|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 1052 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1213
Issues involved:
The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the deletion of additions made under various heads totaling Rs. 2,02,21,283 u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Assessing Officer's Findings:
The Assessing Officer noted that the society, a charitable organization, received foreign donations primarily from "Hope Givers International" for religious purposes, raising concerns about the nature of expenses incurred.
Contentions before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The society argued that its activities were in line with religious and charitable objectives, citing the registration under section 12A and emphasizing the inclusive nature of its beneficiaries from various communities.
Decision of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals):
The Commissioner observed that the society's memorandum of association reflected a non-discriminatory approach towards beneficiaries and upheld the registration under section 12A, concluding that the expenses were aligned with the society's stated objectives.
Legal Analysis and Precedents:
The Tribunal referenced the case law emphasizing that institutions with religious purposes could be granted registration, and highlighted the distinction between charitable and religious purposes under section 11 of the Act. Precedents were cited to support the view that expenses for religious activities by a charitable trust were permissible.
Conclusion:
Considering the legal position and the nature of the society's activities, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to delete the additions, affirming that the society's expenses were in line with its established purposes.
Final Verdict:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on April 20, 2011 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1212
Disallowance u/s 040(a)(ia) - sales commission to non-resident - chargeable to tax or not - The assessee, a public limited company, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of insulators and bushings. The AO noticed that the assessee has made commission payments to the foreign companies. According to the AO, the assessee was liable to deduct the tax at source on payments made to non-resident in view of Circular No. 7 dated October 22, 2009. Since the assessee has not deducted the tax at source, therefore, the commission payable to these companies have not rendered any services to the assessee. No separate addition was made because the entire commission was disallowed under section 040(a)(ia). The Revenue has filed an appeal against the order of the learned CIT (A)-II.
HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the sales commission is business profit of the non-resident. In the absence of a permanent establishment, such sales commission was not chargeable and therefore, there was no need for deducting the tax at source. Similarly, the payments in respect of subscription and advertisement cannot be considered to be covered under fees for technical services and therefore, no TDS was required to be deducted. The learned CIT(A) held that the insulator testing is covered under the technical services and the assessee is not in appeal before us. Similarly, the learned CIT (A) has also held that tax was required to be deducted in respect of remittances for technical services on which tax has not been deducted, is to be covered for non-deduction of tax at source. The assessee is not in appeal before us. we hold that the learned CIT (A) was justified in holding that no TDS was to be deducted in respect of remittances related to sales commission.
In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1211
Issues involved: Confirmation of dismissal of petition u/s 154 for rectification of interest levied u/s 234A.
The appeal challenged the confirmation of dismissal of the assessee's petition u/s 154 before the Assessing Officer, regarding the computation of interest under section 234A. The assessee, a Hindu undivided family, had paid tax prior to the date when interest was to be charged based on the filing of the return. The Assessing Officer initiated rectification proceedings under section 154, claiming interest under section 234A was charged less. The assessee argued that interest under section 234A should only be charged till the payment of self-assessment tax, not till the filing of the return, citing various court decisions. The Department contended that interest should be calculated for belated filing of the return, in accordance with pre-1989 provisions. The ITAT held that interest under section 234A is compensatory, not penal, and should be charged till the date of payment of tax, not till the date of filing the return. The appeal was allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to rectify the claim in accordance with the law.
The ITAT analyzed the decision in the case of Dr. Prannoy Roy v. CIT, emphasizing that interest under section 234A is compensatory, not punitive. The Assessing Officer had correctly levied interest under section 234A, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in insisting on interest being levied for delayed submission of the return. The ITAT found that the interest charged was over and above what the law permitted, as the Revenue had not suffered any monetary loss due to the delayed filing of the return. The ITAT allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to rectify the claim and not compute the balance payable demand against the assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1210
Whether the statutory requirements necessary for the sanction of the scheme have been completed, the wishes of the shareholders/creditors have been ascertained and the scheme has been approved by them by majority in duly convened meetings?
Held that:- The petitioners have brought on record the latest financial position of both companies, the latest auditor's report regarding the accounts of both companies and have stated that there is no investigation pending against the companies. There is nothing on record which would suggest that the scheme sought to be sanctioned is otherwise in any way unfair or unreasonable which may amount to defraud either the State exchequer or the members/creditors.
