Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 1003 Records

• 2013 (4) TMI 993
  
  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana quashed FIR No. 101 dated 30.09.2012 under Sections 420, 120-B IPC against the petitioner for contravening the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005. The petitioner had already paid the penalty imposed under the Act. The petition was allowed, and all related proceedings were quashed.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 992
  
  Issues involved: Disallowance of expenditure treated as capital in nature and disallowance of advances claimed as business loss.
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of expenditure treated as capital in nature
  
  The assessee debited Rs.83,20,841 under 'details of exceptional items' for the development of educational software, claiming it as revenue expenditure. The AO disallowed the amount as capital expenditure, which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). The ITAT Chennai, referring to similar cases, held that the expenditure for development of a new product in the same line of business is revenue expenditure. Citing relevant case laws, the ITAT concluded that the expenditure incurred on infructuous capital projects was revenue in nature. Therefore, the impugned addition of Rs.83,20,841 was deleted, and Ground No 1 was allowed.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of advances claimed as business loss
  
  The assessee had paid advances of Rs.66,86,104 during the course of business, which became irrecoverable and were written off. The AO disallowed the claim, stating it did not fulfill the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) partially confirmed the disallowance. The ITAT observed that while some advances were on capital account, others were made in the course of business and qualified as revenue expenditure. The ITAT disagreed with the Ld.CIT(A)'s classification of certain advances as capital losses, allowing the deduction under section 37(1) for advances made in the course of business. Consequently, the disallowance/additions of certain advances were deleted, and relief already granted was sustained. Thus, Ground No 2 was partly allowed.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed by the ITAT Chennai on April 10, 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 991
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) vs. Section 271AAA for penalty imposition.
  2. Validity of penalty imposition under an incorrect section.
  3. Jurisdictional challenge and curability under Section 292B.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Applicability of Section 271(1)(c) vs. Section 271AAA:
  The Assessee appealed against the penalty of Rs. 5,65,740/- u/s 271AAA for Assessment Year 2008-09. A search operation on 15.11.2007 revealed incriminating documents indicating unaccounted expenses. The Assessee initially denied the expenses but later surrendered Rs. 56,57,400/- on the condition of no penalty. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. CIT (A) observed that the correct provision for the year was Section 271AAA, not Section 271(1)(c), and reduced the penalty accordingly.
  
  2. Validity of Penalty Imposition under an Incorrect Section:
  The Assessee contended that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was void ab-initio as the applicable section was 271AAA. The Ld. CIT (A) noted that the Assessee did not object to the wrong section during the proceedings and deemed it a curable defect u/s 292B. However, the Tribunal found that Section 271AAA specifically excludes Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income, making the imposition under the wrong section unsustainable.
  
  3. Jurisdictional Challenge and Curability under Section 292B:
  The Tribunal held that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage and are not mere technical defects curable u/s 292B. Citing precedents, it was established that applying an inapplicable provision vitiates the order and cannot be transposed to the correct provision post-facto. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the penalty could be transposed to Section 271AAA, which was not invoked by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal concluded that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not sustainable and the Ld. CIT (A) overstepped by holding the Assessee liable under Section 271AAA. The order imposing the penalty was cancelled, and the Assessee's appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 990
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment deals with the reassessment framed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2004-05 without any fresh addition/disallowance based on search.
  
  Comprehensive Details:
  
  1. Grounds of Appeal:
  The appellant raised three grounds challenging the reassessment framed u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2009, alleging arbitrariness, invalidity, and duplication of assessment.
  
  2. Facts Leading to the Issue:
  The original return of income for the assessment year 2004-05 was filed by the assessee, followed by a search operation and subsequent reassessment by the AO u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act without any fresh additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as infructuous, leading to the current challenge.
  
  3. Arguments and Observations:
  The appellant contended that repeating the same income figures in reassessment as originally assessed u/s. 143(3) of the Act was improper. The Tribunal noted that no additional income was discovered during the search, and the CIT(A) confirmed no new additions were made.
  
