|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1247 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 1242
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the re-fixing of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra for the limited purpose of disposing of an application of the assessee filed for admission of an additional ground.
Background and AO's Assessment:
The AO passed an exparte assessment order u/s. 144/147 of the IT Act, making additions including disallowance of interest, commission, and investment in a hotel building. The AO ignored the loss claimed by the assessee, resulting in a residue loss after an order u/s. 154. The assessment was made at Nil income. The ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, reducing the interest addition but confirming the commission addition. The ITAT, Agra dismissed both the assessee's and the Revenue's appeals. The assessee filed an M.A. requesting permission to raise an additional ground challenging the AO's estimation of income at Nil.
Decision on Additional Ground:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's M.A., noting that the original order did not address the application for permission to raise an additional ground. The Tribunal recalled the order for the limited purpose of disposing of the application. The appeal was re-fixed for hearing on this specific issue.
Arguments and Tribunal's Analysis:
The assessee's counsel argued that the AO incorrectly determined the income as Nil without providing reasons, and requested to raise the additional ground. However, since the appeal had already been dismissed, the ld. DR contended that the additional ground was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that the additional ground did not arise from the ld. CIT(A)'s order and could not be raised at this stage after the appeal's finality. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application post the final order.
Final Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the application for admission of the additional ground, stating that it could not be considered legally at that stage since the appeal had already been dismissed on merits. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved, the background of the case, the decision on the additional ground, the arguments presented, the Tribunal's analysis, and the final decision rendered in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Agra.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1241
Issues Involved:
1. Reduction of penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1993-94.
2. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1994-95.
3. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1996-97.
Summary:
Issue 1: Reduction of Penalty Imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1993-94
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order reducing the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the amount of penalty relatable to an addition of Rs. 16,49,000/- towards unexplained share application money. The penalty was initially levied based on additions for unexplained share application money, unsecured loans, and disallowance of interest. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the appellant had disclosed all facts and provided confirmations for the share application money. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the penalty could not be justified merely on the preponderance of probability and that the explanation provided by the assessee was not disproved. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty on the unsecured loan addition was premature as the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
Issue 2: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1994-95
The cross-appeals were filed against the CIT(A)'s order granting part relief on the penalty of Rs. 24 lacs imposed for unexplained cash credits, unexplained share application money, unaccounted interest income, disallowance of interest on borrowed funds, and disallowance u/s 43B. The CIT(A) held that penalty could not be levied for share application money and disallowance of expenses as the appellant had disclosed all details. However, the penalty was justified for unaccounted interest income and unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal noted that the issue of share application money and cash credits was remitted back to the AO, making the penalty on these additions premature. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes.
Issue 3: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 1996-97
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order granting part relief on the penalty of Rs. 19 lacs. The Tribunal noted that the issues of unexplained cash credits were restored to the AO for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must independently examine the evidence while levying the penalty. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on the disallowance of interest expense, noting that there was no suppression of facts and the addition was based on a probability rather than deliberate concealment. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Result:
1. Assessee's appeal ITA No.1528/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is allowed for statistical purposes.