The objections are meritless and stand rejected. Thus the scheme of arrangement (annexure 1) to the petition deserves to be sanctioned and is hereby sanctioned.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1209
CLB – Operation and mismanagement - Appellant purchased the property from Thiru G. George director of company - property purchased by the appellant was registered in the name of Thiru G. George - Respondents claimed that the schedule property belonged to M/s. Unicentre Agencies and Engineering P. Ltd., the fifth respondent, though it was registered in the name of the sixth respondent (director of company) - appellant received a notice from the Company Law Board ordering the appellant to deal with the property only with liberty obtained from the Company Law Board - CLB set aside the sale of properties – Held that:- Sale of land owned by Thiru G. George has no connection with the business of the company - respondent, being the registered owner, has sold the property to the appellant in his individual capacity, and not as director of the company - Land in dispute stood in the name of individual and not in the name of company - company appeal is allowed - order passed by the Company Law Board is set aside
-
2011 (4) TMI 1208
Petition rejected as being barred by law - petitioner is a company, incorporated under the laws of Netherlands and has its registered office at Amsterdam, Netherlands, and its principal place of business is in the United Kingdom. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 hold 24 per cent and 76 per cent respectively of the issued subscribed and paid-up equity capital of respondent No. 1 - respondent’s contention is that the petitioner, a foreign company, within the meaning of section 591(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 1956, has established a place of business in India, but has failed to comply with the provisions of section 592 and is, therefore, not entitled to institute the above petition in view of section 599 thereof – Held that;- application is, therefore, liable to be rejected on the ground that as the petitioner has not established a place of business in India, the provisions of section 599 do not apply. Company Application is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1207
Winding up – official liquidator is seeking to incorporate the amendment by way of adding additional prayers – Period of limitation - Held that:- official liquidator was required to file the application within five years from the date of winding up order, namely, March 7, 2005 and it has been filed in C. A. No. 130 of 2010 on March 1, 2010. The present application seeking amendment has been presented by the official liquidator for raising certain additional points based on the chartered accountant's report dated September 17, 2010. Time commenced between commencement of winding up and the date of winding up order, i.e., July 22, 2002 to March 7, 2005, which would be two years and 8 months, of which this court is not concerned with in this application. The application which has been filed on September 17, 2010, is to be held as filed within the period of limitation since the benefit of exclusion provided under section 458A, provisions of section 458A would be applicable to proceeding of misfeasance instituted by the official liquidator. that application filed by the official liquidator for amendments within the period of limitation. Appal allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1206
Winding up – creditors – company unable to pay its debt - During the pendency of the proceedings, the company was referred to the BIFR and was declared a sick industrial unit under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 - court by its order dismissing all the company petitions, but reserving liberty to them to file an application for revival of their petitions in the event of the company being revived and comes out of the BIFR - one of the creditors of the company-ARCIL filed a miscellaneous application, before the BIFR for abatement of the reference of the company under the third proviso to section 15(1) of the Act in view of the fact that the secured creditors have taken action against the company under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act - appellant contended that even if the proceedings before the BIFR was terminated as on January 5, 2010, when an appeal was filed within the time prescribed under law and the appeal was pending, section 22 of the Act is attracted and no order of winding up could have been passed by the company court. Therefore, he submits that without going into the merits and other grounds urged in the appeal memo that the order impugned is liable to be set aside on the short ground of want of jurisdiction of the company judge to pass the order - respondent contended that the application for revival was filed after the proceedings before the BIFR stood abated. The first respondent had no notice of the appeal filed by the company. As this court has reserved the liberty to the first respondent to revive the company petition, after taking out notice to the company, the company court being satisfied with all the ingredients as contemplated under section 434, has proceeded to pass the order of winding up, which is in accordance with law and this appeal is wholly misconceived – Held that:- contention that the SARFAESI Act has a overriding effect on other provisions or other enactment has nothing to do with the power of the company court to entertain and proceed with the winding up petition when an appeal under section 25 of the Act is pending. The language employed in section 22 is absolute and mandatory and the company court is prohibited from proceeding with the winding up proceedings much less to pass winding up order. order passed by the company court or by this court in this proceeding would not affect the proceedings taken by the secured creditors under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1205
Negligence, default, breach of duty, misfeasance or breach of trust – directors and other officers of the company fail to take reasonable steps to secure compliance of the requirements of the Act – Held that:- it cannot be said that the directors and other officers of the company who are petitioners before me have "failed to take reasonable steps". If a professional opinion is tenable and accounts and the directors’ report have been prepared according that professional opinion, it cannot be said that reasonable steps were not taken by the Company and its directors and other officers to comply with the provisions of the Act. In any case to prove contravention the mental element like intention or negligence or recklessness has also to be proved. On an assessment of the above facts those elements are also absent, application is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1204
