|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 871 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 858
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility conditions for Private Tour Operators (PTOs) in the 2012 Haj Policy.
2. Hajj Subsidy.
3. Goodwill Hajj Delegation.
4. Allocation of special quotas for Hajj.
Summary:
1. Eligibility Conditions for Private Tour Operators (PTOs):
- The dispute arose from the Government of India's 2011 Haj Policy requiring a "minimum office area of 250 sq. ft." for PTO registration. The Bombay High Court rejected the challenge but directed the allocation of certain seats to some petitioners. The Supreme Court stayed this direction.
- The Court examined the 2012 Haj Policy, noting the increase in PTO applications and the need for stringent conditions to ensure smooth and trouble-free Hajj for pilgrims.
- The Court upheld the conditions for PTO registration, including:
- Clause 4: Limiting registration to one family member, with preference to women or the oldest in the business.
- Minimum office area of 250 sq. ft.: To ensure genuine operators and prevent black marketing.
- Annual turnover of Rs. 1 crore: Reflecting the substantial business involved.
- Security deposit of Rs. 25 lakhs: To ensure financial soundness and accountability.
- Court cases: Disqualification only for cases against the PTO, not for enforcing rights.
- Online applications: Accepted with complete details.
- The Court approved the 2012 Haj Policy but suggested improvements, such as requiring applicants to disclose arrangements and charges for pilgrims, and considering a ceiling on PTO numbers with competitive selection.
2. Hajj Subsidy:
- The subsidy has increased over the years due to more pilgrims and higher travel costs. In 2011, the subsidy reached Rs. 685 crores.
- The Court noted that the subsidy covers the additional fare due to Saudi regulations, with pilgrims paying Rs. 16,000 and the government covering the rest.
- The Court directed the government to progressively reduce and eliminate the subsidy within 10 years, suggesting the funds be used for community upliftment in education and social development.
- The Court anticipated an increased demand for PTOs as the subsidy reduces, requiring a nuanced policy for PTO registration and quota allocation.
3. Goodwill Hajj Delegation:
- The delegation, first sent in 1967, was to counter anti-India propaganda but now serves to convey goodwill and oversee arrangements.
- The Court criticized the arbitrary selection of delegation members and the lack of clear criteria, finding it in violation of Article 14.
- The Court recommended stopping the current practice and suggested sending a leader and deputy leader, with the leader forming a representative team from Indian pilgrims in consultation with the Indian Ambassador and Consul General.
4. Allocation of Special Quotas for Hajj:
- The Court sought detailed information on the allocation of 11,000 special quota seats reserved for various categories, including Khadim-ul-Hujjaj, Mehram, Bohras, and others.
- The Court expressed reservations about allocating seats based on recommendations by dignitaries and eminent persons.
- The Court directed the Union of India and Haj Committees to file detailed affidavits on the selection process, charges, and facilities provided to pilgrims.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court addressed multiple issues related to the 2012 Haj Policy, emphasizing the need for stringent conditions for PTO registration, reducing Hajj subsidies, reforming the Goodwill Hajj Delegation, and ensuring transparency in the allocation of special quotas. The Court's directives aimed at ensuring a smooth and fair Hajj process for Indian pilgrims.
-
2012 (5) TMI 857
Issues involved: Assessment u/s 147, validity of assessment order, unexplained credits u/s 68, interest u/s 234B and 234C.
Assessment u/s 147:
The appeal challenged the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment u/s 147 for the assessment year 2001-02. The grounds raised questioned the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 without serving notices u/s 148 and 143(2), obtaining valid approval, recording valid reasons, and complying with mandatory requirements. The appellant contended that the assessment order was unsustainable on legal and factual grounds, violating principles of natural justice.
Unexplained credits u/s 68:
The Assessing Officer noted large amounts credited to the assessee's bank account at Standard Chartered Bank, which remained unexplained despite efforts to clarify. The total amount of Rs. 2,63,00,000 was treated as unexplained income due to failure in establishing the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the credits. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing the onus on the assessee to prove the legitimacy of the account and the lack of evidence to support the account being bogus.
Validity of assessment order:
The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer's order regarding the unexplained credits. Despite the appellant's claim that the account was not opened by them, the bank's lack of response led the tribunal to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The tribunal emphasized the need for the assessee to be given a fair opportunity to present their case.
