|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1261 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1214 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... basis of the fact which were produced at the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee that income in question is derived by firm from agricultural operations carried on the land belonging to MSFC Ltd., Pune, as agricultural income. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer is based on improper interpretation of law and on surmises and conjectures. In view of the above, the CIT(A) was justified that amount of ₹ 32,69,820/-and ₹ 35,13,376/- for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are agricultural income of assessee firm. This reasoned factual finding need no interference from our side. As a result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 22. The Cross Objections filed were in support of the order of the CIT(A) goes academic. In view of the foregoing conclusion wherein the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld. 23. As a result, both the appeals of Revenue as well as the cross objections are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1213 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s stage. Since the matter had been remanded, the Income-tax Officer should make the assessment. If the assessee felt aggrieved with the assessment, he could adopt the remedies provided by law wherein he could raise the present questions as well. Therefore, it was not necessary to examine the question of the power of the Tribunal in this matter” 19. In our considerate view, the additions made by the AO were not made in the original assessment and by making such addition the AO has travelled beyond the directions of the CIT(A), in the light of the discussions made hereinabove. The additional grounds raised by the assessee deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, we quash the order of the AO and reverse the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). As we have decided the appeal on the point of law by quashing the assessment order, we do not propose to decide the issue on merit. 20. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Court has committed a grave error in not only entertaining the criminal miscellaneous application in a disposed of writ petition, but also passing an order not to arrest the 1st Respondent till the conclusion of the trial. Grant of bail or not to grant, is within the powers of the regular Criminal Court and the High Court, in its inherent jurisdiction, not justified in usurping their powers. Once the criminal writ petition has been disposed of, the High Court becomes functus officio and cannot entertain review petitions or miscellaneous applications except for carrying out typographical or clerical errors. In the instant case, the High Court has entertained a petition in a disposed of criminal writ petition and granted reliefs, which is impermissible in law. 14. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court, with costs of ₹ 25,000/- to be paid by 1st Respondent to the Appellant, within a period of two months.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1211 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ddition made of ₹ 1,28,80,366/- on account of bogus purchase from R.R.Patel Trading Corporation, stating that the issue is covered under the proviso of Section 40A(3) ignoring the provisos of sec.69 C as amended w.e.f. 1.4.1999.” 17. Both the parties before us submitted that the issue in this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is covered with the issue in the grounds of the appeal of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006. 18. We have considered rival submissions. In view of our decision, while disposing of the assessee’s appeal for the earlier assessment year 2005-2006 in the foregoing paras of this order, we hold that there is no merit in the ground no.1 of the Revenue’s appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 19. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are partly allowed and both the appeals of the Revenue for A.Y.2005-2006 and 2006-2007 are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1210 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... /2009 20. The only grievance of the Revenue in this appeal, as already noted above, relates to the relief granted by the CIT(A) in the matter of the addition made by the assessing officer on account of valuation of closing stock. In view of our decision on this very issue while dealing with the grounds of the assessee in relation to this very issue, whereby we have set aside the issue to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal need no separate adjudication, and they are also treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 21. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 22. To sum up, while the assessee’s appeal, ITA No529/Hyd/2009, is partly allowed for statistical purposes, Revenue’s appeal, ITA No.595/Hyd/2009, is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the court on 19.10.2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1209 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n of disallowable sum is determined. We have also find that the decisions of Cheminvest India Ltd (supra) Shree Shyamkamal Finance and Leasing Co. Private Limited (ITA No.433/M/2010) are different on facts. It is the grievance of the assessee that the provisions of section 14A as they stand at the relevant point of time as applicable to AY 07-08 are not properly appreciated by the Revenue. It is the prayer of the parties that all the grounds raised by them may be set aside to the files of the AO for de novo assessment on this issue. We find merit in the arguments of the parties and order accordingly. In the set aside proceedings, AO shall consider all the objections raised by the Ld Counsel before us and meet out the objections by passing a speaking order. Accordingly, all the three appeals/CO are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31st day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssue to the file of A.O. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the Revenue, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) hold that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of Development charges, legal charges, society formation charges, water, electricity & meter charges. As regards the deduction u/s 80IB(10) on corpus fund charges, in the absence of any relevant material available on record, we respectfully following the order of the Tribunal (supra) set aside the issue to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of the direction given by the Tribunal in the said case (supra) and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly the ground taken by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 19-10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1207 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he documents seized were not found satisfactory. That presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act would apply. 