|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 698 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 851
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and enforceability of the contract.
2. Discharge of obligations under the contract.
3. Impossibility of performance.
4. Interpretation of ASE Specification No. 68.
Summary:
Legality and Enforceability of the Contract:
The arbitrator held that the contract was void ab initio and not enforceable, citing a letter dated 31.08.1990 from the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, which instructed that rates quoted below 20% of reasonable rates should be treated as fictitious and rejected. The Supreme Court found this reasoning untenable, stating that the letter was not an Act of the legislature and did not render the contract unlawful u/s 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The arbitrator's conclusion that the contract was void was deemed patently illegal and opposed to public policy.
Discharge of Obligations under the Contract:
The arbitrator concluded that Respondent No. 2 discharged the Appellant from its obligations by not supplying fruits, allowing the Appellant to sue for breach of contract and damages under the Indian Contract Act.
Impossibility of Performance:
The arbitrator rejected Respondent No. 2's claim of impossibility of performance due to short supply of fruits, holding that this did not excuse non-performance of the contract.
Interpretation of ASE Specification No. 68:
The arbitrator dismissed Respondent No. 2's contention regarding ASE Specification No. 68, noting that Respondent No. 2 had accepted and signed the chart and performed the contract until June 2000.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the High Court. The matter was remitted to the arbitrator for deciding the claims of the parties in accordance with the findings on Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 850
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of an ex parte decree passed by the trial court.
2. Jurisdiction and procedural adherence of the trial court.
3. Validity of evidence and affidavits submitted by the Plaintiff.
4. Applicability of Order XVIII Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Code.
5. Right of the Defendants to cross-examine witnesses and address the court.
6. Impact of procedural applications and interlocutory orders.
7. Suit maintainability under Order XXX Rule 10 of the Code.
8. Doctrine of proportionality in civil adjudication.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of an Ex Parte Decree:
The Supreme Court examined whether the ex parte decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was valid. The trial court proceeded ex parte against the Defendants after they failed to appear on the scheduled date for cross-examination. The Defendants' subsequent applications and appeals were dismissed, leading to the trial court closing the evidence and pronouncing the judgment.
2. Jurisdiction and Procedural Adherence:
The trial court's jurisdiction and adherence to procedural rules were scrutinized. The court found that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction under Order XVIII Rule 15 of the Code, which allows a successor judge to proceed from the stage left by the predecessor judge. The trial court's actions were found to be in compliance with the Code, and the Defendants' repeated applications were seen as attempts to delay the proceedings.
3. Validity of Evidence and Affidavits:
The Plaintiff's evidence, submitted through affidavits, was challenged by the Defendants. The court noted that the Defendants had the opportunity to cross-examine the Plaintiff's witnesses but chose not to. The affidavits were considered valid evidence as the witnesses were present for cross-examination, and the Defendants' failure to cross-examine did not invalidate the affidavits.
4. Applicability of Order XVIII Rule 4 and Rule 5:
The court discussed the interpretation of Order XVIII Rule 4 and Rule 5, emphasizing that examination-in-chief can be conducted through affidavits in both appealable and non-appealable cases. The court clarified that the presence of the witness for cross-examination is sufficient to validate the affidavit as evidence, and there is no requirement for the witness to formally prove the affidavit in the witness box.
5. Right of the Defendants to Cross-Examine Witnesses and Address the Court:
The Defendants argued that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and address the court. The court found that the Defendants forfeited their right to cross-examine by not appearing on the scheduled date and that the trial court was justified in proceeding ex parte. The Defendants' subsequent appearance did not entitle them to address the court on the merits of the case.
6. Impact of Procedural Applications and Interlocutory Orders:
The court addressed various interlocutory applications filed by the Defendants, which were dismissed by the trial court. The Defendants argued that these dismissals were not considered by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that the Defendants should have sought a review from the High Court if their contentions were not addressed. The trial court's orders on these applications were upheld.
7. Suit Maintainability under Order XXX Rule 10:
The Defendants contended that the suit was not maintainable as it was filed in the name of a proprietorship firm. The court found that the description of the Plaintiff in the plaint, although not in proper order, did not constitute an illegality affecting the suit's maintainability. The trial court's rejection of the Defendants' application under Order XXX Rule 10 was upheld.