2. Assessee's appeal ITA No.1529/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1996-97 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
3. Revenue's appeal ITA No.1603/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1993-94 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
4. Revenue's appeal ITA No.1604/Ahd/2006 for A.Y. 1994-95 is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1240
The High Court of Allahabad condoned the delay in filing the revision for the assessment year 2004-05. The Tribunal justified setting aside the tax liability on the construction and sale of flats, considering it as a works contract. The Court dismissed the revision as no question of law arose based on the Tribunal's findings. Sri Suyash Agrawal appeared on behalf of the assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1239
Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Arbitrator 2. Merits of the Award on the grounds of public policy and substantive law Summary:Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the ArbitratorThe petitioner, Bharti Cellular Limited (BCL), contended that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2000 (TRAI Amendment Act) established the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) with exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between a licensor and licensee, thus rendering the Arbitrator's jurisdiction void. The court examined whether the plea of lack of jurisdiction should have been raised before the Arbitrator u/s 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) and whether the amendment to the petition to include this ground could be allowed. The court held that BCL's failure to raise the jurisdictional objection during the arbitration and the delay in filing the amendment application (seven years after the original petition) constituted a waiver of the right to object under Section 4 of the 1996 Act. The court further clarified that Sections 14, 14M, and 14N of the TRAI Act did not mandate the transfer of pending arbitral proceedings to TDSAT. Therefore, the Arbitrator did not lack inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Issue 2: Merits of the AwardBCL challenged the Award on the grounds that it was opposed to the public policy of India u/s 34(2)(b)(ii) of the 1996 Act. The Arbitrator had concluded that the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) never agreed to assign the license to Evergrowth Telecom Limited (EGTL) and that the original license agreement between JTM (now BCL) and DOT remained effective. The Arbitrator held that the DOT's letter dated 18th April 1996 was a 'counter offer,' and JTM's subsequent letters were 'further counter offers,' which were not accepted by DOT until 23rd January 1998. The court found that the Arbitrator had misinterpreted the evidence and read into the DOT's letter conditions that did not exist. The court noted that JTM had consistently assured DOT that EGTL remained a 100% subsidiary and sought approval for changes in equity pattern as per Condition No. 2 of the DOT's letter. The Arbitrator's findings on Issues 1 to 4 were not supported by the evidence, leading to an erroneous decision on the remaining issues. The court concluded that the Award was patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of India. Consequently, the entire Award was set aside. However, the court did not grant BCL the consequential reliefs of allowing its claims, as that was beyond the court's powers under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The court left it open for BCL to seek appropriate legal remedies. Consequential Directions:The impugned Award dated 20th December 2002 was set aside, and BCL was allowed to pursue appropriate legal remedies. The petition was allowed with costs of Rs. 30,000 to be paid by DOT to BCL within four weeks.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1238
Issues involved: Appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of Rs.1,50,58,882/- on account of low gross profit rate for assessment year 2005-06.
Issue 1: Addition of Rs.1,50,58,882/- on account of low gross profit rate
The assessee claimed income @ 15.27% of the turnover, but the Assessing Officer re-computed it @ 19.27% after rejecting the books. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this re-computation. The Tribunal, however, reversed the orders of the revenue authorities, stating that the average gross profit rate of the last three years preceding the year under consideration was 14.79%, making the claim of gross profit rate @ 15.27% acceptable. The Tribunal's decision was based on factual evidence and relevant materials, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as no questions of law were found to arise.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was upheld as it was based on factual evidence and no questions of law were identified, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1237
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of rental income in the hands of the assessee company.
2. Applicability of Section 115-O regarding dividend distribution.
3. Treatment of the amount received from Samsung as income.
Summary:
Issue 1: Taxability of Rental Income
The Tribunal held that the shareholders of the assessee company are deemed owners of the property as per Section 22 read with Section 27(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the rental income cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee company. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the revenue, but the Supreme Court set aside this order, allowing for a review. Upon review, the High Court considered the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association, which permitted the company to distribute its properties to shareholders. The Court concluded that the company is an ostensible owner and the shareholders are deemed owners of the specific portions allotted to them. The lease executed by the company should be construed as done on behalf of the shareholders. Consequently, the rental income is taxable in the hands of the shareholders, not the company.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 115-O
The Tribunal held that no dividend was paid to the shareholders, and therefore, no tax under Section 115-O of the Act could be levied. The High Court, aligning with the Tribunal's view, found that the income distributed to the shareholders was rental income and not dividend. Hence, Section 115-O was not applicable.
Issue 3: Treatment of Amount Received from Samsung
The Tribunal held that the amount received from Samsung cannot be treated as the income of the assessee company. The High Court agreed, noting that the company did not retain any part of the rent or rental advance. The income was distributed to the shareholders, who filed returns and paid taxes accordingly. Thus, the amount received from Samsung was not considered the company's income.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeals, answering the first question of law in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the second and third questions of law did not arise for consideration.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1236
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the consideration of an application for anticipatory bail filed by the Appellant against a complaint filed under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with allegations of forgery and false representation.