6. We are of the opinion that the entire issue is based on appreciation of the material on record. Section 132(4A) of the Act uses the words “may presume”, meaning thereby that such presumption is rebuttable. In the present case, documents found pertain to entries related to oil business. The assessee's business at least accounted was of transportation. Revenue could not bring on record any material to suggest that the assessee was also involved in the business of dealing in oil. Additionally, the Tribunal has correctly recorded that the documents were dump documents. Revenue did not make any attempt to inquire into the matter further from the persons whose names were reflected in such entries. 7. In short, it cannot be stated that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. No error is committed by the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1206 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... st even from the date of its admission. From the aforesaid facts, it is established beyond any doubt that apart from the fact that the Defendant had not filed any affidavit in reply to the Summons for Judgment, the Defendant is taking a dishonest stand of not being liable to pay any interest to the Plaintiff on the amounts admittedly due and payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The defence sought to be raised by the Defendant in the absence of any affidavit in reply is baseless, untenable and mere moonshine. In view thereof, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed. The Summons for Judgment is therefore made absolute as prayed with a modification that interest payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the principal amount from the date of filing of the suit till payment and/or realisation shall be at the rate of 18 per cent per annum and not 21 per cent per annum as sought. The Summons for Judgment is accordingly disposed of. The suit also stands disposed of.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been found as un-explained under Section 68 of the Act. 5. The submission is wholly mis-conceived. In the search operation carried on M/s Ganga Ram Agarwal and Companies, there is no admission by the assessee therein that they were involved giving bogus/accommodation entries. Even if, findings recorded by the Assessing Authority to that effect is not correct and can not be relied upon. From the facts found by the authorities, it is clear that the amount of loan was advanced through the Account Payee Cheques and PANs were also furnished. The amount has been repaid through account payee cheques and the lenders has sufficient funds in their bank accounts not by cash deposited on the preceding date or when the cheques were issued by the money lenders. 6. We, therefore, observe that Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has rightly passed the orders. In such circumstances no addition under Section 68 of the Act was called for. Consequently, the appeal is failed. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1204 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... egarding jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at Jhansi before the first appellate authority and also before the Tribunal, which had been rejected on wholly untenable grounds. 5. The submission is wholly misconceived. From a reading of the Assessment Order we find that no such objection regarding jurisdiction was raised before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Jhansi who was the Assessing Officer and and the assessee proceeded to challenge the same before the first appellate authority at the first instance. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 124 of the Act will come into play and will bar the appellant from raising the question of jurisdiction before the first appellate authority or the Tribunal if such an objection had not been raised before the assessing authority at the very first stage. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order of Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1203 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... arterly basis do form the basis for the investing public to take informed decisions. Any false information or false accounts depicting inflated revenues and profits by fictitious entries in accounts is, indeed, a very serious wrong doing which directly impacts the securities market and the investors. Since the appellant was a part of the board of directors which approved the financial results of the company which were actually false and untrue, we are satisfied that the appellant is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Having regard to the nature of the serious market violation committed by the appellant, the Board was justified in keeping him out of the market for a period of three years and not allowing him to be a director on any listed company for that period." In view of the discussion above, we uphold the impugned orders by which restraint orders have been passed against the appellants and also monetary penalty has been imposed. Appeals dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1202 - SUPREME COURT
Acquittal of the Appellants and convicting and sentencing each one of them under different Sections of the Indian Penal Code - Appeal u/s 379 of the CrPC - HC reversing the acquittal orders - fragile nature of the conclusions reached by the HC - All the accused persons have been convicted Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each - there was a land dispute between (D-2) and his family and A-1, and his party. There were civil litigations between the parties over the said property. the younger brother of the accused No. 15 was murdered and in the said case D-1, D-2 and D-3 were arrayed as accused. At the relevant point of time, the three deceased persons were on bail. There was another case pending against D-1 and D-2 in respect of an incident of a bomb attack on the rival party. D-1, on being inflicted injuries by the accused persons, ran towards the Police Station, situated near the court complex and made a statement (Ex. P-1) based on which the FIR (Ex. 22) was registered by PW-27. After Chargesheet filled, The learned trial Judge by the judgment and order held that the charges levelled against the accused persons have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all the 23 accused were acquitted.