8. Doctrine of Proportionality in Civil Adjudication:
The Defendants argued that the trial court's actions were disproportionate to their default. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Code provides a comprehensive procedure for trial, and the trial court acted within its discretion. The Defendants' conduct and repeated applications justified the trial court's decision to proceed ex parte and pronounce the judgment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the ex parte decree passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The court found no merit in the Defendants' contentions and emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules and ensuring timely disposal of cases. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 50,000.
-
2011 (11) TMI 849
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) for A.Y. 2004-05.
Summary:
The appeal by the Revenue was directed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty of Rs. 7,07,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2004-05.
The assessee, an engineering workshop, filed a return of income declaring Rs. 1,55,67,045/- which was assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs. 1,79,66,366/- with certain additions/disallowances. Subsequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated by the Assessing Officer, leading the assessee to appeal before the CIT(A).
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering the submissions, stating that the additions made in the assessment involved interpretation of the law or opinion, and there was no finding that the appellants furnished incorrect information. The CIT(A) referred to decisions of Pune ITAT and the Supreme Court to support the deletion of penalty.
Upon reviewing the case, the Tribunal found that the additions were based on interpretation of the law or opinion, and the penalty is not automatic upon income addition during assessment. Merely because the expenditure claimed by the assessee was not accepted by the Revenue does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty.
Conclusively, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on 29th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 848
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The judgment primarily addresses the following legal issues: - Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was correct in reducing the quantum of deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act by excluding certain items of expenditure incurred outside India from the export turnover without making a corresponding adjustment to the total turnover.
- Whether the product development expenses incurred by the assessee should be classified as capital expenditure or revenue expenditure.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 10B of the Income Tax Act provides for a deduction in respect of profits and gains derived by a 100% Export Oriented Unit. The computation involves the ratio of export turnover to total turnover. The precedents referred to include judgments from the Mumbai High Court in the case of Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd. and the Special Bench decision in Sak Soft Ltd.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the exclusion of certain expenditures from the export turnover without a corresponding exclusion from the total turnover leads to an inconsistency in the formula prescribed under Section 10B. The court relied on the principle that the numerator and denominator in the formula should be treated consistently to avoid absurd results.
- Key evidence and findings: The AO had reduced freight charges from the export turnover but did not make a similar adjustment to the total turnover, thereby reducing the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 10B.
- Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principle established in the cited precedents that if an item is excluded from the export turnover, it should also be excluded from the total turnover to maintain parity in the calculation of deductions.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the AO's method was inconsistent with judicial pronouncements, while the Revenue supported the AO's approach. The court sided with the assessee, emphasizing the need for consistency in the calculation method.
- Conclusions: The court directed the AO to exclude the specified expenses from both the export turnover and the total turnover when calculating the deduction under Section 10B.
Issue 2: Classification of Product Development Expenses - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The distinction between capital and revenue expenditure is crucial in tax law, with capital expenditure typically leading to enduring benefits and revenue expenditure being short-term operational costs.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court found that the development of a new product, "Sucralose," constituted a new line of business for the assessee, providing enduring benefits. The expenditure was capitalized in the books, indicating its capital nature.
- Key evidence and findings: The assessee had developed a new product with a long gestation period and enduring benefits, which was capitalized in its accounts.
- Application of law to facts: The court applied the principle that expenditures resulting in enduring benefits should be treated as capital expenditure.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued for revenue classification, while the Revenue contended it was capital expenditure. The court agreed with the Revenue, citing the nature of the expenditure and its treatment in the assessee's accounts.
- Conclusions: The court upheld the AO's decision to treat the product development expenses as capital expenditure, disallowing them as revenue expenditure.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The export turnover, in the numerator must have the same meaning as the export turnover which is a constituent element of the total turnover in the denominator."
- Core principles established: Consistency in the treatment of export and total turnover is essential for calculating deductions under Section 10B. Expenditures leading to enduring benefits should be classified as capital expenditure.
- Final determinations on each issue: The court allowed the appeal regarding the deduction under Section 10B, directing adjustments to both export and total turnover. It dismissed the appeal concerning the classification of product development expenses, affirming their capital nature.
-
2011 (11) TMI 847
Issues involved: Appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-III Hyderabad dated 9.6.2008 for the assessment year 2004-05. Recall of order for issues of payment of commission and valuation of land as on 1.4.1981.