Brief facts:
The Appellant, as the Founder President of a technical education society, entered into negotiations with a charity trust for leasing and selling properties in Pune. Disputes arose regarding the lease agreements, leading to legal actions including a complaint to the police and applications under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
Contentions:
The Respondents alleged that the Appellant committed forgery in lease agreements and made false representations to authorities. The State argued for custodial interrogation to seize alleged forged documents and investigate the extent of false information provided. The Complainant's Counsel emphasized the seriousness of the offenses and opposed granting relief to the Appellant.
Court's analysis:
The Court reviewed the documents, corrections, and communications involved in the case, noting the seriousness of the alleged offenses. Emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to gather all relevant information, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts in denying anticipatory bail to the Appellant.
Conclusion:
The appeal for anticipatory bail was dismissed, and the Appellant was directed to surrender within two weeks to seek regular bail. The Court clarified that the decision on anticipatory bail does not affect the trial court's discretion in deciding on bail applications independently.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1235
Issues Involved:
1. Whether games of skill are considered "business activity" protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the Games of Rummy, Chess, Golf, Poker, Bridge, and Snooker are games of skills.
3. Whether there is any restriction on playing the aforementioned games of skill with stakes on the websites making profit.
4. Whether wagering and betting on games of skill make the activity "Gambling".
5. Whether there can be restriction on advertising and promoting the website offering the aforesaid games of skill.
6. Can the banks refuse to provide normal banking services to the websites once it is determined that the Company is conducting normal business activities?
7. Can the Company or its Directors, agents, players etc. be held liable under any penal laws as long as they are only offering games of skill which are declared to be normal business activities?
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether games of skill are considered "business activity" protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
A stake in a game of skill between players does not amount to gambling as per the decision of the Apex Court. Earnings from playing such games by any professional would be a professional or a business activity protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India when played in the physical form. However, online games conducted by gaming houses or websites are illegal in States where gambling is prohibited.
Issue 2: Whether the Games of Rummy, Chess, Golf, Poker, Bridge, and Snooker are games of skills.
The games of Rummy, Chess, Golf, Bridge, and Billiards are categorically opined as games of skill, with the element of chance being negligible or insignificant. Poker, however, cannot be accepted as a game of skill and is more in the form of gambling.
Issue 3: Whether there is any restriction on playing the aforementioned games of skill with stakes on the websites making profit.
There is no restriction on playing the aforementioned games of skill with stakes on the website making profit as the same does not amount to gambling. However, online gaming sites offering prize money and partaking a slice of the winning hand are illegal in States which prohibit gambling.
Issue 4: Whether wagering and betting on games of skill make the activity "Gambling".
Wagering or betting on a game of skill does not come within the definition of gaming or gambling. However, online gaming sites offering prize money and partaking a slice of the winning hand are considered illegal.
Issue 5: Whether there can be restriction on advertising and promoting the website offering the aforesaid games of skill.
Advertising or promoting websites offering online games for prize money and winning through betting confirms that these sites are virtual Casinos, which are illegal. Sponsors advertising or promoting their own product on such sites also attract penal consequences.
Issue 6: Can the banks refuse to provide normal banking services to the websites once it is determined that the Company is conducting normal business activities?
Banks can refuse to provide normal banking services to websites offering online gaming involving money as such activities cannot be held to be legal. Payment gateways for gambling are blocked by the Reserve Bank of India as per the Information Technology Rules of 2011.
Issue 7: Can the Company or its Directors, agents, players etc. be held liable under any penal laws as long as they are only offering games of skill which are declared to be normal business activities?
Since online gaming cannot be held to be legal in States which prohibit gambling, the Company and its directors, agents, players, are liable to penal consequences.
Conclusion:
The petition stands disposed of with all queries answered. The Court emphasized the need for regulation in the online gaming industry to prevent illegal activities and tax evasion. The file is consigned to the Record Room.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1234
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Paras No. 24 and 26 of Public Notice No. F23(479)/Tpt/OPS/2010/66/185 dated 17.03.2011.
2. Competence and powers of the State Transport Authority (STA) u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Financial burden on auto rickshaw drivers/owners due to the revised conditions.