Winding up – auction to pay off the debts of the respondent Company - secured loans from the public against non-existent bookings of Maruti cars - it has come to the notice of MUL that GAL has taken loans from friends, relatives, business associates and other bodies corporate by offering security of booking of Maruti vehicles to give an appearance of transaction of loan backed by security of allotment of cars and the Managing Director, MUL has even received a copy of the legal notice issued to GAL dated 9-7-1996 from Shri U.K. Choudhary causing undue embarrassment to MUL - transaction of this nature is not legal and/or permissible under the dealership arrangement and in any case the allotment numbers were non-existent, GAL have admitted that due to requirement of funds they resorted to device of raising money - GAL has written to MUL vide their letter dated 25-7-1996 (copy enclosed) admitting that the transaction was not regular and that the allotment numbers were in fact non-existent - creditors of GAL who had approached this Court for winding up of GAL - petitioner states that the price of the land which has been offered as security by the respondent is merely Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per square metre and not Rs. 4,000 per square metre as mentioned in the proposal of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner suggests that a valuer be appointed to value the plot which is being offered to the petitioner as security – Held that:- respondent company failed to pay its debt to the petitioners, in spite of the statutory notice having been served on it, therefore, petitioners approached this Court for winding up of the respondent company. After receipt of notice the respondent company was represented by a counsel, on 2nd February, 1998 counsel for the respondent made a statement that M/s. Delhi Automobiles Limited has immovable property, namely, 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi. According to him this property was extremely valuable. He further stated that efforts were being made to sell this property and in case the property was sold, the money would first be utilized for meeting the amounts due to the creditors who filed petitions in this Court. respondent company failed to adhere to the schedule of payment given to this Court. Thus the breach has been committed by the respondent was well as by its Director in adhering to the schedule of payment. The order of restraining the Official Liquidator from taking possession was kept in abeyance till the next date. Property No. 1, Sikandara Road, New Delhi having stood attached by this Court has now, therefore, become liable to be sold after taking over its physical possession. applications filed on behalf of the petitioner and the Official Liquidator stand allowed accordingly
-
2011 (4) TMI 1203
Special Leave Petitions - Special Leave Petitions, has challenged the judgment and order, passed by High, holding that the Respondent, Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited is a "financial institution" under section 4A(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, read with section 2(1)(m) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (‘the SARFAESI Act’) and that, as a consequence, the Respondent IFCI Ltd. would be entitled to take recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in order to enforce a "security interest" which had accrued in its favour – counsel submitted that since the Respondent No. 1 Company no longer fulfilled the criteria contained in clause (ii) of the proviso to sub- section (2) of section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956, it had lost the status given to it under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 4A thereof and was not, therefore, entitled to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, notwithstanding the provisions of section 5 of the 1993 Act – Held that:- clauses (i) and (ii) are not conjunctive but disjunctive and even though clause (ii) may not have any application to the Respondent No. 1 Company, it was covered by clause (i), since it was constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, which is a Central Act. no reason to interfere with the judgment and orders of the High Court impugned in these Special Leave Petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1202
Criminal complaint - sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - cheques issued by the accused - bank directed to stop payment - Accused No. 1 is a partnership firm and Accused Nos. 2 to 7 are partners thereof and Accused No. 3 is signatory of the impugned cheques and all partners are looking after day to day affairs of the accused firm and thus the liability as raised by them is joint and several - Held that:- there is no legal requirement for the complainant to show that the accused partner of the firm was aware about each and every transaction. On the other hand, proviso to section 141 of the Act clearly lays down that if the accused is able to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the offence was committed without his knowledge or he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, he will not be liable of punishment. - But vicarious criminal liability can be inferred against the partners of a firm when it is specifically averred in the complaint about the status of the partners 'qua' the firm.
The High Court should not have interfered with the cognizance of the complaints having been taken by the trial court. The High Court could not have discharged the respondents of the said liability at the threshold. Unless parties are given opportunity to lead evidence, it is not possible to come to definite conclusion as to what was the date when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since what date the Respondents ceased to be the partners of the firm.
Matter restored before trial court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1201
Scheme of amalgamation - issue of filing fee already paid by the transferor companies on their authorized share capital - Objections by the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai - issue of filing fee already paid by the transferor companies on their authorized share capital - held that:- this objection cannot be sustained, in view of the law, laid down by the Hon'ble division bench of this court, in the case of Regional Director, Ministry of Co. Affairs v. Cavin Plastics and Chemicals (P.) Ltd. (2007 (11) TMI 412 (HC))
As per the report of the chartered accountants that they have not come across any act of misfeasance by the directors, which would attract the provision of sections 542/543 of the Companies Act, 1956. Nor the affairs of the transferor company have been conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of its members or public interest. There is no objection by the official liquidator to the scheme and the scheme be beneficial to the company and its members.