HC set aside the acquittal of A-1 to A-19 and convicted them under different Sections of the IPC. The acquittal ordered by the learned trial court in respect of A-20, A-21, A-22, and A-23 was, however, maintained by the HC. of the 19 accused who have been convicted by the HC, A-6 and A-11 have died in the mean time. Consequently, it is the 17 accused persons against whom the order of conviction continues to be effective who have instituted the present appeal.
HELD THAT:- We find ourselves unable to agree with the conclusion of the High Court. Firstly, if the conclusion recorded by the learned trial court was a possible conclusion, the High Court ought not to have ventured further in the matter. Secondly, the aforesaid exercise, in our considered view, did not also occasion a correct conclusion inasmuch as the presence of the accused at the spot armed with weapons and responding to the call of A-14, A-15 and A-16 to attack the deceased, even if assumed, in the absence of any further evidence, cannot establish a prior arrangement/agreement or a meeting of minds amongst the accused to commit the offence of murder so as to sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC.
Plea of alibi - plea of alibi set up on behalf of two accused on the basis of the evidence of DWs-1, 2 and 3 was accepted by the learned trial court by holding that the defence evidence tendered in the case had established that at the time of the occurrence A-12 was in the ITI, Tuticorin whereas A-4 was in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tuticorin - HELD THAT:- Reading the evidence of DWs-1, 2 and 3 and the documents exhibited in this regard (Ex. D-4, D-5, D-8, D-9, D-10) it is possible to take a view that aforesaid two accused were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The High Court answered the aforesaid issue by stating that as it was admitted by DW-1 in cross-examination that a student could leave the college after being marked present in the attendance register and as the sale deed (Ex. D-5) claimed to have been executed by A-4 in Tuticorin at the time of the incident did not specify the time of execution, the plea of alibi set up by A-4 and A-12 was not satisfactorily proved. We are, therefore, unable to accord our approval to the manner in which the High Court had dealt with this aspect of the case.
Liability of the accused Appellants under the provisions of IPC - The trial court considered it prudent to view the testimony of PW-1 with great care and circumspection as the said witness is the younger brother of one of the deceased - also took into account the fact that PW-1, though examined as an eye witness, could not specifically say as to which accused had assaulted which particular deceased and the weapon(s) used - Whether the view taken by the trial court is not a possible view? - The fundamental distinction between the two situations have to be kept in mind. So long as the view taken by the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, the view taken by the trial court cannot be interdicted and that of the High Court supplanted over and above the view of the trial court.
A consideration on the basis on which the learned trial court had founded its order of acquittal in the present case clearly reflects a possible view. There may, however, be disagreement on the correctness of the same. But that is not the test. So long as the view taken is not impossible to be arrived at and reasons therefor, relatable to the evidence and materials on record, are disclosed any further scrutiny in exercise of the power Under Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure was not called for.
As the High Court had embarked upon an in-depth consideration of the entire evidence on record and had arrived at conclusions contrary to those of the trial court, the discussions now will have to centre around the basis disclosed by the order of the High Court for reversing the acquittal of the accused Appellants. The grounds that had prevailed upon the High Court to hold that the commission of the offence of criminal conspiracy Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code have been proved by the prosecution in the present case have already been noticed. Our reasons for disagreeing with the said view of the High Court have also been indicated hereinabove.