4. Whether the revised conditions are arbitrary, whimsical, or discriminatory.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Paras No. 24 and 26 of Public Notice
The challenge in all these petitions is to Paras No. 24 and 26 of the Public Notice dated 17.03.2011, issued by the GNCTD, Auto Rickshaw Unit, Transport Department, Delhi, prescribing revised terms and conditions for the grant of permits for auto rickshaws. The impugned conditions require auto rickshaws to be fitted with GPS/GPRS devices, two-way communication devices, printers for printing receipts, and other equipment authorized by DIMTS. The petitioners argue that these conditions are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, being discriminatory and arbitrary.
Issue 2: Competence and Powers of STA u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
The petitioners contend that the imposition of the conditions is beyond the competence and powers of the respondent STA as outlined in the Act. They argue that Section 74(2) of the Act does not empower the STA to prescribe the installation of GPS/GPRS devices. The court, however, finds that the STA is empowered to attach conditions to the permit under Section 74(2) of the Act, and the conditions mentioned therein are subject to any Rule. The court holds that the power to impose such conditions can also be restricted by the Rule but does not suggest that for imposing any conditions, the rule-making power has to be invoked.
Issue 3: Financial Burden on Auto Rickshaw Drivers/Owners
The petitioners argue that the amount demanded for the installation of GPS/GPRS devices is much more than the price available in the retail market and that the direction for collection of 50 paise per kilometer is beyond the entitlement of the respondent STA. The court finds that the respondents have demonstrated that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- imposed for installation would be recovered within a month from the additional charge of 50 paise per kilometer. The court also notes that the respondent STA has reduced the amount to Rs. 7,500/-, thus no financial burden is placed on the petitioners.
Issue 4: Whether the Revised Conditions are Arbitrary, Whimsical, or Discriminatory
The petitioners argue that the conditions are without any reason and whimsical, pointing out that no such provisions have been made for taxis or buses. The court holds that the revised conditions cannot be said to be arbitrary or whimsical. The court finds that the conditions are in the interest of security and public safety, and the requirement for GPS/GPRS and printing devices is in consonance with global practices. The court also notes that the conditions imposed are not in excess of or in abuse of the powers conferred on the STA.
Conclusion:
The court dismisses the petitions, finding no merit in the challenges raised against the revised conditions for the grant of permits for auto rickshaws. The court holds that the conditions are neither arbitrary nor whimsical and are within the powers of the STA u/s 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1233
Issues Involved:
1. Deficiency of requisite teaching aids for children with disabilities.
2. Non-availability of special teachers in unaided and aided private schools.
3. Obligation of schools to provide barrier-free environments.
4. Reimbursement of expenditure for unaided schools under the RTE Act.
5. Responsibility for capital expenditure to make schools barrier-free.
Summary:
1. Deficiency of Requisite Teaching Aids for Children with Disabilities:
The petition highlights the lack of necessary teaching aids and special educators in unaided and aided private schools in Delhi, causing children with disabilities to suffer. It is pleaded that most schools lack basic physical and academic infrastructure, including special educators, violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, and other legal provisions.
2. Non-availability of Special Teachers in Unaided and Aided Private Schools:
The petition argues that trained teachers, including those qualified in sign language and Braille, are essential for the education of children with disabilities. The Division Bench in Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi directed schools to ensure at least two special educators and necessary teaching aids for children with disabilities. The GNCTD has created 926 posts of Special Educators and introduced schemes for providing facilities to such students.
3. Obligation of Schools to Provide Barrier-Free Environments:
The petition asserts that schools must provide a barrier-free environment for the free mobility of children with disabilities. The GNCTD has directed recognized unaided schools to remove architectural barriers. The MCD has created 1741 posts of Special Educators and provided ramps and requisite toilets in newly constructed schools.
4. Reimbursement of Expenditure for Unaided Schools Under the RTE Act:
The GNCTD stated that u/s 12(2) of the RTE Act, unaided private schools providing free and compulsory elementary education are to be reimbursed for the expenditure incurred, up to Rs.1,190/- per student per month. The Action Committee contends that the reimbursement should cover both capital and recurring expenditures. However, the GNCTD maintains that its financial responsibility is limited to recurring expenditure.
