|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 920 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 1017
Issues involved:
The issue involves determining whether interest earned by the assessee cooperative from investments in banks qualifies for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1: Qualification for Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act
The High Court reviewed the Tribunal's decision on whether interest earned by the cooperative from investments in banks constitutes business income eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had previously allowed the deduction for the cooperative society's interest income, holding it as business income rather than income from other sources. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the Tribunal had consistently upheld this view in various assessment years. As there was no challenge to these decisions, the Court found no question of law involved. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the eligibility of the cooperative for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) based on the precedent set by previous decisions.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, confirming the cooperative's eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act based on the income earned from investments in banks being considered business income.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1016
Issues Involved: Interpretation of section 10 (23C) (iiiab) for exemption based on government grant percentage.
Summary:
The case involved the M/s National Education Society, which received a government grant of &8377; 5,61,51,398-00 for the assessment year 2002-03, constituting 36.42% of its total receipts. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (iiiab), which was initially denied by the Assessing Authority but granted by the first appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal. The revenue appealed against these decisions, arguing that the grant did not constitute substantial finance by the Government as it was less than 50%.
The interpretation of the term 'substantial' was crucial, as it was not defined in the Income Tax Act. Various court decisions were cited, including references to the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and Section 40A(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, to determine the meaning of 'substantial interest' in different contexts. The absence of a specific definition in the Act led to a consideration of the total receipts and funding sources to assess whether the 36.42% government grant constituted substantial finance.
Upon analysis, it was found that excluding student fees and considering donations received, the government grant of 36.42% did indeed constitute substantial financial aid. Both appellate authorities carefully reviewed the facts and legal aspects, concluding that the grant met the criteria for exemption under section 10 (23C) (iiiab). No errors were found in their decisions, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal at the admission stage, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1015
Issues: Appeal u/s 260A of Income-tax Act against Tribunal's order on assessment of income, substantial questions of law raised.
Issue I: Tribunal reduced net profit rate to 11% from 12%, assessee claimed 10%, past history of 8-10% accepted by department, Tribunal's decision not to be quoted as precedent.
Issue II: Claim of depreciation under section 32 denied by Tribunal, legal deductions like depreciation allowable, assessee's claim not substantiated.
Issue III: Tribunal's findings not considered perverse, assessment based on reasonable basis in absence of regular books of account, interference permissible only on grounds of perversity.
Issue IV: Claim for deduction u/s 80-IB challenged, Tribunal's decision not influenced by irrelevant factors, no error in criteria applied.
The assessee declared gross receipts and income for assessment year 2003-04, with net profit rate at 10%. Books of account produced were found inadequate, expenses details not provided due to managing partner's demise. Assessing Officer applied 12% net profit rate, upheld on appeal. Tribunal reduced rate to 11%, considering past acceptance of 8-10%. Assessee contended 10% rate was sufficient, but Tribunal's decision not deemed excessive. Claim for depreciation was denied by Tribunal, as tools and machinery ownership and business use not established. No substantial question of law arose regarding depreciation claim. Tribunal's findings not considered perverse, assessment based on reasonable basis in absence of regular books of account. Claim for deduction u/s 80-IB not influenced by irrelevant factors, no error in criteria applied. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1014
Issues involved: Interpretation of tax law, imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The High Court of Delhi heard an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding a dispute over the classification of a gain from the sale of shares under an employees stock option plan. The appellant, a salaried employee, claimed a long term capital gain based on advice from a Chartered Accountant, but the Assessing Officer treated it as a short term capital gain. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was raised due to this discrepancy.
The tribunal considered the facts presented, including the reliance on professional advice by the appellant and the absence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had made a bona fide claim for long term capital gain, and thus, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted. The High Court agreed with the tribunal's reasoning, stating that the imposition of penalty was not justified in this case.
Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the tribunal's decision that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in the circumstances.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1013
Issues involved: Condonation of delay, Claim of loss in share trading operation, Application of Section 73, Dismissal of appeal.