Interest u/s 234B and 234C:
The appeal also contested the charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C by the Assessing Officer, which the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld. However, the tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the issue of unexplained credits back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration with proper hearing opportunities for the assessee.
-
2012 (5) TMI 856
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement for compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Application of res judicata principles.
3. Admissibility and binding nature of previous judgments.
4. Procedural irregularities and right to fair trial.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entitlement for Compensation
The High Court addressed the entitlement for compensation concerning land acquired for a reservoir and pump house. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.) awarded Rs. 20,737/- for the acquired land, but ownership disputes led to a reference u/s 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issue 2: Application of Res Judicata Principles
The Reference Court relied on a previous judgment (L.A. Case No. 19 of 1989) which determined that the property in question belonged to the Manoramabai Rane group. This judgment was upheld in First Appeal No. 116 of 1997 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2000. The Court applied the principle of res judicata, referencing "Ramprakash Vs. Charan Kaur and another" (AIR 1997 SC 3760), asserting that findings in one suit, if unappealed, bar appeals in connected suits.
Issue 3: Admissibility and Binding Nature of Previous Judgments
The Court noted that the judgment in L.A. Case No. 19 of 1989, upheld in subsequent appeals, was binding. The Sanyogita Rane group argued that the pending Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court put the judgment in jeopardy, but the Court held that without a stay, the judgment remained effective and binding.
Issue 4: Procedural Irregularities and Right to Fair Trial
The Sanyogita Rane group contended that the Reference Court erred by not recording evidence and deciding the case based on an application (Exhibit 15) without proper trial. The Court observed that the parties had opportunities to contest and object but chose not to. The Court emphasized that the absence of objections and the finality of previous judgments justified the Reference Court's reliance on earlier findings.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection, affirming the Reference Court's decision to award the entire compensation to the Manoramabai Rane group. The judgment underscored the binding nature of previous judgments and the application of res judicata principles, while also addressing procedural fairness and the finality of legal determinations.
-
2012 (5) TMI 855
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the addition of unaccounted cash, unaccounted cash deposit in the bank, and unaccounted cash payment for the purchase of property, all of which were initially not included in the income tax return filed by the assessee.
Addition of Unaccounted Cash:
The assessee had surrendered an income of Rs. 83.50 lakhs based on a survey conducted at the premises, which included cash found during the survey. Initially, the assessee did not include the amounts of Rs. 4.00 lakhs cash, Rs. 4.00 lakhs cash deposit in the bank, and Rs. 10.00 lakhs cash payment against property purchase in the income tax return. The Assessing Officer added these amounts along with the surrendered income. The Tribunal found that the surrendered income should be available to explain various assets, including the unaccounted cash amounts. As the Revenue could not show that the surrendered income was utilized for other assets, the Tribunal allowed the benefit of telescoping and deleted the addition of Rs. 18.00 lakhs related to the unaccounted cash items.
Confirmation of Assessing Officer's Action:
The action of the Assessing Officer in making the additions related to unaccounted cash was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on appeal. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that once the income of Rs. 83.50 lakhs was accepted and added to the income, it should be available to explain the unaccounted cash amounts. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue argued that the assessee had surrendered the unaccounted cash items separately, justifying the additions. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, agreed with the assessee's counsel and allowed the benefit of telescoping, setting aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and deleting the additional amounts added by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the addition of unaccounted cash items. The Tribunal held that the surrendered income should be available to explain the unaccounted cash amounts, leading to the deletion of the additional amounts added by the Assessing Officer.
-
2012 (5) TMI 854
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for Assessment Year 2001-02 based on discrepancy in date of purchase for indexation of cost of asset.
Summary:
The assessee filed the return of income showing income from various sources, including long term capital loss based on the date of purchase of flats as November 1982. However, the Assessing Officer found that the flats were actually purchased in 1992 based on agreements filed with the return. The long term capital gain was computed accordingly, leading to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and a penalty of &8377; 2,84,418 being levied. The assessee challenged the penalty before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but was unsuccessful.
The assessee argued that the discrepancy in the date of purchase was a bona fide mistake and not an attempt to conceal income. The Assessing Officer had the correct date of purchase from the documents filed by the assessee, indicating an inadvertent error. The computation of indexation cost based on payment date instead of purchase year was deemed a difference of opinion rather than intentional misrepresentation. Citing the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the assessee contended that the penalty provisions should not apply.