  4. Legal Analysis:
  The Tribunal examined the provisions of sections 153A to 153D of the Act regarding search assessments. It emphasized that if no undisclosed income was found during the search, the AO should not repeat the same income figures in reassessment. The AO was directed to amend the assessment order accordingly.
  
  5. Decision:
  The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the need for proper computation of income and taxes in reassessment under section 153A of the Act.
  
  This judgment highlights the importance of following due process in reassessment proceedings and ensuring that search assessments are conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 989
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Disallowance of Rs. 1,97,580/- as capital expenditure.
  2. Disallowance of vehicle running expenses and freight, cartage expenses.
  3. Addition of Rs. 64,881/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Disallowance of Rs. 1,97,580/- as capital expenditure:
  The assessee challenged the disallowance of Rs. 1,97,580/- upheld by the CIT(A), arguing that the expenses were revenue in nature and incurred for business purposes before the commercial production started on 01.10.2006. The Tribunal considered the material on record and found that the business was in existence before the commercial production date. The expenses, including interest, service charges, insurance, office, and electrical charges, were for business purposes. Citing decisions from the Gujarat High Court, Supreme Court, and Delhi High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the expenses were revenue in nature and allowed the deduction, setting aside the orders of the authorities below.
  
  2. Disallowance of vehicle running expenses and freight, cartage expenses:
  The assessee contested the disallowance of Rs. 50,000/- for vehicle running expenses and Rs. 60,000/- for freight and cartage, arguing that the disallowances were adhoc and unsupported by specific defects in the records. The Tribunal noted that the assessee maintained proper books with bills and vouchers, and the Assessing Officer did not identify any specific unverifiable expenses. The Tribunal found the disallowances to be routine and adhoc, thus deleting the additions and allowing the assessee's grounds.
  
  3. Addition of Rs. 64,881/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act:
  The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 64,881/- for interest paid on unsecured loans from directors and relatives at 15%, compared to the 12.25% interest on bank loans. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer failed to provide comparable cases of lower interest rates on unsecured loans and did not consider the legitimate business needs and conditions under which the loans were taken. The Tribunal found the addition unjustified, as the interest paid was reasonable and necessary for the business, and deleted the addition, allowing the assessee's grounds.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the Tribunal setting aside the orders of the authorities below and deleting the disallowances and additions contested by the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 988
  
  Issues Involved:
  The appeal filed by the revenue against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-34, Mumbai dated 24.6.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09 regarding the rectification of assessment based on a valuation report received after completion of assessment.
  
  Issue 1: Rectification of Assessment based on Valuation Report
  
  The Appellate Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been decided in a previous case involving a co-owner of the property. In that case, the Assessing Officer had made a reference to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for valuation of the property after completing the assessment. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer cannot consider a report from the DVO after passing the assessment order. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that the disclosed value as on 1.4.1981 based on the Registered Valuer's Report should be accepted for computing long term capital gain. The Tribunal confirmed the findings of the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned CIT(A) regarding the rectification of assessment based on a valuation report received after completion of assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer cannot rely on a report from the DVO after passing the assessment order and directed the computation of long term capital gain based on the Registered Valuer's Report.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 987
  
  The Delhi High Court heard a case regarding the tax treatment of stock options offered to employees. The court admitted the case and considered whether the price difference of stock options granted under ESOP and ESPS schemes could be claimed as allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court dispensed with the printing of paper books and tagged the case with ITA No. 1898/2010 (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CIT).

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 986
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves challenges against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Lucknow dated 09.08.2010 for the assessment year 2006-07. The issues include the denial of deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, additions made by the Assessing Officer, acceptance of additional grounds and evidences, rectification order u/s. 154, and the subsequent withdrawal of appeals.
  