The High Court of Calcutta allowed the prayer for condonation of delay after being satisfied with the explanations submitted. The matter was then taken up for admission hearing. An appeal was dismissed by the Court where the assessing officer had deleted the claim of Rs. 10,06,974/- on account of loss in share trading operation. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who held that the loss incurred in the business of share transaction would not be speculation loss and that the explanation to Section 73 would not be applicable to the case of the assessee company. Relying on a previous judgment, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) granted relief and deleted the addition of Rs. 10,06,974/- under the head deemed speculation by applying Section 73.
The Learned Tribunal, noting the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), observed that the departmental representative did not dispute the facts stated by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the income of the assessee from brokerage income of share was more than the claimed loss in share trading. It was further acknowledged that the explanation to Section 73 does not apply to certain types of companies. The Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) based on the judgment of the Court.
Based on the findings and application of law, the Court concluded that it was not a fit case for admission. It was not argued that the previous decision of the Court was not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the application was disposed of.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1012
Whether the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while setting aside the order dated 15.04.2008 passed by the Nazul Officer in a writ petition when an alternative remedy is available to respondent no. 1 to challenge the said order before the Collector as per Section 18 of the Revenue Book Circular?
Whether the High Court is justified in directing the Nazul Officer to present personally to explain his "misconduct"?
-
2010 (7) TMI 1011
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of addition of Commission Income by CIT (A) u/s 1,10,83,264/- for assessment year 2007-08.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT (A) for assessment year 2007-08 regarding the addition of Commission Income. The revenue contended that the CIT (A) erred in deleting the addition without considering the factual aspects of the case.
2. The Assessee, a cruise travel business authorized agent, receives advances from customers which are adjusted against future travel bookings. The CIT (A) deleted the addition based on the ITAT's decision in earlier years where similar disallowances were reversed. The revenue argued that the deletion was incorrect, but did not dispute the ITAT's previous decisions.
3. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the Assessing Officer had referred to previous years' orders which were reversed by the ITAT. As no addition was made for assessment year 2006-07, the deletion for the current year was justified based on consistency with earlier ITAT decisions.
4. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed, affirming the deletion of the addition of Commission Income by the CIT (A) for the assessment year 2007-08.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1010
The Gujarat High Court heard the matter at length. Interim relief granted in terms of Paragraph No.6-(C) of each petition until final disposal due to an upcoming examination on 15.07.2010. Judgment reserved, and a copy of the order to be placed in connected matters.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1009
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this judgment include the interpretation of Section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act, the validity of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, and the jurisdictional competence of the government to issue circulars post the enforcement of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act.
Interpretation of Section 15(c) of the Central Sales Tax Act:
The case involved rice millers claiming set off tax paid on paddy against tax payable on rice in inter-State sales under Section 15(c) of the Central Act. The Assessing Authority initially allowed the set off, but later issued a notice under Section 21 of the Act to withdraw the claim. A Division Bench held that Section 15(c) does not provide for reducing tax under the Central Act based on tax paid on paddy under the State law. The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing reassessment proceedings and orders under Section 21 of the Act.
Validity of Proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act:
The Division Bench found that proceedings under Section 21 were initiated without material for believe of escaped assessment, solely on the basis of a change of opinion. It was held that such proceedings cannot be initiated without evidence of escaped assessment. The judgment of the Division Bench was subject to appeal before the Supreme Court, with no interim relief granted.
Jurisdictional Competence of the Government:
The petitioner argued that the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, which replaced the U.P. Trade Tax Act, finalized assessments and no further proceedings under Section 10B of the Act could be initiated. However, the government issued a circular post the Division Bench judgment, authorizing action under Section 10B. The Court noted that even after the repeal of the Trade Tax Act, old rights, liabilities, and remedies could be invoked under the new enactment, as observed in a previous Division Bench judgment.