5. Responsibility for Capital Expenditure to Make Schools Barrier-Free:
The Action Committee argues that the responsibility for capital expenditure to make schools barrier-free lies with the government. However, the court, referencing Section 19 of the RTE Act, concludes that such capital expenditure must be incurred by the schools themselves and is not reimbursable by the government.
Judgment:
The court directs all recognized aided and unaided private schools in Delhi to appoint Special Educators and make their buildings barrier-free by 31st March 2013. Schools must immediately provide for Special Educators where children with special needs are admitted and cannot refuse admission due to the absence of Special Educators or barrier-free access. The DoE, GNCTD, is to ensure compliance and take action against non-compliant schools. The petition is disposed of with no costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1232
Issues Involved:
1. Whether OSR land was in fact handed over to the local body or not.
2. Whether the first respondent is entitled to demand OSR charges in addition to the OSR land already handed over to the local body or not.
Summary:
Issue 1: Whether OSR land was in fact handed over to the local body or not.
The petitioner challenged a communication rejecting the waiver of Open Space Reservation Charges (OSR Charges) for planning permission. The petitioner, his wife, and son had purchased property and applied for planning permission for a multi-storeyed building. The first respondent demanded various charges, including OSR charges of Rs.58,50,000/-, which the petitioner contested, claiming that 10% of the layout had already been handed over to the Corporation of Chennai. The Corporation confirmed that the land had been handed over by the original owner and developed into a park, maintained by the Corporation. Despite the lack of a formal deed of conveyance, the land had been in public use for 36 years. Thus, it was held that OSR land had already been handed over to the local body.
Issue 2: Whether the first respondent is entitled to demand OSR charges in addition to the OSR land already handed over to the local body or not.
The first respondent contended that OSR charges are payable if the layout is unapproved. The petitioner conceded that the land falls in an unapproved layout. The liability to reserve open space arose from Rule 19 of the Development Control Rules. The rules consistently required 10% of the area to be reserved for layouts above 10,000 sq. meters, with no charges accepted in lieu. The first respondent confirmed that the land belonged to a layout originally above 10,000 sq. meters, obligating the promoter to reserve 10% of the area. The Supreme Court had doubted the legitimacy of demanding conveyance of OSR land by a registered deed. Therefore, the demand for OSR charges was deemed unsustainable for three reasons: the land had been handed over 36 years ago, no charges could be accepted in lieu of OSR land for layouts above 10,000 sq. meters, and the Supreme Court's stance on the conveyance demand. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1231
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of interest u/s 14A and disallowance on account of service tax u/s 43B.
Issue 1 - Disallowance of interest u/s 14A:
The assessee, engaged in earning commission and brokerage and being a partner in a firm, claimed interest on loan in the Profit & Loss A/c. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the interest, stating it was capital employed for earning tax-exempt profit. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) upheld the disallowance, noting the capital was invested in the firm and the interest claim was not justified. The assessee contended that the interest was taxable as it was received upon retirement from the firm. The Tribunal held that the interest, though not received in the year under consideration, was offered for tax in a later year, making it deductible u/s 14A. The AO was directed to allow the claimed amount.
Issue 2 - Disallowance on account of service tax u/s 43B:
The AO disallowed service tax amount as the assessee did not pay the balance before the due date, invoking section 43B. The CIT upheld the disallowance, citing a decision to confirm the disallowance of service tax under section 43B. The Tribunal, however, noted that service tax collected by the assessee, not credited to the Profit & Loss A/c, cannot be disallowed u/s 43B. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to the amount wrongly claimed in the Profit & Loss A/c. The appeal by the assessee was allowed.
Separate Judgement: No separate judgment delivered by the judges.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1230
Issues involved:
Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dismissing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1: Liability of the respondent under Section 138 of the Act
The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent, alleging dishonor of a cheque issued in discharge of a loan liability. The cheque was returned dishonored due to insufficient funds, and the amount was not paid within the stipulated time after legal notice. However, during the trial, it was established that the respondent was not the sole proprietor of the firm in question, and therefore, not liable to pay the cheque amount.