  Additions Made by Assessing Officer:
  The Assessing Officer passed an exparte assessment order u/s. 144, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.99,69,050/- due to non-appearance of the assessee. Various additions were made, including amounts payable for stock, cane price, other dues, other expenses, and management expenses. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the IT Act, which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) admitted additional grounds and evidences, ultimately deleting all five additions based on reasons such as proper record maintenance and lack of disallowed purchases. The ld. CIT(A) found the addition of other dues unjustified due to heavy closing balance and deleted the addition of other expenses considering the cooperative society's principles of mutuality. The addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was also deleted as not excessive compared to the previous year.
  
  Rectification Order u/s. 154 and Withdrawal of Appeals:
  The assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer, allowing the returned loss of Rs.8,77,130/-. Consequently, the appeal of both the assessee and the department became infructuous. The ld. Counsel for the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal, which was supported by the rectification order dated 30.03.2012. The claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(iii) was not allowed as the return was filed at a loss, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer.
  
  Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn, as the rectification order satisfied all grounds raised in the appeal. The departmental appeal was also dismissed as infructuous, as the Assessing Officer accepted the claim of the assessee in the rectification order. The ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on merits was upheld, and no justification was found to interfere with the order. The departmental appeal had no merit in light of the rectification order and the reasons provided by the ld. CIT(A) for deleting the additions. Consequently, both the appeal of the assessee and the departmental appeal were dismissed.
  
  *Order pronounced in the open court.*

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 985
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition of Rs.44,92,123/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for freight paid on purchases.
  2. Addition of Rs.21,552/- u/s 40A(3) for Building Repair expenses.
  3. Adhoc disallowance of Rs.25,000/- out of Building Repair expenses.
  4. Addition of Rs.3,00,000/- out of legal expenses.
  5. Adhoc 15% disallowance of Rs.51,974/- out of various expenses.
  6. Addition of Rs.1,36,450/- by treating loss on sale of Tractor as Capital Loss.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Addition of Rs.44,92,123/- u/s 40(a)(ia) for freight paid on purchases
  The assessee, running a petrol pump, claimed freight expenses of Rs.44,92,123/- paid to M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount u/s 40(a)(ia). The CIT (Appeals) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal found that the payment was a reimbursement of expenses to M/s Reliance Logistics Pvt. Ltd., who was not a transporter, and thus outside the purview of TDS. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition, supporting the decision with the case of CIT Vs. Bhagwati Steels.
  
  Issue 2: Addition of Rs.21,552/- u/s 40A(3) for Building Repair expenses
  The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
  
  Issue 3: Adhoc disallowance of Rs.25,000/- out of Building Repair expenses
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.25,000/- due to cash payments against self-prepared vouchers. The Tribunal found no merit in the double disallowance, as Rs.21,552/- was already disallowed u/s 40A(3). The Tribunal allowed the ground and directed the deletion of the additional Rs.25,000/- disallowance.
  
  Issue 4: Addition of Rs.3,00,000/- out of legal expenses
  The assessee claimed Rs.3,00,000/- as training charges paid to M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. The Tribunal found the expenditure related to business operations and allowable. It also noted that no TDS was required for such payments. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the expenditure.
  
  Issue 5: Adhoc 15% disallowance of Rs.51,974/- out of various expenses
  The Tribunal found no merit in the disallowance, as the assessee had paid fringe benefit tax on these expenses. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.51,974/-.
  
  Issue 6: Addition of Rs.1,36,450/- by treating loss on sale of Tractor as Capital Loss
  The assessee did not press this ground, and it was dismissed as not pressed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal was partly allowed, with directions to delete the disallowances under Issues 1, 3, 4, and 5. Issues 2 and 6 were dismissed as not pressed.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 984
  
  Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue and Cross Objections by assessee regarding disallowance of transport and CFS charges u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961.
  
  Summary:
  The appeal and cross objections arose from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX, Chennai for assessment year 2009-10 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer disallowed transport and CFS charges for non-deduction of TDS, which was deleted by the CIT (A) based on a case law precedent. The Revenue argued that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition. The DR for Revenue referred to a recent Calcutta High Court decision overruling a Special Bench's decision and requested acceptance of the appeal. The assessee relied on CIT (A)'s order and cross objections, claiming that the merits were not considered by the CIT (A) and thus should be accepted.
  