Conclusion:
The judgment addressed the conflicting interpretations of tax laws, the validity of proceedings under Section 21, and the jurisdictional competence of the government post the enactment of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act. The Division Bench rulings and the application of relevant legal provisions were crucial in determining the outcomes of the case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1008
The Supreme Court of India held that rebate was admissible to units availing area-based exemption in Kutch for the period 8-12-2006 to 17-9-2007. The High Court ruled that the notification amending rebate rules was not legally permissible and did not affect the petitioner's right to claim rebate for the mentioned period.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1007
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of interest income as income from property held under trust and its exemption under section 11.
2. Treatment of amounts allocated but not disbursed due to the imposition of the model code of conduct.
3. Whether the gross amounts received from Central and State Governments for disbursement should be considered income of the society.
4. Whether interest on surplus amounts kept in the bank should be considered part of the society's income.
5. Acceptance of the revised Form No.10 submitted during the assessment proceedings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Treatment of Interest Income:
The Revenue contended that the interest income earned on funds under the SJSRY and NSDP schemes should be taxable. The CIT(A) upheld this view, treating the interest income as part of the society's income. However, the Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the society is exempt under section 11, as it is part of the grants received from the government and must be utilized according to the scheme guidelines. This decision aligns with precedents set by the Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development & Finance Corporation and the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Haryana C.M. Relief Fund.
2. Treatment of Amounts Allocated but Not Disbursed:
The Revenue argued that the amounts allocated but not disbursed due to the model code of conduct should not be treated as applied towards charitable objects. The Tribunal found this issue to be academic, given their ruling that the grants received are not income chargeable to tax under sections 11 and 12. They supported their decision with the Andhra Pradesh High Court's ruling in CIT Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Charitable Trust, stating that actual spending is not necessary if amounts are debited to the accounts.
3. Gross Amounts Received from Governments:
The assessee argued that the gross amounts received from the Central and State Governments for disbursement should not be considered income. The Tribunal agreed, noting that these grants do not form part of the society's corpus or income under section 11. They are not voluntary contributions under section 12, and the society acts merely as a trustee for these funds, which are to be used strictly according to government guidelines.
4. Interest on Surplus Amounts:
The Tribunal held that the interest earned on surplus amounts kept in the bank is part of the grant and must be utilized according to the scheme guidelines. This interest does not qualify as the society's income and is exempt under section 11, consistent with the Karnataka High Court's and Punjab & Haryana High Court's rulings.
5. Revised Form No.10:
The Revenue rejected the revised Form No.10 submitted by the assessee, as it was filed after the due date. The Tribunal found that the grants received by the society are not income chargeable to tax, and thus, there was no need for the society to file Form No.10 for these grants. However, for the amounts under AOE and IEC, which are considered income, the assessee is required to file Form No.10 for any unspent amounts to be accumulated for future use.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross-objection. They ruled that the grants received from the government are not taxable income under sections 11 and 12, and the interest earned on these grants is also exempt. The amounts allocated but not disbursed due to the model code of conduct are considered applied towards charitable objects. The revised Form No.10 was deemed unnecessary for the grants, but required for unspent amounts under AOE and IEC.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1006
Whether a candidate, in the absence of any recrimination, could insist upon counting of the votes cast in favour of the other losing candidates?
Whether the election petitioner proves that some dead voters were impersonated and in their name, votes were cast?
-
2010 (7) TMI 1005
Refund claim - excess customs duty paid - CBEC Circular dt. 10/11/2008 - claim of assessee is that the customs authorities have wrongly assessed the export cargo at higher value and had collected excess export duty based on valuation on FOB value- denial of refund claim on the ground that the shipping bills which were assessed with remarks are provisional and not finally assessed and there is no need to file separate appeal against the order of assessment and it could be corrected under Section 154 of the CA, 1962 - scope of section 154 of CA, 1962.