Issue 2: Vicarious liability of employees of a sole proprietorship firm
The judgment clarified that a sole proprietorship firm does not fall within the scope of Section 141 of the Act, which deals with vicarious liability in cases involving companies. It was emphasized that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on employees of a sole proprietorship firm, as there was no evidence to show that the business was run by the respondent in question.
Issue 3: Interpretation of 'Letter of Mandate'
The petitioner argued that a 'Letter of Mandate' authorized the respondent to operate the firm's bank account, making him personally liable. However, the court held that the mandate only granted authority to conduct banking transactions and did not make the respondent personally liable for the firm's debts. The mandate was binding on the bank and the sole proprietor, not on outsiders.
In conclusion, the trial court's decision to dismiss the petition was upheld, as it was found that the respondent, not being the sole proprietor, could not be prosecuted and punished for the dishonored cheque issued by the firm.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1229
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the submission of an RTI application seeking details about the revival of a health policy, response provided by the CPIO and FAA, foreclosure of the health policy, and the appellant's grievance regarding the same.
RTI Application and Response:
The Appellant submitted an RTI application seeking details about the revival of his health policy. The CPIO provided point wise information to the Appellant in response to the application.
First Appeal and Foreclosure of Policy:
The Appellant then preferred a first appeal to the FAA, who informed the Appellant that his policy had been foreclosed. This decision was communicated to the Appellant through the FAA Order.
Second Appeal and Grievance Redressal:
Feeling aggrieved by the foreclosure of his health policy, the Appellant preferred a second appeal before the Commission. During the hearing, the Appellant mentioned that the reasons for the foreclosure were not provided by the Respondents. The Commission acknowledged that the Appellant sought redressal of his grievance regarding the foreclosure of his health policy.
Commission's Decision:
After hearing both parties, the Commission clarified that the redressal of the Appellant's grievance does not fall under the RTI Act. The Commission advised the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum of the Public Authority for further action. It was noted that complete information had been provided to the Appellant. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the appeal, and the case was closed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1228
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a Criminal Complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act based on the liability of a partner in a firm for a bounced cheque.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability of the applicant as a partner of the firm
The complaint alleged that the accused applicant, a partner in V.I.P. Financiers Firm, received a loan and issued a bounced cheque. The applicant argued that the firm should be the principal accused, not him. The court referred to Section 138 and 141 of the Act, stating that for maintaining prosecution, the company must be accused. As the firm was not impleaded, the complaint against the applicant was deemed invalid.
Issue 2: Compliance with legal requirements
The court analyzed the legal provisions of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act, emphasizing that criminal liability for a bounced cheque extends to individuals in charge of the company's business at the time of the offence. The court cited precedents to highlight the necessity of specific averments in the complaint regarding the accused's role in the company at the time of the offence. In this case, as the applicant's responsibility for the firm's conduct was not established, the complaint was considered legally deficient.
Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the court allowed the petition and quashed the Criminal Complaint Case, ruling that the proceedings, including the summoning order, were an abuse of the court process. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly impleading parties and meeting legal requirements in maintaining criminal prosecutions under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1226
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the addition of unexplained expenditure based on a negative cash balance for the assessment year 2000-01 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1: Addition of Unexplained Expenditure
The assessee's appeal contested the addition of Rs.2,65,668/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act due to a negative cash balance found during a survey. The AO reopened the assessment and issued a notice to explain the amount, which the assessee failed to do. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating the negative balance was unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found no cash deposit but unexplained expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- between specific dates, leading to a negative balance of Rs.2,47,947/-. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the addition of Rs.2,65,668/- u/s 69 of the Act.
Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of unexplained expenditure based on the negative cash balance, as confirmed by the CIT(A).
This order was pronounced in the open Court on the mentioned date.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1225
Issues involved: Release of goods detained by customs authorities, challenge to the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), pending writ appeals before Division Bench.