  The ITAT Chennai heard the parties and reviewed the case file. The assessee, a Custom House Agent, had claimed expenses for transport and CFS charges without deducting TDS. The Assessing Officer added the amounts u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the appellate proceedings, the assessee raised additional grounds based on a Special Bench decision. The CIT (A) allowed the additional ground, stating that sec 40(a)(ia) applies only to expenditure payable on 31st March, not already paid amounts. The ITAT Chennai held that the Revenue's appeal on the legality aspect should be accepted based on the High Court decision. Regarding the cross objections on merits, the issue was directed to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after factual verification, with a time limit of four months for the order. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was allowed, and the assessee's Cross Objection was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
  
  The order was pronounced in open court on April 18, 2013, in Chennai.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 983
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the power exercisable by the High Court u/s 482 CrPC is controlled by Section 320 CrPC or can be invoked in an appropriate case even if the offences are not compoundable in nature?
  2. Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 CrPC even after the accused was found guilty and convicted by the trial court though the matter is sub-judice before the appellate court?
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1:
  The High Court examined whether its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings based on a compromise is controlled by Section 320 CrPC. The Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. clarified that compounding of offences and quashing of criminal proceedings are distinct powers. The High Court can quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences if the dispute is settled between the offender and the victim, provided the offences are not heinous or serious in nature. The Court emphasized that the exercise of inherent power depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and should be invoked sparingly.
  
  Issue 2:
  The Court addressed whether it can quash criminal proceedings u/s 482 CrPC after the accused has been convicted by the trial court and the appeal is pending. The Court referred to Dr. Arvind Barsaul v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., where the Supreme Court quashed proceedings in a matrimonial dispute post-conviction, emphasizing the need for justice and harmony. The High Court concluded that its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC is wide enough to quash proceedings at any stage, provided there is no express bar and the facts justify such action.
  
  Findings:
  The Court found the compromise between the parties genuine and bona fide. It noted that the petitioners and respondent No. 2 (step-mother) are living together and the compromise would promote family harmony. The Court allowed the petition, set aside the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the criminal complaint based on the compromise. The Court imposed conditions to ensure the respondent No. 2's rights and well-being are protected, including maintaining her ownership of the land and prohibiting any attempts by the petitioners to transfer or encumber it.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court exercised its inherent power u/s 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings based on the compromise, ensuring justice and family harmony. The Court provided safeguards to protect the respondent No. 2's interests and allowed her to seek recall of the order if the compromise terms are breached.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 982
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to telefax communication dated 04.05.2009 not based on any order passed by the Bench of the BIFR.
  
  Summary:
  The writ petitions challenged a telefax communication dated 04.05.2009, contending it was not based on any BIFR order. After hearing detailed arguments, both parties agreed to set aside the telefax communication as no order existed from the Bench. Consequently, the communication was set aside, reverting to the position as of 03.05.2009. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits to avoid further confusion. Both counsels agreed to ignore the communication without prejudice to their rights. Parties were given liberty to address grievances before the appropriate forum, including the BIFR. The writ petitions were disposed of, and the BIFR record was to be returned promptly.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 981
  
  Issues involved: Dropping of demand by adjudicating authority leading to refund, sanctioning of refund claim by Commissioner (Appeals) without unjust enrichment bar.
  
  The judgment pertains to the dropping of demand by the adjudicating authority and the consequent refund of Rs. 50,00,000 to the respondents, as well as the sanctioning of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) without applying the bar of unjust enrichment. The issues revolve around the validity of demanding duty based on a proforma invoice and the applicability of unjust enrichment in the case.
  
  The respondents, engaged in Turnkey Projects of erection and commissioning of machinery for sugar plants, faced a show cause notice for demanding differential duty based on a proforma invoice not accepted by buyers. The adjudicating authority found the proforma invoice lacked legal sanctity and dropped the proceedings as no evidence showed receipt of any amount over the transaction value. The Revenue appealed this decision in Appeal No. E/830/2012-Mum.
  