Consequently, the company petition is conditionally ordered, subject to sanctioning of the scheme of amalgamation by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, on the petition filed or to be filed by the transferee company.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1200
Rectification of the register of members under section 111A of the Act - family company - appellants are real brothers, nephews and nieces of Mr. Brij Mohan Khanna, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1 is a family company. - allegation of oppression and mismanagement - CLB dismissed the appellants’ petition on the ground that since the names of appellants no longer appear in the register of members, they were lacking in requisite eligibility under section 399 of the Act to maintain such a petition.
Held that:- though the CLB has painstakingly noted the submissions of both the parties, yet it has not adjudicated upon the same. In fact, CLB has given no finding/conclusion on the contentions raised by the respondents while opposing the maintainability of the petition except observing that the appellants were at liberty to file a petition under section 111A of the Act and in the event they succeed in the said petition, they would be at liberty to file a petition under section 397/398 of the Act. The impugned order to my mind is a non-reasoned one to this extent.
Regarding amendment to the application / suit - held that:- While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment.
Matter restored before CLB.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1199
Winding up – appropriation/adjustment of the amounts - amount due and payable - Company has neglected to pay any amount as demanded by the above notice - petition and has also published the notice in a two daily newspapers and accordingly the affidavit dated 1-4-2011 is filed. Thereafter also there is no willingness on the part of the respondent Company to pay the dues. It appears that the Company is unable to perform its functions under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 since it has lost its sub-stratum and accordingly, it is ordered to be wound up
-
2011 (4) TMI 1198
Contravention of provisions of Rule 57A and 57CC - Whether the amount refunded can at all be treated as duty under Central Excise Act, so as to make them eligible for claiming interest under the provisions of the Central Excise Act - Held that:- The letter dated 03.05.2011 was received by the officer on 08.05.2011 and the refund was ordered on 19.07.2001. It is true that the appellants had approached the authority earlier under letter dated 06.01.2001. However, the same was responded to under letter dated 18.04.2001 for proper application for refund and indeed the appellants preferred such application on 03.05.2011 - Appellants clearly admitted the fact that there was a need for appropriate application under Section 11BB of the Act to claim refund and it was accordingly filed by the appellants on 03.05.2001 - Consequently, the refund was granted on 19.07.2011 within a period of three months from the date of the said application. Thus the contention that there was delay in refunding the amount does not appear to be correct.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1197
Transaction value - whether the charge towards pre-delivery inspection and after sales service by the dealers from the buyers of the cars are to be included in the assessable value of the cars - Held that:- The same stands already answered by the Larger Bench in this very case under order dated 20.4.2010 against the contention sought to be raised by the assessee - Decided against the assessee.
Quantification of duty and interest - Held that:- The same will have to be calculated by the adjudicating authority bearing in mind the decision of the Larger Bench - Therefore, the matter will have to be remanded for that purpose.
Penalty - Held that:- Once it is undisputed fact that there were divergent views expressed by different Benches on the issues and the same had to be settled by the decision of the Larger Bench, the appellants cannot be held liable to pay the penalty - Thus, it cannot the said that there was any intention to evade payment of duty - Hence we set aside the penalty levied.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1196
Cenvat credit - batteries used in the manufacture of captive power generation and distribution system for GAIL - The respondents contending that the inputs in question were received by them at different sites of the project awarded to them by M/s GAIL and that the project were funded by Asian Development Bank - Held that:- Since the system was to be manufactured at various sites, each such site was to be considered as the part of manufacturing premises for that system, the goods received at those sites by the assessee ought to be considered as having been received in the factory premises of the respondents - It was the specific case of the respondents that the goods were subjected to payment of duty, they were duly received by the respondent they were utilized in the final product manufactured by the respondents, and the final product was a dutiable product - Decided against the revenue.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1195
Waiver of pre-deposit - compliance of Section 35F - whether the appellants are liable to discharge the duty liability of their predecessor owners of the factory? - Held that:- It does not appear to be in dispute that the factory originally belonged to M/s Prakashalika Marbles Pvt. Limited which came to be purchased by the appellants under deed of conveyance dated 15.05.2002 - appellants have already deposited 50% of the duty, find it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Commissioner to deal with the appeal on merits in accordance with provision of law, while considering the deposit of 50% of duty to be sufficient for the compliance of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1194
Exemption under Notification No. 115/75-CE dated 30.04.75 - as per department the process undertaken in the factory of the assessee in relation to refining of the crude oil did not include process of milling therefore, they were not entitled for the exemption benefit under the said notification - Held that:- The said notification nowhere relates to the process undertaken by a manufacturer - It requires the manufacturer to have a factory of the description given in the schedule - Whereas it is not disputed that the assessee had oil mill and solvent extraction industry which is one of the industries enlisted in the schedule to the said notification - Do not find any fault in the impugned order granting the benefit of exemption notification to the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
