS was deducted in March and deposited before filing the return. The appellant contested that the payment for job-work was made and credited on the same day, supported by a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The Gujarat High Court and ITAT Ahmedabad also supported the view that as long as the deduction was made before March 31 and deposited before the last date of filing the return, the law's requirements were fulfilled. Following these precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's ground, stating that no disallowance should be made under section 40(a)(ia) for payments where TDS was deposited before the due date of filing the return.
Issue 2: Applicability of section 194A
The appellant argued that the provisions of section 194A were not applicable to the facts of the case. The Tribunal's decision on the first issue indirectly addresses this point by allowing the appellant's ground related to the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). As a result, the Tribunal did not specifically address the applicability of section 194A in the judgment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the Assessee, specifically addressing the issue of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act based on the timing of TDS deduction and deposit before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal's decision was supported by various legal precedents and interpretations of the relevant provisions.
-
2012 (4) TMI 823
The Supreme Court of India in 2012 (4) TMI 823 - SC Order, with judges Mr. D.K. Jain and Mr. Anil R. Dave, condoned delay and admitted the case, tagging it with C.A. Nos. 2558-2559 of 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 822
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2002-03, addition made under section 147/144, lack of adequate opportunity for assessee, plea for rule of natural justice.
Assessment under section 147/144: The assessment for the year 2002-03 was finalized under section 147/144, with an addition of Rs.5,56,423. The appeal filed by the assessee was decided ex-parte by the CIT (A).
Lack of adequate opportunity: The assessee raised 25 grounds in the appeal, contending that they were not provided with adequate opportunity. The assessee prayed for the application of the rule of natural justice in their case.
Decision: The ITAT, Delhi Bench decided to set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The matter was to be decided de novo after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to approach the Assessing Officer within two months from the receipt of the order.
Outcome: The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in open court on April 4th, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 821
Issues Involved:
The issue involves the jurisdiction of the court to entertain an anticipatory bail application in a case registered by the CBI under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Jurisdictional Dispute:
The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case registered by the CBI in Delhi, but the application was dismissed by the Special Judge in Delhi citing lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Petitioner argued that Delhi court has jurisdiction as the FIR was filed in Delhi, documents need to be produced in Delhi, and the embezzled money was from a treasury in Delhi. Cited cases to support the claim.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the FIR was registered on the direction of the High Court at Allahabad, and all accused are being produced before the Special Judge in Gaziabad as the corruption occurred in Uttar Pradesh.
Facts of the Case:
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the CBI to conduct an enquiry into the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme in Uttar Pradesh. The accused, including government officials, were involved in embezzlement of funds allocated for hospital upgradation. The accused committed offences under various sections of the IPC and the PC Act.
Legal Interpretation:
The court referred to Section 4(2) of the PC Act, which specifies that offences shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area where the offence was committed. Cited a Supreme Court case to emphasize the importance of the place where the money was misappropriated.
Decision:
The court concluded that the offences were committed in Uttar Pradesh, where the funds were embezzled after being entrusted to the NRHM Directorate. Therefore, the Special Judge in Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, has jurisdiction to try the case. The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in Delhi.
-
2012 (4) TMI 820
Issues involved: Challenge to addition made by A.O. towards sale of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for A.Y. 2006-07.
Core Issue: Whether the amount received from the sale of TDR should be treated as income for A.Y. 2006-07.
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in construction activities under the Slum Rehabilitation Programme, challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) towards the sale of TDR amounting to Rs. 2,67,29,696 for A.Y. 2006-07. The A.O. contended that the amount should have been treated as income in that assessment year. The assessee argued that the TDR was directly linked to ongoing Slum Rehabilitation Projects and should be recognized as income only when the projects are completed. The A.O. and the Ld. CIT (A) rejected the assessee's explanation. The matter was brought before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.