Held that: - the issue is now squarely covered by our decision in the case of M/s. Sameera Trading Company, [2010 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was ditected the assessing officer to reassess the Bill of Entry under Section 17(4) of the Act after allowing the assessee to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1004
Issues involved: Assessment of capital gains as income and the nature of the receipt.
Assessment of capital gains as income:
The appeal was filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2004-05, initially heard on 17.11.2009. The assessee had offered capital gains of Rs. 11,15,44,005 in the return of income. The Assessing Officer computed the income considering this declaration. The assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the amount should be treated as a capital receipt, not capital gains. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee voluntarily declared the amount as capital gains and claimed a loss in the computation of income. The Assessing Officer allowed this computation, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's ground. The assessee, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Tribunal.
Nature of the receipt:
The assessee's counsel referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Limited Vs. CIT (236 ITR 903), stating that compensation received for the loss of a source of income is a capital receipt. The Departmental Representative, however, supported the lower authorities' order and cited the Supreme Court's decision in Shelly Products & Another (261 ITR 367), emphasizing that filing a return of income amounts to an admission of tax liability. The Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's return and assessed the income accordingly. As there was no disagreement or disallowance by the Assessing Officer regarding the capital gains, the Tribunal found no basis for the assessee's grievance. The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on the Oberoi Hotel Pvt. Ltd. case would be relevant only if there was a grievance against the Assessing Officer's order, which was not the case. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was dismissed.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1003
Issues involved: Challenge to the correctness and sustainability of Ext.P7 notice proposing to revise assessment under Section 17D of KGST Act.
Summary:
The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 notice issued by the 1st respondent to revise the assessment finalized by the 2nd respondent/Fast Track Team u/s 17D of the KGST Act. The petitioner argued that since the assessment was finalized by the Fast Track Team through Ext.P2 order, the 1st respondent, being only one of the team members, lacked the authority to re-open the assessment. The Court, after considering the submissions, found merit in the petitioner's argument. It held that Ext.P7 issued by an officer of the Fast Track Team cannot override the effect of Ext.P2 order. Any variation to Ext.P2 could only be done by the Fast Track Team in accordance with the law. Therefore, Ext.P7 was set aside without expressing any opinion on the merits, allowing the 2nd respondent to take further steps if necessary under the relevant provisions of law.
The Court referred to a previous decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Ernakulam, which explained the scope and applicability of Section 17D. The judgment clarified that the authority to vary Ext.P2 lies with the Fast Track Team and not with individual team members like the 1st respondent. The Court's decision in this case does not prevent the 2nd respondent from making any necessary variations to Ext.P2 in accordance with the law.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1002
Shortage of goods found during stock verification - the case of the department is made out on the basis of unretracted statement of Shri J.Balaji, Manager of the assessee-company and the mahazar, clearly showing shortage - assessee's case is that no proper physical verification was conducted and therefore the shortage cannot be ascertained - Held that: - The evidence on record is sufficient to come to the conclusion that there was shortage which was not accounted in the statutory records viz. RG.1 Register of the assessees thus justifying the duty demand together with interest - penalty imposed is set aside as this is, admittedly, not a case of clandestine removal of goods by the assessees but only a case of shortage detected during physical verification - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1001
Issues involved: Classification of excisable goods under Chapter Heading 3303.10 and 3306.10 of CETA 1985, duty liability, interest, and penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002.
Summary:
1. The appeals were heard together as they involved a common question of law and facts. The appellants were subjected to duty liability, interest, and penalty under the orders passed by the adjudicating authority.
2. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods, were alleged to have wrongly classified the product 'HYDENT-K,' leading to evasion of excise duty. The department claimed the product was classifiable under Chapter sub heading 3306.10, while the appellants argued for sub heading 3003.10.
3. The appellant's advocate argued that the product should not be classified as cosmetic solely based on label design and highlighted that the product, a medicated toothpaste, was prescribed by medical practitioners and sold through chemist shops. The authorities allegedly ignored the medicinal/therapeutic values of the product.
