|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 888 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1308
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to disallowance of provisions for Non-Performing Assets (NPA), bill discounting charges, re-working of income consequent to lease transactions, disallowance of share issue expenses, disallowance under section 115JA of the Income Tax Act, and charging of interest under section 234B.
Issue 1: Disallowance of provisions for Non-Performing Assets (NPA)
The assessee, a Non-banking Finance Company, contended that non-accounting of finance charges on NPAs is in line with RBI norms and the real income concept. However, the issue was found to be covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the assessee's own case. Therefore, this issue was dismissed.
Issue 2: Disallowance of bill discounting charges
The disallowance of bill discounting charges was also decided against the assessee based on previous decisions. Consequently, this issue was also decided against the assessee.
Issue 3: Re-working of income consequent to lease transactions
The issue of re-working income due to lease transactions treated as finance transactions was not pressed during the hearing as it had already been allowed by the Assessing Officer based on regular computation. Therefore, this issue could not be allowed, and the ground taken in this regard was dismissed.
Issue 4: Disallowance of share issue expenses
The share issue expenses were considered capital in nature by the Assessing Officer and were confirmed by the CIT(A). Given that similar expenses were allowed in previous assessment years, the disallowance was upheld.
Issue 5: Disallowance under section 115JA of the Income Tax Act
There were two aspects to this issue. The provision for NPA was disallowed while computing book profit under section 115JA, as per the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2009. However, the disallowance of lease equalization charges was allowed in favor of the assessee based on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court.
Issue 6: Charging of interest under section 234B
The Assessing Officer was directed to provide consequential relief, if admissible, to the assessee regarding the charging of interest under section 234B, which was deemed mandatory but consequential.
In conclusion, all the appeals filed by the assessee were partly allowed, with specific issues being decided in favor or against the assessee based on legal interpretations and precedents.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1307
Issues Involved:
1. Addition on account of unexplained excess stock of cattle feed.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Calculation of interest under Section 158BFA.
4. Addition on account of unexplained quantity of sunflower solvent crude oil.
5. Interest charged under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition on Account of Unexplained Excess Stock of Cattle Feed:
The first issue pertains to the addition of Rs. 39,34,453 made by the AO for unexplained excess stock of cattle feed. The AO based this addition on a discrepancy between the manually maintained stock register and the computerized stock register. The manual register showed a lower stock compared to the computerized records. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition but reduced it to Rs. 38,34,967. The assessee contended that the manual stock register was tentative and incomplete, whereas the computerized stock register was accurate and audited. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the computerized stock register was reliable and accepted by the Department. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the entire addition of Rs. 39,34,443.
2. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the IT Act, 1961:
The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 34,66,571 under Section 40A(3), which prohibits cash payments exceeding prescribed limits. The AO identified cash payments for purchases from seized registers and applied a 20% disallowance. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that since the income from unaccounted transactions was estimated and declared, further disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not warranted. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, citing precedents that Section 40A(3) does not apply to block assessments under Chapter XIV-B. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the disallowance.
3. Calculation of Interest under Section 158BFA:
The third issue concerns the calculation of interest under Section 158BFA(1) for delayed filing of the return. The AO charged interest of Rs. 16,08,151 for a 14-month delay. The assessee argued that taxes paid before filing the return should be deducted from the tax payable for interest calculation. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CIT v. Smt. Sire Kanwar Bai, which held that interest should be calculated on the tax payable after deducting taxes paid before the due date. However, since the assessee's payments were made after the due date, the Tribunal upheld the AO's calculation of interest.
4. Addition on Account of Unexplained Quantity of Sunflower Solvent Crude Oil:
In ITA No. 209/Pn/2007, the issue was an addition of Rs. 8,55,415 for unexplained sunflower solvent crude oil. The AO identified a discrepancy in the stock register, leading to the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the addition but allowed a relief of Rs. 1,00,000. The assessee argued that the addition should be limited to 13.405 MT instead of 26.810 MT. The Tribunal found that the AO's observation was factually erroneous and restricted the addition to Rs. 3,22,257 after considering the CIT(A)'s relief.
5. Interest Charged under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961:
In ITA No. 210/Pn/2007, the issue was the interest charged under Section 220(2) amounting to Rs. 3,10,392. The assessee contended that the calculation was incorrect and should be Rs. 70,898. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for recomputation of interest after allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided relief to the assessees on multiple grounds, directing the deletion of additions and disallowances where justified and remanding the matter for recomputation of interest under Section 220(2). The decisions emphasized the reliability of computerized records over tentative manual entries and clarified the applicability of Section 40A(3) in block assessments.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1306
Issues involved: Disallowance of PF and ESIC payments u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2006-07.