The Departmental Representative argued that the incorrect date of indexation led to underreporting of capital gain, emphasizing that intent is not relevant for penalty under section 271(1)(c). Relying on previous orders, the DR maintained that penalty was justified.
After considering the contentions and evidence, the Tribunal noted the inadvertent mistake in the date of purchase, supported by documents filed by the assessee. The difference in indexation cost computation was viewed as a genuine disagreement rather than deliberate misstatement. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 853
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty appeal for AY 2004-05.
2. Assessee's appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08.
3. Revenue's appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08.
Summary:
1. Penalty Appeal for AY 2004-05:
- Issue: Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for various disallowances.
- Judgment: The penalty was levied by the AO but deleted by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the Delhi High Court's judgment in CIT Vs Nalva Sons Investments Ltd., where it was held that penalty cannot be levied if the assessment is made u/s 115JB and the regular income is assessed at nil after set-off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
2. Assessee's Appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08:
- Earlier Year Expenses: The ground was not pressed by the assessee and hence rejected.
- Printing/Raw Material Procurement Expenses: The issue was covered against the assessee by the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The ground was rejected.
- Closing Stock Valuation u/s 145A: The issue was also covered against the assessee by the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The ground was rejected.
- One Time Additional Interest (AY 2006-07): The disallowance was deleted by following the Tribunal's decision in AY 2005-06. The ground was allowed.
- Credit Balance Written Back (AY 2006-07): The ground was not pressed and hence rejected.
- Interest u/s 234B and 234C (AY 2006-07): The ground was not pressed and hence rejected.
- Deduction of Rs. 159 lacs while computing book profit u/s 115JB (AY 2006-07): The Tribunal reversed the authorities' decision, allowing the reduction from book profit. The ground was allowed.
- Employees' Contribution to PF (AY 2007-08): The issue was decided in favor of the assessee by following the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. The ground was allowed.
3. Revenue's Appeals for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08:
- Social Forestry Expenses: The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The ground was rejected.
- Difference in Stock Value: The matter was restored to the AO for fresh decision as per the Tribunal's direction in AY 2004-05. The ground was rejected.
- Liability/Provision Written Back (AY 2006-07): The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The ground was rejected.
- Unexplained Credit: The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Supreme Court's judgments in Sugauli Sugar Works and Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. The ground was rejected.
- Exchange Fluctuation (AY 2006-07): The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Tribunal's decision in earlier years and the Supreme Court's judgment in Woodward Governor (India) Ltd. The ground was rejected.
- Raw Material Procurement Expenditure for Book Profit/MAT u/s 115JB: The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Tribunal's decision in earlier years. The ground was rejected.
- Reduction of Amount Transferred from Equity Premium for Book Profit/MAT u/s 115JB (AY 2006-07): The issue was decided against the revenue by following the Tribunal's decision in the case of Associated Cement Co. Ltd. The ground was rejected.
Conclusion:
- All three appeals of the revenue were dismissed.
- Both appeals of the assessee were partly allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 852
Issues Involved:
1. Circumstantial Evidence
2. Fingerprint Evidence
3. Test Identification Parade
4. Extra-Judicial Confession
5. Statements u/s 313 CrPC
Summary:
Circumstantial Evidence:
The case is based on circumstantial evidence with no direct witness to the crime. The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events pointing only towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution examined 49 witnesses, including forensic experts, neighbours, and the sole surviving family member, Meenal Seth (PW12), to establish the chain of events. The principles governing circumstantial evidence were outlined, emphasizing the need for each circumstance to be conclusively established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Fingerprint Evidence:
The High Court's reliance on fingerprint evidence was challenged. PW-38, the fingerprint expert, lifted chance fingerprints from the crime scene, which matched the fingerprints of Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Despite the defense's contention, the courts found the fingerprint evidence reliable and corroborated by other evidence, including the recovery of stolen items identified by PW-12.
Test Identification Parade:
The identification parade was conducted months after the arrest of the accused, raising concerns of delay. However, the court held that delay alone does not invalidate the identification parade if conducted properly. The identification parade served as corroborative evidence, and the witnesses also identified the accused in court.
Extra-Judicial Confession:
The High Court did not rely on extra-judicial confessions made to various persons but considered the admissible parts under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The confessions led to the recovery of incriminating articles, which formed a valid piece of evidence. The court emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence.