  Following the dropping of proceedings, the respondents filed a refund claim of Rs. 50 lakhs, which was deposited during the investigation. The adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund, deposited into the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the refund claim. The Revenue appealed this decision in Appeal No. E/85559/2013-Mum.
  
  The Tribunal concurred with the adjudicating authority that demanding duty based on a proforma invoice lacking legal sanctity was not valid, as the buyers did not accept the invoice or make any payment against it. Therefore, the question of demanding differential duty did not arise, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals.
  
  Regarding the issue of unjust enrichment, as the respondents did not receive any amount exceeding the transaction value, the Tribunal found no basis for applying unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.
  
  In conclusion, both appeals of the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal, emphasizing the lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments and upholding the decisions of the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).
  
  *(Pronounced in Court)*

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 980
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of invoking provisions u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act.
  2. Withdrawal of Broken Period Interest (BPI) of Rs. 16,48,83,258.
  3. Claim of interest u/s 244A on the refund withheld by AO.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of invoking provisions u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act

  The CIT (A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in passing an order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act and invoking the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Ground No.1 is general in nature, hence does not require any adjudication.

  Issue 2: Withdrawal of Broken Period Interest (BPI) of Rs. 16,48,83,258

  The CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of AO in withdrawing BPI of Rs. 16,48,83,258 on securities purchased prior to the previous year relevant to AY 2000-01 and sold in the previous year relevant to AY 2000-01. The assessee argued that the amounts claimed and allowed were actually not allowed in the respective years, therefore, the question of withdrawal does not arise. AO did not agree and made the adjustment of the above sum u/s 154. The CIT (A) dismissed the contentions, stating that the broken period interest was allowable on the basis of the year of purchase of securities, and the mistake apparent from the record resulting in double deduction could be rectified u/s 154 of the Act.

  The Tribunal found that there was no double claim and no necessity for any modification u/s 154 on the facts of the case. The amounts were not allowed as deduction in the year of purchase, thus becoming part of the cost of acquisition of the securities sold during the year. The Tribunal allowed Ground No.2 raised by the assessee.

  Issue 3: Claim of interest u/s 244A on the refund withheld by AO

  The CIT (A) did not allow the claim for interest on interest, stating that section 244A provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of refund but does not provide for payment of any interest on interest. The Tribunal, however, referred to the decision in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT (280 ITR 643 (SC)) and other relevant cases, directing the AO to allow interest u/s 244A in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.G. Ltd. (324 ITR 331 (SC)). The Tribunal allowed Ground No.3 raised by the assessee.

  Conclusion:

  In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

  Order pronounced in the open court on 10th April, 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 979
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Application for anticipatory bail.
  2. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and extortion.
  3. Allegations of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  4. Allegations of money laundering u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
  5. Constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
  6. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act regarding bail.
  7. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Application for anticipatory bail:
  The applicant sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the Directorate of Enforcement in F. No. ECIR/03/MZ0/2011. The application was entertained on 17-9-2012, and interim orders were passed.
  
  2. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and extortion:
  The applicant, a former Deputy Collector and Personal Secretary to the Housing Minister, was involved in a redevelopment project where he allegedly did not pay the agreed commission to Waghela and Pandurang Thakur. They filed a report against the applicant for cheating, forgery, and extortion, leading to his arrest and subsequent bail. The applicant contended that the case was a breach of contract rather than a criminal offense.
  
  3. Allegations of criminal misconduct u/s 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  An offense of criminal misconduct was registered against the applicant and his family for amassing properties worth Rs. 118.39 crores beyond his legal remuneration. The Enforcement Directorate registered cases alleging money laundering of properties received as proceeds of crimes.
  
  4. Allegations of money laundering u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002:
  The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the applicant amassed properties worth over Rs. 100 crores. Properties worth Rs. 6.93 crores were attached, and the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment. The applicant argued that the allegations of money laundering were not justified as the proceeds of crime were not established.
  