The Appellate Tribunal, ITAT Hyderabad, recalled its earlier order dated 18th December, 2009, upon the assessee's request through a Miscellaneous Application, specifically for reconsideration of the issues of payment of commission and valuation of land as on 1.4.1981. The Tribunal agreed to the recall, citing the mistake apparent from the record, and directed a fresh hearing for these two issues in the interest of justice.
Regarding the issue of payment of commission, the assessee submitted additional evidence through a petition under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962, supported by a sworn affidavit. The evidence included a confirmation letter from the employer of the individual involved, stating the services rendered and payments received. The Tribunal noted the additional evidence and set aside the earlier order of disallowance, directing the assessing officer to re-examine the claim, ascertain the genuineness of services rendered, and allow a reasonable commission proportionate to the services provided.
The Tribunal rejected the grounds of the assessee on the commission payment issue in the initial order, citing the timing of the agreement and lack of specific evidence of services rendered. However, upon considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and directed a fresh decision by the assessing officer, emphasizing the importance of the additional evidence in determining the allowability of the commission.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, specifically on the issue of payment of commission, directing a fresh examination by the assessing officer based on the additional evidence provided. The order was pronounced in court on 22.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 846
Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue against order of ld. CIT(A) regarding grant of interest u/s 244A to assessee.
Issue 1: Grant of interest u/s 244A
The sole issue in the appeal was whether the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to grant interest u/s 244A to the assessee. The Revenue contended that interest on interest is not allowable under sec. 244A as it speaks of simple interest only, citing the Supreme Court decision in M/s. Sandvik Asia Ltd Vs CIT (280 ITR 643) where interest on interest was granted as compensation for inordinate delay.
Judgment:
The ld. CIT(A) ordered in favor of the appellant, directing the AO to allow interest u/s 244A on any refund amount due to the assessee, including interest. The decision was based on the provisions of S. 244A and the Supreme Court ruling in Sandvik Asia Ltd case. The ld. CIT(A) found the AO's order lacking in granting interest u/s 244A and upheld the appellant's entitlement to simple interest as per law.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court further clarified that when excess tax is refunded along with interest as per sec. 244A, no further payment is required. However, if interest is not refunded with the excess tax, the withholding of interest becomes unjustified, and interest on interest becomes payable as compensation to the assessee. The Court emphasized that the refundable amount should include interest to avoid unjust retention by the tax authorities.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the ld. CIT(A)'s order to verify and allow interest as per law. The decision was in line with the legal provisions and previous judicial interpretations.
-
2011 (11) TMI 845
The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000, which is not maintainable under Instruction No. 3/2011. The citation is 2011 (11) TMI 845 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT.
-
2011 (11) TMI 844
Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal u/s 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Conviction under Section 8 of the Act
The accused persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Act by the Trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court acquitted the accused persons, citing lack of evidence and identification. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court's reasoning was not sustainable as there was ample evidence of the accused persons' involvement in cow slaughter.
Issue 2: Legality of Search Procedure
The High Court questioned the legality of the search procedure, but the Supreme Court held that even if the search was illegal, it did not affect the seizure of the incriminating materials. The Court emphasized that the evidence regarding the seizure was crucial, and no further consequences ensued from an illegal search.
Issue 3: Ownership and Conscious Possession of the House
The High Court raised concerns about the ownership and conscious possession of the house where the slaughter took place. However, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Act, slaughter of cows is prohibited regardless of ownership or possession of the place. The accused persons were found guilty under Section 3 of the Act, and their defense was not covered under the exceptions in Section 4.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and affirmed the decision of the Sessions Judge, stating that the High Court's interference was not legally sustainable as the accused persons were found guilty under the provisions of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.
-
2011 (11) TMI 843
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of sundry creditors for purchases.