Similarly, the reasons for our disagreement with the conclusion of the High Court that the defence evidence adduced in the case did not satisfactorily establish the plea of alibi put forward by A-4 and A-12 have also been indicated. The aforesaid aspects of the case, therefore, would not need any further dilation and it is the reasons for the conviction of the accused Appellants Under Section 302 and the other provisions of the Indian Penal Code will be required to be noticed by us.
The efficacy of the dying declaration (Ex. P-4) when the maker thereof had slipped into a coma even before completing the statement would have a serious effect on the capacity of D-1 to make such a statement. The certification made by PW-21 with regard to the condition of the deceased is definitely not the last word. Though ordinarily and in the normal course such an opinion should be accepted and acted upon by the court, in cases, where the circumstances so demand such opinions must be carefully balanced with all other surrounding facts and circumstances. All the above, in our view, demonstrates the fragile nature of the conclusions reached by the High Court in the present case.
For the above reasons, we hold that conviction of the accused Appellants recorded by the High Court under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences imposed cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras and confirm the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. The accused Appellants, if in custody, be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1201 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... AO's finding that the operation of Ankledshwar Plant was closed down and therefore depreciation was not allowable on the same? c) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in directing the A.O. that the rental income from sub leasing of property to be considered as income from House Property instead of income from business as treated by the A.O.? 2) Counsel for the revenue states that the questions (a) and (c) are covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court dated 18/6/2010 in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.128 of 2009. Hence, questions (a) and (c) cannot be entertained. 3) As regards question (b) is concerned, the revenue states that the similar question raised by the revenue in Income Tax Appeal No.598 of 2009 in CIT Vs. G. R. Shipping Limited has been dismissed on 28/7/2012. Hence, question (b) cannot be entertained. 4) For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1200 - ITAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) - Assessee-company has opined that certain mistakes were apparent from record in the assessment order and such mistakes should be accordingly rectified.
(i) Development Expenses - Assessee- company's portion of the expenditure was allowed as revenue expenditure by AO in previous year. It is requesting for allowing the similar deduction this year also - HELD THAT:- Details of total expenditure incurred towards new product development were mentioned in assessee's books but it has not filed any details of revenue expenditure, hence same could not be allowed. Thus, AO is directed to verify the claim made by the assessee in this regard and if any portion of the expenditure is found to be revenue-nature, same may be allowed.
ii) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - (i) Assessee submitted that amount involved was ₹ 9.42 crores not ₹ 9.42 lakhs as mentioned in the order - HELD THAT:- Submission made by the AR is factually correct. It is directed that operative part should be read as ₹ 9.42 Crores. - Decision in favour of Assessee.
(ii) Order of the CIT(A) Nasik was not considered while deciding the disallowance u/s 40a(ia) . During the assessment proceedings AO found that in the case of Nasik Unit there was a default with regard to provisions of TDS. He observed that TDS AO had passed an order u/s 194C r.w.s.20(1) and 201(1)A. It was further mentioned that the CIT(A) had confirmed the order of the TDS AO. The assessee approached the Tribunal. The ITAT in its order remitted the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) - HELD THAT:- Claim made by the assessee is factually correct- CIT(A) Nasik had vide its order had accepted the claim of the assessee-company. Thus, such claim should be considered.
Decision in favour of Assessee.
iii) TDS on Service Coupon Commission - As per the assessee that issue with regard to section 194 C of the Act was not adjudicated upon and matter was remitted back to AO - HELD THAT:- As far as s. 194C is concerned, full facts about the service coupon commission were not available on the file and hence matter should be restored back to the file of the AO. Decision given with regard to dealers Incentive Scheme (194H) cannot be imported for deciding the issue of service coupon commission (194C). Both do not operate in the same fields. There is no mistake apparent from record with regard to remitting back the matter to the file of the AO. Submissions made by the assessee-company about service coupons stand rejected.