The Appellate Tribunal considered the submissions and records. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee cited relevant case laws to support the contention that income from the sale of TDR should be recognized when the projects are completed. The Tribunal noted that the Slum Rehabilitation Projects were not completed in A.Y. 2006-07 and the TDR had a direct nexus with these projects. Relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the A.O. to verify if the TDR amount was offered in A.Y. 2008-09 when the projects were completed. If so, the amount should not be taxed in A.Y. 2006-07. The A.O. was instructed to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed.
The judgment highlights the importance of recognizing income from the sale of TDR in alignment with the completion of relevant projects, as per the Project Completion Method of accounting.
-
2012 (4) TMI 819
Issues involved: Appeal dismissal due to non-consideration of Ground of appeal No. 4 and related submissions and case law.
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI, in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06, dismissed the appeal in ITA No. 2043(Del)2010 on 31.08.2010 without considering and deciding Ground of appeal No. 4 and the assessee's submissions and case law cited.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the order dated 31.08.2010 did not mention or decide Ground of appeal No. 4 as raised by the assessee, indicating an inadvertent mistake apparent from the record.
As a result of the oversight, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 31.08.2010 to ensure that the appeal is now heard on the merits of Ground No. 4, along with the submissions made by the assessee and the case law cited. The hearing is scheduled for 5.7.2012, as announced in the open court in the presence of both parties, with no fresh notice to be issued.
Consequently, the application filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 818
Issues involved: Appeals filed by Revenue against common order dated 02-09-2011 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-III, Ahmedabad for Assessment Years (AYs) 2005-06 and 2008-09.
ITA no.2920/Ahd/2011:
The issue in this appeal is the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's grievance is restricting the disallowance to Rs.75,000 out of Rs.10,80,058. The learned AR argued that the AO's invocation of Rule 8D is illegal as it pertains to AY 2005-06. Relying on case laws, it was contended that Rule 8D is not retrospective. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration based on judicial pronouncements, following the decision in Minda Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT.
ITA no.2921/Ahd/2011:
In this appeal, the Revenue challenged the deletion of disallowance u/s 14A and addition u/s 41(1) of the Act. The AO invoked Rule 8D for AY 2008-09, which was contested by the learned AR. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the AO for fresh consideration based on judicial pronouncements. Regarding the addition of Rs.7,70,047, both parties agreed that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. GP International Ltd. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground and decided the issue in favor of the assessee based on the High Court's decision.
In conclusion, ITA No.2920/Ahd/2011 was allowed for statistical purposes, and ITA No.2921/Ahd/2011 was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (4) TMI 817
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of proceedings initiated u/s 147 and issuance of notices u/s 148.
2. Validity of additions made by the A.O. u/s 68 regarding gifts received by the assessees.
3. Jurisdiction of the A.O. to issue notices u/s 148 beyond the period of four years.
Summary:
1. Legality of proceedings initiated u/s 147 and issuance of notices u/s 148:
The assessees challenged the A.O.'s action of initiating proceedings u/s 147 and issuing notices u/s 148. The Tribunal examined whether the A.O. had legally assumed jurisdiction u/s 147. The A.O. issued notices based on information from the Addl. DIT (Inv.) regarding gifts received by the assessees from NRIs and long-term capital gains from share transactions. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. must have "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, which should be reflected in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal found that the A.O.'s reasons only indicated an intention to verify the genuineness of the gifts and capital gains, without a positive indication that income had escaped assessment. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the A.O.'s reasons did not meet the requirement of forming a belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the notices issued u/s 148.
2. Validity of additions made by the A.O. u/s 68 regarding gifts received by the assessees:
The A.O. made additions u/s 68, rejecting the explanations of the assessees regarding the gifts received from NRIs. The Tribunal observed that the A.O. had not made any additions related to the share transactions, focusing solely on the gifts. The Tribunal reiterated that the A.O.'s reasons for reopening the assessments were insufficient to establish a belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the assessment orders based on the invalid notices u/s 148.