Statements u/s 313 CrPC:
The statements of the accused u/s 313 CrPC were scrutinized. The accused failed to provide satisfactory explanations for their conduct and injuries. The court noted that false or incorrect answers given by the accused could lead to adverse inferences against them. The court concluded that the accused's conduct and lack of proper explanation supported the prosecution's case.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts, finding no merit in the appeals. The prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances, corroborated by reliable evidence, leading to the conviction of the accused. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 851
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of retention amount on contract u/s 143(3) by CIT(Appeals).
Summary:
Issue 1: Retention amount on contract
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of retention amount on contract of Rs. 3,93,59,310 by the A.O., which was subsequently deleted by CIT(Appeals). The Assessee, engaged in contract business, claimed deduction for money retained by clients as per contracts, arguing that such amounts were yet to be received and should not be considered as income for the assessment year. The A.O. disagreed, stating that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had not attained finality, and due to the recurring nature of the issue, the claim could not be allowed. However, CIT(Appeals) ruled in favor of the Assessee, citing the precedent set by the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case and allowing the claim for earlier years as well.
Issue 2: Jurisdictional High Court's decision
The Revenue contended that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had not been accepted and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed before the Supreme Court. Conversely, the Assessee's representative informed that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the High Court's decision stood dismissed. Upon review and considering the arguments, the Tribunal emphasized that regardless of the pending SLP before the Supreme Court, the decision of the jurisdictional High Court must be adhered to by all lower authorities unless a contrary decision is provided by the Apex Court or a stay order is obtained by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld CIT(Appeals)'s decision to allow the Assessee's claim for deduction of retention amounts, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
This judgment highlights the importance of following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court until overruled by a higher authority, emphasizing the significance of legal precedents in tax matters.
-
2012 (5) TMI 850
Issues involved: CEC Report dated 20th April, 2012; CEC Report dated 27th April, 2012; Rehabilitation and Reclamation; Response in I.A. No.7/2011 in W.P. (C) No.562/2009.
CEC Report dated 20th April, 2012:
The Supreme Court heard senior counsels for various parties and reserved orders. Counsel were directed to provide a common compilation by a specified date.
CEC Report dated 27th April, 2012:
The Court directed the preservation of documents by Lokayukta, Karnataka; State of Karnataka; and Customs Department related to the CEC Report dated 27th April, 2012, pending further proceedings. The Central Empowered Committee was tasked with providing a list of relevant documents to the authorities.
Rehabilitation and Reclamation:
In clarification of a previous order, the Court granted liberty to the Central Empowered Committee to take necessary steps for the implementation of the Rehabilitation and Reclamation Plan.
Response in I.A. No.7/2011 in W.P. (C) No.562/2009:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court granted a prayer related to the sale of Manganese Ore mined by SANDUR in specific mining lease numbers through e-auction, with an exemption for captive consumption and supply to subsidiary companies.
-
2012 (5) TMI 849
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding charitable purpose and profit-making activities.
The judgment pertains to an appeal regarding the interpretation of the first proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the legal issue in this appeal is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional CIT v. Surat Art Silk cloth Manufacturers Association, (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC). The Supreme Court held that the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution must be examined to determine if it is involved in carrying out any activity for profit. If the primary purpose is to carry out an object of general public utility and not for profit, it satisfies the requirements of Section 2(15) of the Act. The court emphasized that profit-making should not be the predominant object of the activity for it to be considered charitable.
In a previous decision, the court had established that the dominant purpose and objective of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is to regulate the profession of chartered accountants in India. The institute conducts entrance examinations, regulates member conduct, and sets accountancy standards. While the institute provides coaching facilities for members and clerks, these activities are aimed at maintaining professional standards and promoting accountancy as a preferred profession. The court noted that there was no finding by the assessing officer that the institute's primary objective was to generate profit from these activities.
Based on the above considerations, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it in limine.
-
2012 (5) TMI 848
Legal Judgment: Supreme Court of India, 2012 (5) TMI 848 - SC Order. Justices: Mr. D.K. Jain and Mr. Anil R. Dave. Delay condoned. Appeals admitted.
-
2012 (5) TMI 847
Issues involved: Disallowance of expenses u/s 145(3) of the IT Act and confirmation of addition by CIT(A).