Assessee's Grounds of Appeal:
1. Assessee is a partnership firm engaged in leather exports.
2. Dispute over disallowance on sundry creditors for purchases.
3. Assessee provided detailed purchase and sales information.
4. Dispute over adhoc disallowance of 10% of total purchases.
5. Records verified by government agencies like sales tax.
6. Books of accounts not rejected and subjected to audit.
Assessing Officer's Observation:
1. Addition of Rs. 3,13,92,083 as difference in sundry creditors and total purchases.
2. Concerns about genuineness of sundry creditors due to cash payments.
3. Lack of purchase party addresses for verification.
4. Discrepancies in ledger entries and cash payments.
5. Difficulty in verifying quantity and rates of purchases.
6. Considered sundry creditors as bogus due to lack of verifiability.
CIT(A) Decision:
1. Restricted disallowance to 10% of total purchases.
2. Accepted purchases made through local shandies but limited disallowance.
3. Noted unorganized nature of trade affecting precise details.
4. Allowed relief based on bank audits and sales tax records.
5. Disallowed Rs. 65,17,186 out of total disallowance.
6. Partially allowed appeal based on above considerations.
Appellant's Argument:
1. Addition made on suspicion without concrete evidence.
2. Closing stock valuation and purchase details found correct.
3. Discrepancy in treating sundry creditors as bogus.
4. Requested deletion of sustained disallowance.
Decision by ITAT Chennai:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 65,17,186 based on suspicion not justified.
2. Lack of evidence to show purchases were unreasonable.
3. Disallowance without basis not sustainable.
4. Deletion of Rs. 65,17,186 disallowance allowed.
5. Assessee's appeal upheld, relief granted.
Conclusion:
The ITAT Chennai allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 65,17,186 based on suspicion without concrete evidence, and found the disallowance without basis to be unsustainable.
-
2011 (11) TMI 842
Offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - Question of validity of sanction order in the course of trial - HELD THAT:- While drawing a distinction between the absence of sanction and invalidity of the sanction, this Court in Parkash Singh Badal [2006 (12) TMI 548 - SUPREME COURT] expressed in no uncertain terms that the absence of sanction could be raised at the inception and threshold by an aggrieved person. In our view, invalidity of sanction where sanction order exists, can be raised on diverse grounds like non-availability of material before the sanctioning authority or bias of the sanctioning authority or the order of sanction having been passed by an authority not authorised or competent to grant such sanction.
The above grounds are only illustrative and not exhaustive. All such grounds of invalidity or illegality of sanction would fall in the same category like the ground of invalidity of sanction on account of non-application of mind - a category carved out by this Court in Parkash Singh Badal, the challenge to which can always be raised in the course of trial.
Since cognizance has already been taken against the Appellant by the Trial Judge, the High Court cannot be said to have erred in leaving the question of validity of sanction open for consideration by the Trial Court and giving liberty to the Appellant to raise the issue concerning validity of sanction order in the course of trial. Such course is in accord with the decision of this Court in Parkash Singh Badal and not unjustified.
Therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order does not call for any interference. Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, it will be open to the Appellant to raise the issue of invalidity of sanction order before the Trial Judge.
-
2011 (11) TMI 841
The Gujarat High Court, with Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi and Honourable Ms. Justice Sonia Gokani, considered a case where the Tribunal rejected the assessee's appeal based on its own decision from earlier years. The Court admitted the Tax Appeal for consideration of the substantial question of law regarding the calculation under section 80HHC of the Act, specifically whether turnover of all independent business should be clubbed or only turnover of export business should be considered. The appeal was to be heard with Tax Appeal No.1553 of 2007.
-
2011 (11) TMI 840
Issues involved:
1. Validity of the acquisition process.
2. Quantum of compensation.
3. Deductions for development charges.
4. Deductions for de-escalation.
5. Deductions for the waiting period.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the acquisition process:
The Gulbarga Development Authority issued a preliminary notification under section 15(1) of the City Improvement Trust Board Act, 1976, on 13.5.1982, to acquire 144 acres of land for a residential layout. The final notification was issued on 14.12.1989, acquiring land from the appellants. The Land Acquisition Officer announced the award on 7.7.1990, fixing the market value at Rs. 4,100/- per acre for Badepur and Rs. 13,500/- per acre for Rajapur. The landowner filed a writ petition challenging the acquisition, but the High Court dismissed it on 12.8.1991, holding the acquisition process lawful.
2. Quantum of compensation:
The Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4,100/- per acre to Rs. 1,46,000/- per acre based on a sale deed dated 30.12.1983. The High Court remitted the matter to the Reference Court to reconsider deductions, which then re-determined the compensation at Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre. The High Court reduced this to Rs. 65,000/- per acre, leading to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
3. Deductions for development charges:
The High Court applied a 55% deduction for developmental charges, which the appellants argued was arbitrary and without reason. The Supreme Court noted that deductions for development are necessary to balance the differential factors between the exemplar land and the acquired land. Based on past precedents, the Court found that deductions up to 67% could be justified for undeveloped land. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's 55% deduction as reasonable.