3. Jurisdiction of the A.O. to issue notices u/s 148 beyond the period of four years:
In two cases, the A.O. initiated proceedings u/s 147 beyond the period of four years from the end of the respective assessment years, with additions of Rs. 80,000 and Rs. 50,000. As per sec. 149(1)(b), the A.O. can issue notices u/s 148 beyond four years only if the alleged escaped income exceeds Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal held that the notices in these cases were also bad in law due to the jurisdictional issue. Consequently, the Tribunal cancelled the assessment orders in these cases as well.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed all the appeals, quashing the notices issued u/s 148 and cancelling the assessment orders passed by the A.O. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for the A.O. to have a valid "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment, which was absent in the recorded reasons. The Tribunal also highlighted the jurisdictional limits for issuing notices beyond four years.
-
2012 (4) TMI 816
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s.195 of the Income Tax Act regarding deduction of tax at source for payments made to Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) for live telecast of events.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue challenged the order of the CIT(A) which held that payments to PCB for live telecast are not royalty payments, thus no tax deduction u/s.195 required. The assessee, a Mauritius-based company, sought permission u/s.195(2) for payment without tax deduction. The AO initially directed tax deduction, but the CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, stating live telecast payments are not royalty.
Upon review, it was noted that a Tribunal order in a similar case (ADIT(IT) vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.) concluded that live broadcasting payments do not fall u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act, hence no tax deduction is necessary. Both parties agreed the current case parallels the Neo Sports case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on the Neo Sports precedent, finding no need for intervention.
Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s order.
-
2012 (4) TMI 815
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income as 'capital gains' vs. 'business income'.
2. Addition on account of investment made out of undisclosed sources.
3. Deletion of estimated income from real estate business.
4. Deletion of addition due to unexplained cash-in-hand.
Summary:
Issue 1: Classification of Income as 'Capital Gains' vs. 'Business Income'
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by treating the income under the head 'capital gains' as 'business income'. The assessee argued that the land was purchased as a capital asset and sold after nine years, indicating it was not stock in trade. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the intention at the time of purchase was to hold it as a capital asset, supported by agricultural income disclosed in earlier years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s findings, relying on case laws such as Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd V. CIT, CIT v. Smt. Bilkishbai, and CIT v. Sushila Devi Jain, confirming the income should be assessed under 'capital gains'.
Issue 2: Addition on Account of Investment Made Out of Undisclosed Sources
The AO added Rs. 30 lakhs to the assessee's income, suspecting it was made from undisclosed sources, questioning the genuineness of cash deposits and the source of funds. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation that Rs. 10 lakhs were contributed for his sister's marriage, and the remaining funds were from bank drafts and cash flow. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity for the AO to verify the claims and remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
Issue 3: Deletion of Estimated Income from Real Estate Business
The AO estimated Rs. 2 lakhs as income from real estate business, arguing the assessee was a prominent real estate dealer. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, stating no concrete evidence was provided by the AO to support this estimation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the AO's addition was purely on an estimate basis without corroborative material.
Issue 4: Deletion of Addition Due to Unexplained Cash-in-Hand
The AO added Rs. 763,254/- as unexplained cash-in-hand, doubting the source and the circumstances under which it was kept. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting the cash flow statement showed this as a closing balance and there was no provision under the Income Tax Act to treat it as income from other sources. The Tribunal, however, found the CIT(A)'s acceptance of the assessee's self-created evidence without proper verification untenable and upheld the AO's findings, reinstating the addition.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on treating the income as 'capital gains' and deleting the estimated income from real estate business but remanded the issue of unexplained investment back to the AO and reinstated the addition for unexplained cash-in-hand.
-
2012 (4) TMI 814
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves determining whether certain documents are acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act or independent contracts to pay time-barred debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. Additionally, it addresses the liability of a guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act based on subsequent acknowledgments made by the borrowers.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Acknowledgment vs. Independent Contract
The plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of a loan amount against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The appellant argued that the documents in question were independent contracts under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, not mere acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The contents of the documents satisfied the requirements of Section 25(3), as they referred to the loan amount, dues, and a promise to pay on the same terms as the original agreement. The court found that the trial court erred in treating the documents as acknowledgments and ruled in favor of the appellant.