The appellant, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for assessment year 2006-07, declaring total income along with audit report and audited accounts. The case was selected for scrutiny, and notices were duly served on the assessee. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not provide necessary details and documents to substantiate its claims of expenses, leading to the disallowance of &8377; 27,49,273 by the Assessing Officer. The AO rejected the books of accounts u/s 145(3) due to lack of piece-wise and quantity-wise details of production, resulting in the disallowance. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, noting the appellant's consistent non-compliance and failure to substantiate claims, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Before the ITAT, the assessee argued that even with defects in the records, the correct net profit rate was 3.27%, citing various cases where net profit was estimated at lower rates. The ITAT considered the lack of proper records and non-cooperation of the assessee, affirming the disallowance but reducing it to 10% of the expenses, amounting to &8377; 13,74,636, as opposed to the initial disallowance of &8377; 27,49,273.
In conclusion, the ITAT partially allowed the appeal, confirming the disallowance of expenses but reducing the amount disallowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 846
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner while passing an order under section 7A is a Judge within the definition under section 19 of the IPC & section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985?
2. Whether the averments made in the FIR even if they are taken at its face value, constitute an offence?
3. Whether the prosecution of the Petitioner only on the basis of the order passed under Section 7A is barred in view of section 77 of the Indian Penal Code or section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985?
Summary:
1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as a Judge:
The court examined whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) falls under the definition of a "Judge" as per section 19 of the IPC and section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. The RPFC, while passing an order u/s 7A of the EPF & MP Act, exercises powers similar to those of a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The inquiry conducted is deemed a judicial proceeding, and the order passed is definitive and can be appealed. The court concluded that the RPFC is indeed a "Judge" within the meaning of the relevant sections.
2. Averments in the FIR:
The FIR alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with others, passed a favorable order to M/s Pratibha Industries Ltd., causing wrongful loss to EPFO. The court observed that the FIR was based solely on the judicial order passed by the petitioner and the CBI's recalculation of dues. The court stated that the CBI acted as an appellate body over the judicial order, which is not permissible. The court held that the averments in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence as they are directly hit by the legal bar u/s 77 of the IPC and section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
3. Prosecution Bar:
The court examined whether the prosecution of the petitioner based solely on the order passed u/s 7A is barred. It was held that the petitioner, being a "Judge" under the relevant sections, is protected from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of judicial functions. The court emphasized that the prosecution cannot be based on the judicial order itself unless there is material showing extraneous considerations. The court concluded that the prosecution is barred in view of section 77 of the IPC and section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the FIR, making the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
-
2012 (5) TMI 845
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for rectification of mistakes apparent on record.
Summary:
Issue 1: Appeal for Rectification of Order
The applicant/assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal. The applicant claimed that there were mistakes apparent on record requiring rectification.
Issue 2: Consideration of Petition
No representation was made on behalf of the applicant. The Judicial Member and the Departmental Representative (D.R.) reviewed the contents of the Miscellaneous Petitions and heard the arguments presented by the JCIT.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The JCIT contended that the Tribunal's decision was made after due consideration and that the Tribunal does not have the power to review under section 254(2). The applicant sought to recall the order for fresh consideration based on certain documents.
Issue 4: Review of Tribunal's Decision
The Tribunal examined the applicant's petition and found it to be a request for re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in law. The Tribunal clarified the reasons for not considering certain documents relied upon by the assessee.
Issue 5: Precedent and Legal Principles
The applicant cited a Supreme Court judgment, but the Tribunal found the facts of the cited case to be different. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is only permissible for glaring, obvious, and patent mistakes, not debatable points of law.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition as it lacked merit and did not present any apparent mistakes on record. The decision was pronounced in open court on the 25th of May, 2012 in Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 844
Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue against order of ld.CIT(A)-II Surat directing to accept claim of capital gain u/s 68 of the I.T. Act.
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of ld.CIT(A)-II Surat directing to accept the claim of a capital gain of Rs. 9,48,447 as against the same treated by the AO as an unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer had held the sum credited in the books of account as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act due to the failure of the assessee to substantiate the genuineness of the short-term capital gain claimed. However, the first appellate authority accepted the explanation of the assessee, emphasizing that the transactions were done through the online trading system of the Exchange and supported by documentary evidence and confirmations from brokers. The CIT(A) concluded that there was no basis for treating the sum as an unexplained cash credit and directed the AO to accept the capital gain as disclosed by the assessee.