4. Deductions for de-escalation:
The Reference Court allowed a 3% annual deduction for de-escalation, but the High Court increased it to 10%. The Supreme Court referenced cases where escalation rates ranged from 7.5% to 10% per annum and upheld the 10% deduction by the High Court, noting that land prices generally rise and the period in question exceeded one year.
5. Deductions for the waiting period:
The High Court applied a 5% deduction for the waiting period, which was not contested by the appellants during the hearing. The Supreme Court upheld this deduction, referencing past judgments where waiting period deductions were deemed appropriate.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' contention that no developmental expenses were incurred on the acquired land. It upheld the High Court's deductions of 55% for development, 10% for de-escalation, and 5% for the waiting period, totaling 70%, which is within the permissible range of up to 75%. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision to award Rs. 65,000/- per acre as compensation, maintaining consistency with previous judicial determinations. The appeals were dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 839
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction and late deposit of TDS.
2. Ad-hoc disallowance of 5% out of labour expenses.
Summary:
1. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction and Late Deposit of TDS:
The assessee, a civil contractor, faced disallowances of Rs. 15,39,867 and Rs. 12,18,061 u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-compliance with TDS provisions. The AO observed that TDS was either not deducted or deposited late. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances, noting that TDS for Rs. 15,39,867 was deducted but deposited late, and for Rs. 12,18,061, no TDS was deducted on transport charges. The Tribunal referred to the Jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. J.K. Construction Co., which clarified that TDS deducted by 31st March and deposited before the return filing due date fulfills legal requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the dates of TDS deduction and deposit, directing relief as per law.
2. Ad-hoc Disallowance of 5% Out of Labour Expenses:
The AO made an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 3,30,304 (5% of Rs. 66,06,095) from labour expenses due to unverifiable cash payments. The CIT(A) partially upheld this, noting that the vouchers were self-prepared and lacked names and addresses of recipients. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, as the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the factual findings.
Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of TDS disallowance remanded to the AO for verification, while the ad-hoc disallowance of labour expenses was upheld.
-
2011 (11) TMI 838
Issues Involved:
1. Provision of free medicines to 20% of patients.
2. Granting No Objection Certificate (NOC) for creating a mortgage in favor of Axis Bank.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Provision of Free Medicines to 20% of Patients:
The petitioners and the respondents entered into an agreement for constructing a multi-super specialty hospital on Corporation land. The Corporation contends that the petitioners must reserve 20% of beds for specific categories of patients and provide free medicines, as per the agreement. The petitioners argue they are providing free surgical facilities, beds, OPD, and diagnostic services but assert that free medicines are not required under the agreement. The court acknowledges that the hospital is operational and has admitted patients, thus recognizing the need to consider whether the petitioners must bear the cost of all medicines for 20% of patients or if providing other free medical services suffices. The matter is set for further hearing, with the court directing the completion of pleadings by 5th December 2011 and scheduling a hearing for 12th December 2011.
2. Granting NOC for Creating Mortgage in Favor of Axis Bank:
The petitioners seek an NOC from the Corporation to secure additional financial assistance from Axis Bank by mortgaging the hospital property. The Corporation has not responded to the petitioners' application for an NOC, prompting the petitioners to seek relief from the court. The petitioners argue that the contract allows for mortgaging the property and that the Corporation's refusal to grant an NOC is arbitrary. The Corporation opposes the request, citing the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and arguing that the land cannot be mortgaged. The court notes that the petitioners have previously mortgaged the property with Allahabad Bank with the Corporation's consent and finds the Corporation's current refusal unreasonable. The court directs the Corporation to grant the NOC within two weeks, without prejudice to the Corporation's rights and contentions, to enable the petitioners to obtain financial assistance from Axis Bank.
Interim Relief:
The court grants interim relief to the petitioners, directing the Corporation to issue the NOC within two weeks and appoint an Officer on Special Duty to monitor compliance with the provision of free treatment to 20% of patients. The court also instructs the petitioners to maintain records of patients receiving free treatment and medicines, allowing the Corporation to verify compliance. The interim order is issued without prejudice to the final determination of the case, considering the hospital's operational status and the need to avoid disrupting its services.