Release of detained goods: The petitioner requested release of goods detained by customs authorities despite a final order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) stating that the goods were not hazardous and did not require a license for import. The petitioner's goods, identified as digital multifunction machines, were not classified as photocopiers as per a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court directed the authorities to release the goods upon payment of appropriate customs duty and fulfillment of prescribed conditions, emphasizing expeditious release.
Challenge to Commissioner's order: The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had set aside the second respondent's order, declaring the goods non-hazardous and not requiring a license for import. The order had become final as the customs department did not challenge it. Despite this, the goods were not released by the authorities, prompting the petitioner to seek intervention from the court for their release.
Pending writ appeals: The respondents did not contest the submissions made by the petitioner but mentioned the pending writ appeals before a Division Bench challenging a previous order. The court acknowledged the pending appeals but still directed the immediate release of the goods upon fulfillment of necessary conditions and payment of dues as per the law, without imposing any costs on the petitioner.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1224
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act.
2. Definition of 'Export' for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 10B.
3. Receipt of sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act
The Department's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s order allowing a deduction u/s 10B amounting to Rs.9,12,212/-. The Assessing Officer had disallowed this deduction, arguing that the assessee did not satisfy the conditions stipulated u/s 10B, as the goods were sold to a 100% EOU within India and not exported outside India.
Issue 2: Definition of 'Export' for the purpose of claiming deduction u/s 10B
The Assessing Officer cited the Rajasthan High Court decision in Laxmi Industries v. CIT and the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench decision in Neval Overseas Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, concluding that sales to a 100% EOU within India do not qualify as 'export' under section 10B. The CIT(A), however, found that sales made under the CT-3 scheme, with proceeds received in convertible foreign exchange, should be treated as export turnover for the purpose of section 10B.
Issue 3: Receipt of sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange
The CIT(A) noted that the assessee received the sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange and provided the necessary foreign inward remittance certificates. The CIT(A) relied on the Foreign Trade Policy and previous decisions, including the case of Shree Krishna Enterprise, to support the view that such sales qualify for deduction u/s 10B. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that both conditions of section 10B(3)'exporting goods out of India and receiving sale proceeds in convertible foreign exchange'must be satisfied. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not meet the primary condition of exporting goods out of India, thus reversing the CIT(A)'s order and restoring the Assessing Officer's decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that relief u/s 10B is not available unless the goods are physically exported out of India, even if the sale proceeds are received in convertible foreign exchange. The Department's appeal was allowed, and the CIT(A)'s order was reversed. The Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the deduction u/s 10B was restored.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1223
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 25 Lacs made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash found and seized during a search conducted under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The assessee, engaged in the business of "Angadia," had cash and parcels seized during a search at Mumbai Railway Station. The total seizure amounted to Rs. 2,17,04,640, including cash of Rs. 1,33,05,000. A notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 to 2004-05. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 25 Lacs to the assessee's income as no satisfactory explanation regarding the source of this cash was provided.
2. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], who found that the cash balance of over Rs. 25 Lacs at the Mumbai office was supported by the cash book, indicating that the seized cash was as per the Mumbai office's records. The CIT (A) held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on suspicion and deleted the same.
3. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the employee present during the search had explained the details of the cash belonging to the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the CIT (A) on 3.9.2010.
4. The High Court observed that the revenue's proposed question did not raise any substantial question of law. The Court concluded that the appeal was based on findings of fact and dismissed it accordingly.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1222
Issues involved: Interpretation of depreciation rate for vehicles leased out by a Non-Banking Financial Company u/s Income Tax Rules, 1962.
Summary:
The High Court of Telangana, following a precedent from the Madras High Court, upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow a Non-Banking Financial Company to claim depreciation at a rate of 40% on vehicles leased out for the Assessment Year 1998-99. The Tribunal found that the company used the vehicles in its leasing business and was entitled to the higher depreciation rate based on the definition of "hire" as per the Income Tax Rules. The Madras High Court's judgment clarified that there is no qualitative difference between leasing a vehicle for a specified period for consideration and letting it on hire for a short duration. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was deemed valid as the company was leasing out vehicles as part of its business activities.
In conclusion, the High Court determined that there was no substantial question of law to be considered in the Revenue's appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage without any costs incurred.
........
|
9911796707