During the proceedings, it was noted that a favorable view had been taken by ITAT "A" Bench Ahmedabad in a similar case of an individual assessee, where it was explained that the transactions were genuine and made through the online trading system. The absence of a broker-client agreement was addressed by providing documentary evidence such as contract notes, bank statements, and confirmations from brokers. The sharp increase in the value of the scrip was also defended as not sufficient to doubt the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) upheld the capital gain declared by the assessee, emphasizing that complete details were furnished and not found false or bogus by the AO. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on the detailed reasoning provided by the CIT(A) and the supporting evidence presented by the assessee.
Another decision of ITAT "A" Bench in a related case confirmed the acceptance of capital gain, leading to the confirmation of the finding of the Learned CIT(Appeals) in the present case. The judgment highlighted the consistency in the treatment of capital gains on identical facts by the Co-ordinate Bench, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment ultimately upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2012 (5) TMI 843
Issues Involved:
1. Demand for dowry and ill-treatment u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding dowry and acquittal.
Summary:
1. Demand for dowry and ill-treatment u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC:
The criminal appeal challenges the High Court's reversal of the Sessions Court's acquittal of the Appellant u/s 304-B and 498-A IPC. The High Court convicted the Appellant based on evidence of dowry demands and ill-treatment leading to the deceased's suicide. The High Court imposed 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304-B IPC and 6 months rigorous imprisonment u/s 498-A IPC.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility:
The prosecution presented witnesses Jiwan (PW.1), Suresh (PW.2), and Fateh Singh (PW.3), who testified about dowry demands and ill-treatment. However, the trial court found inconsistencies in their testimonies, particularly regarding the exact amounts demanded and paid. The trial court also noted the absence of key witnesses like Gopi Chand, leading to an acquittal. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and found sufficient proof of dowry demands and ill-treatment, leading to the Appellant's conviction.
3. Applicability of legal principles regarding dowry and acquittal:
The Supreme Court examined whether the demand for money by the Appellant for his tailoring business constituted a dowry demand. Citing Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra and Bachni Devi v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that demands related to financial stringency or domestic expenses do not necessarily constitute dowry demands. The Court also emphasized the principle that appellate courts should interfere with acquittals only in exceptional cases where the judgment is perverse.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found major inconsistencies and embellishments in the prosecution's case. The demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the Appellant was not mentioned in the statements u/s 161 CrPC. The chemical analysis report did not support the suicide theory. The Court concluded that the Appellant's defense was plausible and gave him the benefit of doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, acquitting the Appellant of all charges.
-
2012 (5) TMI 842
Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI I, Kolkata for assessment year 2008-09.
Issue 1: Addition of Rs. 44,03,180/- as bogus liability for AY 2008-09.
- Assessing Officer added the amount as bogus liability due to unserved notices to three persons.
- Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, considering the transactions and VAT registration of the parties.
- Revenue's appeal challenged the deletion, but failed to dispute the findings.
- Tribunal confirmed the deletion, citing continuous transactions and proper payments.
Issue 2: Acceptance of additional evidence by ld. CIT(A) without production before AO.
- Revenue challenged the acceptance of additional evidence.
- Revenue failed to identify any specific new evidence considered by ld. CIT(A).
- Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal on this ground.
- Overall appeal of Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on May 29, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 841
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure claimed on Social Forestry.
2. Deletion of addition on account of amortization of Social Forestry expenses.
3. Deletion of addition on account of difference in valuation of Closing Stock.
4. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained creditors.
5. Deletion of addition on account of Syndicate Fees.
6. Deletion of addition on account of prior period expenses.
7. Disallowance of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
8. Disallowance of expenditure fully allowable in the year under consideration.
9. Addition by making reference to Sec.145A.
10. Disallowance of contribution of employee's towards PF u/s 36(1)(va).
11. Taxation of amount credited to Profit & Loss A/c pursuant to one-time settlement of loan.
12. Enhancement of income by rejecting books of account u/s 145(3).
Summary:
1. Deletion of addition on account of expenditure claimed on Social Forestry:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 66,97,985/- on account of Social Forestry expenditure, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was rejected as no difference in facts was pointed out.
2. Deletion of addition on account of amortization of Social Forestry expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 20,25,393/- on account of amortization of Social Forestry expenses, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was rejected as no difference in facts was pointed out.
3. Deletion of addition on account of difference in valuation of Closing Stock:
The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication, following its decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.
4. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained creditors:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 4,95,000/- on account of unexplained creditors, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was rejected as no difference in facts was pointed out.
5. Deletion of addition on account of Syndicate Fees:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 38,29,300/- on account of Syndicate Fees, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was rejected as no difference in facts was pointed out.
6. Deletion of addition on account of prior period expenses:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,40,00,000/- on account of prior period expenses, following the ITAT's decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2005-06. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was rejected as no difference in facts was pointed out.
7. Disallowance of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes:
The Tribunal decided this issue against the assessee, following its decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The assessee's appeal on this ground was rejected.
8. Disallowance of expenditure fully allowable in the year under consideration:
The Tribunal noted that this ground was not pressed by the assessee and accordingly rejected it as not pressed.
9. Addition by making reference to Sec.145A:
The Tribunal decided this issue against the assessee, following its decision in the assessee's own case for previous years. The assessee's appeal on this ground was rejected.
10. Disallowance of contribution of employee's towards PF u/s 36(1)(va):
The Tribunal allowed this issue in favor of the assessee, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (S.C.). The assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed.
11. Taxation of amount credited to Profit & Loss A/c pursuant to one-time settlement of loan:
The Tribunal allowed this issue in favor of the assessee, holding that waiver of loan cannot be regarded as income u/s 28(iv) or u/s 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following various judicial precedents. The assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed.
12. Enhancement of income by rejecting books of account u/s 145(3):
The Tribunal found that the rejection of books of account by the CIT(A) was not justified as the fall in yield percentage of JKPM unit was satisfactorily explained by the assessee with supporting evidence. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the CIT(A) on this ground. The assessee's appeal on this ground was allowed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 840
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include review of an order passed in a writ petition related to a contract bid, delay in filing the review application, interpretation of interim orders in a separate writ petition, allegations of illegality in the tender process, and the legal enforceability of a bidder's right.
Review Application and Delay:
The review application was made by the petitioners to review the order passed in the writ petition concerning a contract bid condition. The application also sought condonation of the delay in filing the review application. The delay was noted to be 42 days, and it was highlighted that the review application was not filed by the original counsel who argued the writ petition.
Interpretation of Interim Orders:
The applicants referenced a separate writ petition filed by M/s. Vikas Enterprises regarding the cancellation of a tender process. An interim order was passed in that petition allowing the tender process to proceed but withholding the declaration of results. The applicants contended that this order was not extended, and the respondents proceeded with the tender process and declared results without considering the pending writ petition.
Allegations of Illegality in Tender Process:
The applicants alleged that the respondent authority re-invited the tender for the same work that was subject to a pending writ petition, without disclosing this fact. They argued that this action was illegal and disadvantaged them in the bidding process. The applicants claimed that their bid was substantially responsive and offered the lowest evaluated bid price.
Legal Enforceability of Bidder's Right:
The judgment emphasized that a bidder does not have a legally enforceable right to compel acceptance of their bid. It was noted that the applicants had admitted to lapses in submitting the tender bid, including a clerical mistake in the bank guarantee. The court concluded that there were no grounds to pass an affirmative order in favor of the applicants within the scope of the review. The review application was dismissed on merit, with no costs imposed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 839
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed by adjudicating officer u/s 15 I of SEBI Act for violating FUTP Regulation.
Issue 1: Violation of FUTP Regulation
The appellant, an investor in a company's scrip, was penalized for violating regulations 3 and 4 of FUTP Regulation by artificially propping up the share price through manipulative trades. Investigations revealed the appellant's strategy of placing buy orders above the last traded price, contributing to the price increase. Despite denying manipulation, the appellant was found guilty by the adjudicating officer.
Issue 2: Quantum of Penalty
During the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the penalty of &8377; 2 lacs was excessive considering the appellant's status as a small investor and the minimal impact of the trades on the market. A comparison was drawn with another case where a lower penalty was imposed for similar actions. The Board's counsel defended the penalty, emphasizing the appellant's deliberate actions contributing to the price manipulation.
Judgment:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's involvement in manipulating the share price, noting the similarity in modus operandi with another individual who received a lower penalty. While the appellant's actions were deemed less severe, a penalty reduction to &8377; 1 lac was considered just and reasonable based on the gravity of the offense and the number of trades involved. The appeal was partly allowed, and the penalty reduced accordingly.
........
|
9911796707