  5. Constitutional protection against double jeopardy:
  The applicant argued that he should not be subjected to a second arrest for the same offense under the protection against double jeopardy. The court held that prosecution for cheating, forgery, and extortion is independent of prosecution under the PML Act, rejecting the applicant's contention.
  
  6. Application of Section 45 of the PML Act regarding bail:
  The applicant argued that Section 45 of the PML Act does not prohibit bail as the offense was under Part-B of the Schedule. The court, however, noted that money laundering is a continuing offense, and the amendments to the Act do not amount to retrospective criminalization.
  
  7. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail:
  The court considered various judgments and concluded that anticipatory bail should be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the applicant's involvement in amassing wealth and the need for thorough investigation by the Enforcement Directorate outweighed the applicant's plea for pre-arrest bail. The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 978
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of additions of unaccounted investment in jewellery u/s.132 of the IT Act for A.Y. 2007-08.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Unaccounted investment in jewellery
  The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 7,19,095 made on account of unaccounted investment in jewellery. The jewellery weighing 1,549 grams valued at Rs. 13,97,095 was found during a search u/s.132 of the IT Act at the assessee's residence. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) allowed certain grams of jewellery for married ladies and male members, but the excess jewellery amount was added to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee based on CBDT's Instruction No.1916, which permits a specific amount of jewellery for married ladies and male persons on occasions like marriage. The Revenue opposed the CIT(A)'s finding, but the ITAT confirmed the order of the CIT(A) based on the CBDT's instruction and interpretations by various High Courts.
  
  Decision:
  The ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order of the CIT(A) regarding the unaccounted investment in jewellery. The order was pronounced in open court on 19.04.2013.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 977
  
  Issues involved: Application u/s 391 to 394 read with Sec. 100 to 103 of the Companies Act, 1956 for a Composite Scheme of Arrangement involving de-merger and transfer of Aviation Undertaking.
  
  Issue 1: Approval of Scheme by Shareholders and Creditors
  The Applicant Demerged Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Shreno Limited, sought approval for the scheme from Equity Shareholders, Preference Shareholder, and Unsecured Creditors. All relevant parties provided their consent through consent letters, which were submitted as Annex. 'D', 'E', and 'F'. Additionally, certificates from a Chartered Accountant confirming the status of the concerned parties and the receipt of consents were provided as Annex. 'G'. As there were no Secured Creditors, and all Unsecured Creditors approved the scheme, dispensation of meetings for Equity Shareholders, Preference Shareholders, and Unsecured Creditors was granted.
  
  Issue 2: Reduction of Equity Share Capital
  The proposed scheme included a consequential reduction of Equity share capital of the Applicant Company, which did not involve diminishing liability or payment to shareholders. The Court's order sanctioning the scheme would be considered an order u/s 102 of the Companies Act confirming the reduction. The written consents of Equity Shareholders would be treated as approval by Special Resolution as required u/s 100 of the Companies Act. Therefore, the prescribed procedures under Section 100 and 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, and rules 48 to 65 of the Companies (Court) Rules 1959 were dispensed with.
  
  Conclusion
  The application was disposed of by the Court after considering the submissions and approvals obtained from the relevant parties involved in the Composite Scheme of Arrangement.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 976
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Readiness and willingness of the Appellant/Plaintiff to perform the contract.
  2. Validity of the High Court's judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure.
  3. Competence of the GPA holder to depose in place of the principal.
  4. Notice of the agreement to subsequent purchasers.
  5. Entitlement of the Appellant to receive compensation.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Readiness and Willingness of the Appellant/Plaintiff to Perform the Contract:
  
  The trial court concluded that the Appellant/Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as evidenced by his financial capacity and actions such as paying non-agricultural assessment tax. The High Court, however, found that the Appellant/Plaintiff did not take steps to establish his readiness and willingness, citing inordinate delay in filing the suit and lack of effort to pay the balance amount. The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, noting that the Appellant/Plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.
  