Issue 2: Liability of Guarantor
The court considered whether subsequent acknowledgments made by the borrowers would bind the guarantor under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act. The guarantor had promised to pay the time-barred debt on the same terms as the original agreement. Citing a Supreme Court case, the court held that the liability of the guarantor remains unaffected by the borrower's failure, and both are jointly and severally liable. As the guarantee was continuous, the acknowledgment of debt by the borrowers was deemed binding on the guarantor. Consequently, the suit was not barred by limitation against the guarantor.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The plaintiff was granted a decree for the loan amount along with interest, and costs were to be borne by the respondents.
-
2012 (4) TMI 813
Issues Involved:
1. Exemption of effluent treatment receipts on the principle of mutuality.
2. Classification of effluent treatment receipts as business income.
3. Non-granting of set off for carried forward losses.
4. Non-granting of deduction u/s 80IA.
5. Disallowance of non-business expenditure as donations.
6. Allowance of depreciation.
Summary:
1. Exemption of Effluent Treatment Receipts on Principle of Mutuality:
The assessee argued that the effluent treatment receipts should be exempt from income based on the principle of mutuality. The A.O. observed that the assessee was engaged in normal business activities and not exclusively dealing with its members, hence the principle of mutuality was not applicable. The CIT(A) upheld this view, noting that the complete identity between contributors and participants was missing, and the company undertook projects without direct nexus to member contributions. The ITAT directed the A.O. to verify if any non-members received services, and if so, tax those receipts accordingly.
2. Classification of Effluent Treatment Receipts as Business Income:
The A.O. classified the effluent treatment receipts as business income, noting that the company earned a significant surplus and dealt with non-members. The CIT(A) agreed, stating that the income derived from specific services performed for members is chargeable u/s 28(iii). The ITAT upheld this classification but directed the A.O. to verify the services provided to non-members.
3. Non-Granting of Set Off for Carried Forward Losses:
The assessee contended that the A.O. did not grant set off for carried forward losses of earlier years. The CIT(A) did not address this ground due to the rejection of the mutuality claim. The ITAT did not specifically address this issue in its final remarks, implying it was secondary to the mutuality principle.
4. Non-Granting of Deduction u/s 80IA:
The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA, which the A.O. disallowed as it was not claimed in the return. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, citing the Supreme Court decision in GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. The ITAT noted that this ground had no meaning once the principle of mutuality was accepted.
5. Disallowance of Non-Business Expenditure as Donations:
The A.O. disallowed donations as non-business expenditure, which the CIT(A) partly upheld. The ITAT did not specifically address this issue in its final remarks, implying it was secondary to the mutuality principle.
6. Allowance of Depreciation:
The A.O. disallowed depreciation, which the CIT(A) allowed. The ITAT upheld the allowance of depreciation, stating it had no bearing once the principle of mutuality was accepted.
Conclusion:
The ITAT directed the A.O. to verify the claim of services provided to non-members and tax accordingly. The principle of mutuality was accepted, affecting the treatment of other grounds such as deduction u/s 80IA and disallowance of operating expenses. The appeals were set aside for statistical purposes.
-
2012 (4) TMI 812
Issues involved: Addition u/s.43B for non-payment of service tax.
Summary:
The appeal raised various grounds, with the main issue being the addition u/s.43B for non-payment of service tax. The assessee's counsel argued that the issue was similar to previous decisions by the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the CIT(A)'s order. After careful consideration, the Tribunal referred to the case law of ACIT vs. Real Image Media Tech. (P) Ltd. and CIT vs. Noble and Hewitt (I) P. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the service provider is not entitled to claim a deduction on account of service tax, and therefore, the addition u/s.43B was not justified. Following the precedents, the Tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee, resulting in the allowance of the appeal.
The order was pronounced on 4/4/2012 by Shri T.R. Sood, Accountant Member, and Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member.