Conclusion:
The court's interim order addresses the immediate need for financial assistance by directing the Corporation to grant an NOC while ensuring compliance with the agreement's terms regarding free treatment for 20% of patients. The final hearing will further examine the obligations related to providing free medicines and the validity of the mortgage agreement.
-
2011 (11) TMI 837
Issues involved: Appeal against deletion of amount on account of non-genuine purchases u/s 80HHC.
Summary:
The appellant, a proprietor of M/s Nitin Impex engaged in export business, claimed deduction u/s 80HHC. The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases from 35 parties as non-genuine, totaling to Rs. 7,48,42,474. The CIT (A) deleted the disallowance after considering additional evidence. The ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision based on previous cases where GP estimation was restricted to 3% of tainted purchases. The ITAT found the disallowance by the AO to be incorrect and noted that PAN verification showed matching details in many confirmations. The ITAT directed the AO to tax 3% of GP on the tainted purchases, consistent with previous years. The ITAT also allowed the assessee to contest double addition on peak cash deficit under rule 27, subject to further examination by the AO.
In conclusion, the revenue's appeal was partly allowed, with directions given to the AO regarding GP estimation and consideration of set off for peak cash deficit.
-
2011 (11) TMI 836
Issues involved: Appeal challenging addition u/s 68 & interest charged u/s 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act.
Addition u/s 68:
The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 38,50,000 as unexplained cash deposit, arguing it was based on suspicion without concrete evidence. The appellant explained the cash deposits were from available book cash, accepted by the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, citing technical breach under Section 145. The Assessing Officer linked cash deposits to property transactions, suspecting unaccounted cash generation. The DVO's report indicated a substantial difference between declared and fair market values of properties sold, implying unaccounted cash deposits. Legal precedents emphasized the burden on the assessee to prove the source of cash deposits. The appellant's reconciliation of cash deposits was disregarded, leading to the conclusion that the addition lacked a factual basis. The Tribunal found the addition speculative and unsupported, ultimately deleting the addition.
Interest charged u/s 234B and 234C:
The CIT(A) confirmed the interest charged by the AO under Sections 234B and 234C. The appellant argued against the confirmation, but no specific details of this argument are provided in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision focused on the addition u/s 68, and there is no specific mention of the interest charged in the final outcome of the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and deleting the addition made u/s 68. The decision was based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the addition and the speculative nature of the Assessing Officer's conclusions. The judgment did not provide specific details regarding the interest charged u/s 234B and 234C, indicating the primary focus on the addition u/s 68 in this case.
-
2011 (11) TMI 835
Issues Involved:
1. Treatment of agricultural income as income from other sources.
2. Treatment of income on sale of agricultural land as business income.
3. Treatment of deposit of cheques into bank account as unexplained income.
4. Treatment of amount paid towards Kanakamamidi property as unexplained income.
5. Charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B.
6. Confirmation of addition regarding payments to Mutyam Reddy, purchase of land, and payment to Mirza Iqbal.
Summary:
1. Treatment of Agricultural Income as Income from Other Sources:
The assessee declared agricultural income for assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. The Assessing Officer treated this income as income from other sources, arguing that there was no material evidence to support the claim of agricultural operations. The assessee's evidence, including the Pattadar Pass Book and VRO certificate, was deemed insufficient. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, dismissing the assessee's ground.
2. Treatment of Income on Sale of Agricultural Land as Business Income:
The assessee sold plots of land, claiming them as agricultural land exempt from capital gains tax u/s 2(14)(iii). The Assessing Officer treated the income from these sales as business income, arguing that the land was divided into plots for non-agricultural purposes. The Tribunal agreed, noting the lack of evidence for agricultural use and the intention to sell for non-agricultural purposes. The assessee's ground was dismissed.
3. Treatment of Deposit of Cheques into Bank Account as Unexplained Income:
For assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee made significant bank deposits, which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal upheld this treatment, noting the assessee's failure to explain the source of these deposits. The ground was dismissed.
4. Treatment of Amount Paid Towards Kanakamamidi Property as Unexplained Income:
The Assessing Officer treated payments of Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh towards Kanakamamidi property as unexplained investments. The Tribunal upheld this, noting the lack of evidence to verify the source of funds. The ground was dismissed.
5. Charging of Interest u/s 234A and 234B:
The Tribunal noted that charging interest u/s 234A and 234B is consequential and mandatory, dismissing the assessee's ground.