Matter restored back.
iv) Acceptance of New Claim not made before AO - Assessee forget to claim deduction u/s 35 and such claim was not made before AO - HELD THAT:- AO directed to allow the claim made for deduction u/s. 35 of the Act after verification of the evidences produced by the assessee-company. Assessee is directed to file the details of expenditure before the AO.
Decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL-I VERSUS M/S. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS PVT. LTD. [2012 (7) TMI 158 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], relied upon where it was held that the "Assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional claims before them. The appellate authorities have the discretion whether or not to permit such additional claims to be raised. It cannot, however, be said that they have no jurisdiction to consider the same. They have the jurisdiction to entertain the new claim. The exercise of discretion is entirely different from the existence of jurisdiction”.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1199 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pportunity should be granted to the assessee to produce all the documents required to be submitted to prove the genuineness of opening capital balance and other small addition of ₹ 1121/-. Therefore, we set aside the assessment order as well as the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment to the file of AO with a direction to frame denovo assessment as per law after giving the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing. We direct accordingly. As we are restoring this assessment to the file of AO we do not express any opinion on the merits of the additions which have been challenged in the present appeal as the same will be readjudicated by AO in pursuance of our aforementioned directions. For statistical purposes the appeal filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed in the manner aforesaid. 7. In the result, the appeal is considered as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 18th day of Oct., 2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1198 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the contents of the contract notes produced by the respondent. The petitioner had claimed brokerage based on the very same contract notes. The petitioner could not produce any proof to show the percentage of brokerage agreed upon between the parties. Though enough opportunity was given by the arbitral tribunal as well as the bench, the petitioner did not amend its claim and the same was totally vague, without particulars and proof and thus was rightly rejected by the arbitral tribunal as well as the appellate bench. The petitioner ought to have proved its claim on the basis of its own evidence and not on the basis of the evidence in the custody of the respondent, if any. Both the tribunal has recorded the findings of fact and does not require any interference by this court. In my view, there is no merit in any of the submission made by the petitioner. I, therefore, pass the following order - (a) The arbitration petition is dismissed. (b) There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1197 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessment order is silent about the impugned addition held that since the interest payment is more than the interest received, the A.O. is directed to delete the addition of ₹ 15,61,615/-. 18. At the time of hearing the ld. D.R. supports the order of the A.O. 19. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 20. After hearing both the sides and perusing the material available on record and in the absence of any contrary material placed on record by the Revenue against the finding of the ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that since the payment of interest is more than the interest received, the A.O. was not justified in making the addition of ₹ 15,61,615/- and, hence, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in deleting the same. The ground taken by the Revenue is, therefore, rejected. 21. In the result, assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 19-10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1196 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... gly.” 5. As far as carry forward of deficit is concerned, assessee is entitled to carry forward the same, as per the orders of jurisdictional High Court in light of the decision of the Institution of Banking Personnel (supra). But, from the details filed by the assessee-trust, it is found that there appears to be calculation error. AR also admitted that out of ₹ 2.78 Crores deficit, the assessee-trust was entitled to carry forward deficit of ₹ 1.23 Crores only. We have gone through the Income and Expenditure A/c as well as the computation of deficit filed by the assessee. In our opinion, in the interest of justice, matter should be restored to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of determining the correct amount of carry-forward of deficit. Assessee-trust is directed to furnish the required details in this regard to the AO. Appeal filed by the AO stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1195 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ously. We take this opportunity by requesting the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably by March, 2013. We request the learned trial judge not to grant any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties while hearing the said suit. 24. By way of abundant caution, we record that we have not been gone into the merits of the claims and the counter-claims of the parties and all issues are left open to decide. 25. In view of the above, the appeal becomes infructuous and the same is, also, disposed of. 26. Consequent to the disposal of the appeal itself, the connected application being C.A.N. No. 5500 of 2012 is, also, disposed of. 27. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 28. The office is directed to communicate this order to the Court below immediately. 29. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on priority basis. Shubhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. I agree.
........
|