-
2012 (4) TMI 811
The Gujarat High Court admitted an appeal regarding substantial questions of law related to the activities of M/s. GWSSB in purchasing and selling water, the usage of pipelines laid by M/s. L & T, and the exclusion of activities connected with the welfare of citizens from liability of service tax.
-
2012 (4) TMI 810
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the admissibility of expert witness evidence in a criminal case under section 482 Cr. P.C., the right of the accused to produce expert witness in defense, the necessity of examination of a handwriting expert, and the interlocutory nature of certain orders leading to the revision petition.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Admissibility of expert witness evidence
The petitioner filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the accused's statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused sought examination of a handwriting expert under section 243(2) Cr. P.C. to disprove her involvement. The MM initially dismissed this application, leading to a revision petition before the ASJ, who allowed the examination of the expert witness.
Issue 2: Right of the accused to produce expert witness
The complainant challenged the ASJ's order, arguing that the accused had previously filed similar applications for expert examination which were dismissed. The complainant contended that the accused's right to examine a handwriting expert was not maintainable due to the prior rejections. The ASJ, however, granted the accused one opportunity for expert examination in her defense.
Issue 3: Necessity of examination of handwriting expert
The complainant argued that the dishonored cheque was due to insufficient funds, not a difference in signatures. The complainant also highlighted that the Branch Manager confirmed the accused's signatures on the cheque. The complainant asserted that the examination of a handwriting expert was unnecessary as the MM had already compared the signatures and found no variance.
Issue 4: Interlocutory nature of orders leading to revision
The judgment emphasized that the accused had previously filed applications for expert examination, which were dismissed by the MM. The ASJ's order allowing the expert witness examination was deemed unwarranted, especially considering the specific directions for expeditious case disposal. The judgment concluded that the ASJ erred in entertaining the revision petition and set aside the order, disposing of the petition accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 809
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance under the head Misc. expenses.
2. Investment in building.
3. Disallowance under the head Penalty.
4. Deduction u/s 80G.
Summary:
1. Disallowance under the head Misc. expenses:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief on disallowance of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Misc. expenses, arguing it was not wholly and exclusively for business purposes and was capital expenditure. The assessee, a manufacturer of agricultural implements, paid the amount to State Bank of Indore to lift a ban on financing Standard-make tractors, which was affecting sales. The CIT(A) allowed the claim u/s 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating the payment was not a penalty but a business necessity. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the expenditure met the conditions of u/s 37(1) and was incurred for commercial expediency.
2. Investment in building:
The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision to allow relief on the difference in investment in building valuation determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO). The CIT(A) observed that differences up to 10%-15% should be ignored, noting the difference in this case was only 1.14%. The Tribunal upheld this view, referencing the Hon'ble Patna High Court's decision in Bimla Singh v CIT, which supports ignoring minor valuation differences.
3. Disallowance under the head Penalty:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,43,324/- paid to J&K Sales Tax Authorities, which the Assessing Officer treated as a penalty. The assessee argued the amount was sales tax, not a penalty, supported by a challan showing the payment as tax. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no evidence to contradict the assessee's claim.
4. Deduction u/s 80G:
The assessee's Cross Objection challenged the disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- u/s 80G for lack of evidence of payment to Red Cross. Both lower authorities and the Tribunal found no supporting evidence was provided, and the assessee did not submit additional evidence at this stage. Consequently, the claim was disallowed.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 808
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of certain questions during cross-examination.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition against an interlocutory order.
3. Scope of cross-examination and the judge's discretion in disallowing questions.
Summary:
Disallowance of Certain Questions During Cross-Examination:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Ld. Special Judge dated 12.01.2012, which disallowed questions during the cross-examination of prosecution witness PW 12. The questions disallowed were "Do you have a mobile phone?" and "Do you pay service tax on the phone bill of your mobile phone?" The petitioner argued these questions were relevant to demonstrate the government's revenue from mobile telephony through Service Tax during the tenure of co-accused A. Raja as Telecom Minister and to show the witness's awareness of Service Tax. The court, however, found these questions irrelevant to the subject matter or the creditworthiness of the witness.