4. The Departmental Representative referred to HSN notes, stating that products under heading 3003 are medicaments not put up for retail sale, while those under heading 3306 include preparations for oral hygiene like toothpaste. The product in question was deemed to fall under the latter heading.
5. The DR acknowledged that the orders did not address the difference between the two headings. A prima facie case for granting a stay of the impugned order and waiving the demanded amount was found. The application for stay was allowed until the appeal's disposal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 1000
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the challenge to a show cause notice issued under Section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and the alleged contravention of provisions related to guarantee by a resident in India to a non-resident.
Details of the Judgment:
Challenge to Show Cause Notice:
The petitioners, the Managing Director and former Chairman of a Public Limited Company, challenged a show cause notice issued by the adjudicating authority under FEMA. The notice pertained to a contravention alleged in furnishing a bank guarantee to a non-resident, based on the applicability of Section 6 (3) (1) (J) of FEMA. The petitioners argued that issuing a guarantee to a non-resident was permissible under Section 6 (2) of the Act. The dispute arose from a share purchase agreement involving the purchase of vMoksha entities, where the petitioners fulfilled their obligations, but a breach occurred leading to arbitration proceedings.
Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that the respondents violated principles of natural justice by not responding to requests for the return of seized documents and proceeding with the enquiry without considering representations. The respondents issued a show cause notice and refused to provide requested documents, leading the petitioners to offer explanations based on limited records. The petitioners argued that this violated their rights and interfered with the enquiry process.
Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The respondents raised the issue of the maintainability of the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners had already offered detailed explanations and therefore could not challenge the show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the petitioners had already responded to the notice and were called for a personal hearing, indicating compliance with natural justice principles.
Decision of the Court:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court referenced a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that writ petitions challenging show cause notices should not be entertained unless there is a clear lack of jurisdiction or legal basis. The Court declined to interfere with the show cause notice but directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' objection regarding the applicability of Section 6 (3) (j) of FEMA and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.
This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the judgment, including the challenge to the show cause notice, violation of natural justice, and the decision of the Court regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions.
-
2010 (7) TMI 999
Issues involved: Appeal by Department against Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding shortage of glass bowls, duty payment, penalty imposition, and liability of authorised signatory.
Shortage of goods and duty payment: Officers found shortage of 50,200 dozens of glass bowls valued at Rs. 12,55,000 during factory visit. Duty amount of Rs. 2,04,816 was involved. Authorized signatory admitted removal of goods without invoices or duty payment, which was later paid. Original authority confirmed demand and imposed penalties, which were set aside by Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal and duty payment before show cause notice.
Arguments and submissions: Revenue reiterated grounds of appeal, while respondents' advocate supported Commissioner (Appeals) order. Advocate argued that signatory was not involved in removal, or alternatively, requested concessional penalty citing relevant case law.
Decision and reasoning: Tribunal noted substantial shortage and signatory's admission of removal without payment. Absence of retraction and subsequent duty payment indicated signatory's involvement. Tribunal disagreed with Commissioner (Appeals) on corroboration requirement and penalty waiver due to early duty payment. Signatory lacked evidence of intent to evade duty.
Disposition of appeals: Penalty on firm reinstated, but given option to pay reduced amount within 30 days. Penalty on signatory upheld. Cross-objections also disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (7) TMI 998
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of interest paid to creditors u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2006-07.
Summary:
1. The AO disallowed interest paid to creditors under s. 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act.
2. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
3. Assessee argued that depositors had no taxable income and submitted Form 15G before the payment date.
4. Assessee's delay in submitting Form 15G was due to oversight, but forms were available before assessment.
5. Departmental Representative supported lower authorities' orders.
6. Tribunal found no reason to disallow interest as forms were available before assessment, reversed CIT(A)'s order, and directed deletion of the addition.
7. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
............
|
9911796707