6. Confirmation of Addition Regarding Payments to Mutyam Reddy, Purchase of Land, and Payment to Mirza Iqbal:
The Assessing Officer made additions for payments to Mutyam Reddy (Rs. 1.5 lakhs), purchase of land (Rs. 7.5 lakhs), and payment to Mirza Iqbal (Rs. 10 lakhs). The Tribunal upheld these additions, citing seized documents and the lack of credible evidence to counter the findings. The ground was dismissed.
Conclusion:
All appeals by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decisions on all grounds, including the treatment of agricultural income, income from the sale of land, unexplained bank deposits, and specific payments as unexplained income. The order was pronounced on 30th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 834
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petitions after condoning the delay. The respondents did not appear. (Case citation: 2011 (11) TMI 834 - SC)
-
2011 (11) TMI 833
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of excess stock.
2. Addition of Rs. 8,92,950/- u/s 14A for interest on borrowed funds.
3. Addition of Rs. 12,93,750/- as notional income from house property.
4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
Summary:
1. Addition of Rs. 20 lakhs on account of excess stock:
The assessee, engaged in the manufacture of coffee, filed a return declaring Rs. 11,03,650/-. A survey u/s 133A revealed excess stock valued at Rs. 19,98,796/-. The AO added Rs. 20 lakhs to the income, citing lack of evidence from the assessee. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. The ITAT agreed with the assessee's contention that evaporation and wastage costs should be considered, and remitted the matter back to the AO for verification and appropriate relief.
2. Addition of Rs. 8,92,950/- u/s 14A for interest on borrowed funds:
The AO disallowed Rs. 8,92,950/- as interest on borrowed funds used for investments, citing section 14A. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The ITAT noted that the issue is covered by the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Co. Ltd., which mandates a reasonable basis for determining related expenditure. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication in light of this judgment.
3. Addition of Rs. 12,93,750/- as notional income from house property:
The AO treated 15% of a lease deposit from a sister concern as notional rent, adding Rs. 12,93,750/- to the income. The CIT(A) confirmed this. The ITAT found the issue covered by a prior decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2001-02, which held that the amount received was not for leasing out property. The matter was remitted back to the AO to determine the Annual Letting Value (ALV) as per the Maharashtra Rent Control Act or Municipal ratable value, whichever is higher.
4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income:
The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 12,45,010/- for concealment of income, which the CIT(A) reduced to Rs. 5,94,745/-. The ITAT noted that since the quantum additions were remitted back for fresh adjudication, the penalty on these non-existent additions cannot stand. The penalty was canceled, with the AO allowed to proceed further post the quantum appeal decision.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with matters remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The penalty was canceled, subject to the outcome of the quantum appeal.
-
2011 (11) TMI 832
Issues involved: Reassessment under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act for the assessment year 2002-03 based on (i) treatment of renovation expenses as revenue or capital expenditure, (ii) loss on repossessed assets under 'administrative and marketing expenses', and (iii) loss on forward contracts in foreign currency.
Treatment of Renovation Expenses: The Assessing Officer disputed the treatment of renovation expenses claimed as revenue expenditure by the assessee, contending it should be considered capital expenditure. The reassessment was initiated under Section 148 of the Act due to alleged failure to disclose all material facts. The ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction of loss on repossessed assets as a normal business loss under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, akin to write off of bad debts, citing a change in law post-amendment in 1989. The judgment referenced a similar case involving Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., affirming the allowance of such loss.
Loss on Repossessed Assets: The dispute arose regarding the claim of loss on repossessed assets under 'administrative and marketing expenses'. The CIT (A) initially rejected the claim, but the ITAT overturned this decision, allowing the deduction as a normal business loss incurred during regular operations. The ITAT held that the loss on sale of repossessed assets is allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, treating it as a write off of bad debts, in line with the amended law since 1989. The judgment emphasized the applicability of this allowance to the assessee, a non-banking financial company, similar to a precedent involving Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd.
Forward Contracts in Foreign Currency: The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claimed on forward contracts in foreign currency upon revaluation at year-end. However, the ITAT focused on the primary issue of the loss on repossessed assets, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the allowance of such loss under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the alignment of this decision with a previous ruling involving Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd., reinforcing the entitlement of the assessee to the claimed deduction.
........
|
9911796707