  2. Validity of the High Court's Judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure:
  
  The High Court failed to consider all issues as required under Order XLI Rule 31 Code of Civil Procedure, focusing only on the Appellant/Plaintiff's readiness and willingness without addressing other issues such as whether subsequent purchasers were bona fide purchasers for consideration without notice. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was flawed for not adhering to the procedural requirements.
  
  3. Competence of the GPA Holder to Depose in Place of the Principal:
  
  The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal proposition that a power of attorney (GPA) holder cannot depose in place of the principal for acts done by the principal. The GPA holder can only depose for acts done by him in exercise of the power granted by the instrument. The High Court's reliance on the GPA holder's testimony was thus misplaced.
  
  4. Notice of the Agreement to Subsequent Purchasers:
  
  The trial court found that except for Respondent No. 6, other subsequent purchasers were aware of the agreement between the Appellant and Res. No. 1. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the Appellant was not willing to disturb the possession of Defendant No. 6, who had no notice of the agreement.
  
  5. Entitlement of the Appellant to Receive Compensation:
  
  The Supreme Court held that the Appellant, not having acquired any title over the land, had no right to receive compensation amounting to Rs. 29,47,112/-. The Appellant was directed to refund the compensation amount to Res. No. 1 within three months, along with 9% interest from the date of receipt till the date of payment.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the trial court's judgment. The Appellant was entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered for the available suit land, excluding the land acquired and the land purchased by Respondent No. 6. The Appellant was also directed to refund the compensation amount received. Consequently, Civil Appeal Nos. 2888 and 4459 of 2005 were dismissed.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 975
  
  Issues involved: Appeal challenging revision order u/s 263 of the Act for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay.
  
  The assessee filed two appeals challenging the revision order passed by the Ld CIT u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, which were barred by limitation by 344 days. The assessee requested the bench to condone the delay in filing the appeals due to medical reasons, specifically citing low back pain and numbness associated with Diabetes Mellitus as the reasons for the delay.
  
  The Ld Counsel for the assessee argued that the medical condition of the assessee, coupled with the misplacement of the order, led to the delay in filing the appeals. It was emphasized that the assessee had a strong case on merits and hence had a valid reason for the delay. On the contrary, the Ld D.R. objected to the plea, highlighting the significant delay of almost a year in filing the appeals and contending that the reasons provided were not sufficient to justify the delay.
  
  After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the medical certificate provided by the assessee only mentioned treatment for low back pain and numbness associated with Diabetes Mellitus without specifying immobilization or in-patient status. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's claim of misplacing the order and noticing the omission only when pressed for tax payment lacked substance. It was pointed out that the revision order itself did not create a tax demand, and the assessee failed to provide details of the time period when the consequential assessment order was passed. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay and dismissed both appeals as unadmitted.
  
  In conclusion, both appeals filed by the assessee challenging the revision order u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 were dismissed by the Tribunal due to failure to justify the delay in filing the appeals.

  ---

• 2013 (4) TMI 974
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) u/s 143(3) for AY 2009-2010, claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the I.T. Act.
  
  Ground 1: Assessee claimed order by CIT(A) & Assessing Officer contrary to material in record and provisions of the Act, unjust, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.
  
  Ground 2: CIT(A) held assessee not a developer and builder but a contractor.
  
  Ground 3: CIT(A) disallowed deduction claim u/s 80IB(10) of Rs. 88,17,665/-.
  
  Ground 4: CIT(A) did not quash proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
  
  The assessee was engaged in a housing project and claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) for the year. The Assessing Officer denied the claim, stating the assessee was a contractor, not a developer. CIT(A) upheld this decision, citing incomplete construction by the due date. The Tribunal reviewed arguments, documents, and agreements. It found the assessee to be a developer, with the project completed before the deadline. The Assessing Officer's objections were based on sale deed prices, not actual development activities. The Tribunal noted the agreements were for buyers to obtain loans, not indicative of incomplete construction. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) to be allowed, as per previous approvals and completion certificates.

  ---

123456........ 51