Maintainability of the Writ Petition Against an Interlocutory Order:
The respondent CBI contended that the order of the Ld. Special Judge was interlocutory and not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Citing precedents, it was argued that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and not ordinarily entertained against interlocutory orders. The court agreed, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that High Courts should not interfere with findings within the jurisdiction of inferior tribunals unless findings are perverse or result in manifest injustice.
Scope of Cross-Examination and Judge's Discretion:
The court emphasized that under Chapter X of the Evidence Act, the judge has the responsibility to monitor cross-examination and exclude irrelevant evidence. Sections 146 to 153 of the Evidence Act empower the judge to forbid questions intended to annoy or insult the witness. The court noted that while cross-examination can go beyond examination-in-chief, it must relate to relevant facts. The judge has the discretion to disallow questions that are irrelevant, vexatious, or intended to harass the witness. The court found that the disallowed questions did not have any bearing on the subject matter or the witness's credibility and upheld the Ld. Special Judge's decision.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the court found no illegality or infirmity in the Ld. Special Judge's order. The judgment emphasized the judge's discretion in controlling cross-examination to prevent harassment and ensure relevance. A copy of the order was directed to be circulated among all judges of the subordinate judiciary.
-
2012 (4) TMI 807
Issues involved: Petition challenging order passed by respondent No. 2 u/s 16 and 17 for tax payment and certificate issuance.
Summary:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh heard a petition filed by a petitioner aggrieved by an order from respondent No. 2 dated 30-8-2011. The petitioner's counsel submitted that based on the respondent's statements in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the additional reply, the petition should be disposed of, allowing the petitioner to obtain a certificate from respondent No. 2 and proceed with further actions before the Income Tax Authority as per the law. Respondent No. 2 had no objection to this request. The respondent mentioned in paragraphs 16 and 17 that they paid a sum of Rs. 4,42,99,095 to the Income Tax department out of Rs. 5,73,92,946 withheld from the financial year 2009-10. The respondent undertook to issue the certificate of deduction within a week. The court directed the respondent to issue the certificate to the petitioner, who could then proceed with further actions, including applying for a refund of the excess amount withheld by respondent No. 2. The petition was disposed of with these directions and liberty granted to the petitioner for further proceedings in accordance with the law.
-
2012 (4) TMI 806
Title: High Court Bombay High Court Citation: 2012 (4) TMI 806 - Bombay High Court
Judge: S.J. Kathawalla, J.
Parties: Plaintiff represented by Mr. Mikhail Behl, Defendants represented by Ms. Radha Mitra
Summary: Both parties submitted Consent Terms dated 24th March, 2012. Terms accepted, suit disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 805
Issues involved: Reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and disallowance u/s 43B of the Act.
Reopening of assessment: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld.CIT(A) challenging the reopening of assessment. The original assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act, showing a loss claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by issuing a notice u/s 148 of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) held that the reopening of assessment was not proper as no new information was available with the Assessing Officer that led to the opinion for escapement of income for re-assessment purposes. The ld.CIT(A) relied on legal precedents to support this decision, emphasizing that when primary facts necessary for assessment are fully disclosed, the Income Tax Officer cannot commence proceedings for re-assessment based on a change of opinion. The Revenue failed to point out any new information or material that was not available during the original assessment, leading to the confirmation of the ld.CIT(A)'s finding and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
Disallowance u/s 43B of the Act: Another ground of appeal by the Revenue was against the deletion of a disallowance made u/s 43B of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance, stating that the interest in question was payable to an institution not covered by the provisions of section 43B of the Act. The Revenue could not provide any material to demonstrate that the interest was payable to an institution covered by section 43B. Since the reopening of assessment was deemed improper, the ground of appeal related to the disallowance u/s 43B was also dismissed.
In conclusion, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CHENNAI, upholding the decision of the ld.CIT(A) regarding the reopening of assessment and the disallowance u/s 43B of the Act.
........
|
9911796707