PF Disallowance: The Assessing Officer disallowed PF payments made after the due date at the Bangalore facility. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the PF payment made within the grace period but confirmed the disallowance of ESIC payment made after the due date. The assessee challenged the sustenance of disallowance of both PF and ESIC payments.
Adjournment Request: The assessee sought an adjournment due to the counsel being out of station but later requested the issue to be set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification.
Decision: After considering the submissions, the Appellate Tribunal found discrepancies in the actual dates of payment provided by the assessee. As no supporting material was presented to prove payments were made within the grace period, the matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The orders passed by revenue authorities were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Result: The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1305
Issues involved: Disallowance of prior period expenses and disallowance of interest towards purchase of shares of associate concern.
For the disallowance of prior period expenses, the appellant contested that the disallowance of prior period expenses without considering detailed submissions was erroneous. The appellant provided detailed explanations for various amounts related to different transport companies and argued that the expenses were crystallized during the year. The Tribunal found that the necessary details for such expenses were available in the documents filed by the assessee and concluded that the expenses were crystallized during the year, thus allowing the appellant's ground.
Regarding the disallowance of interest towards the purchase of shares of an associate concern, the appellant claimed that the issue was covered in their favor by a previous Tribunal decision. The appellant had invested in shares of an allied company to avail sales tax exemption. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest paid on borrowed funds for non-business purposes. However, the Tribunal considered various past decisions and found that the appellant derived benefits under a sales tax deferred scheme/exemption scheme, which justified not making any disallowance. The Tribunal also cited relevant court decisions to support the appellant's claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that no interest was disallowable in this case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee in both the issues of disallowance of prior period expenses and disallowance of interest towards the purchase of shares of an associate concern.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1304
Supreme Court admitted the appeals and made the ad interim order dated 15th February, 2010, absolute until the disposal of the appeals. (Case Citation: 2010 (12) TMI 1304 - SC)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1303
Exemption from building tax u/s 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act - hostel building of an educational institution - entitled for exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which provides for building tax exemption for buildings used for "educational purposes" or not?
Whether "educational purposes" referred to in the above Section has only a restricted meaning covering buildings, where students are imparted education; or whether it has a wider meaning covering hostel buildings owned by educational institutions to provide accommodation to students in the premises of the educational institutions? - HELD THAT:- Wherever hostel is compulsory for approval of a course study or an educational institution by the regulatory body as in the case of medical and nursing colleges, hostel building is an integral part of the educational institution, and so much so, accommodation to students provided in the hostel building is for educational purpose and therefore the hostel building qualifies for exemption from building tax. In view of the above finding, we are unable to agree with the denial of exemption to hostel building attached to the nursing school.
Whether hostel facility to students provided by other educational institutions, which are not compulsorily required under the educational regulations to provide accommodation to students, is an educational purpose qualifying the hostel buildings for tax exemption? - HELD THAT:- The hostel buildings are constructed by educational institutions to attract students to their institutions. Many educational institutions provide only basic facilities like building, electricity and water connections for hostels and in fact, students are running mess on sharing basis. So much so, the State's contention that hostels attached to educational institutions are commercial ventures intended to make profit, in our view, is unacceptable. In order to consider whether hostel provided by an educational institution is for educational purpose or not, we have to consider the consequences if such educational institution does not have hostel facility to provide accommodation to its students. Obviously, such educational institutions have to source students locally, which may be possible only in the case of Schools. In fact, thousands of schools and colleges in the State do not have hostel facility because they depend on students from the local area only - In fact, without hostel facility, many educational institutions will not have required number of students to run it. We, therefore, feel accommodation is a necessary facility, which an educational institution is required to provide to it's students; and so long as the purpose of stay of students in the hostel is to study in the educational institution, the purpose of such building, which is used for accommodation of students, qualifies as educational purpose.
The buildings owned by educational institutions for providing hostel accommodation to students qualify for building tax exemption under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act. However all buildings accommodating students do not qualify for building tax exemption because there are so many lodge buildings constructed by various people around educational institutions which do not have hostel facility, to rent out to students in such educational institutions. Letting out of buildings by private agencies is a commercial activity whether tenants are students or not. In other words, only hostel buildings owned by educational institutions for accommodating it's own students in such hostels will qualify for exemption under clause (b) of Section 3(1) the Act.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1302
Whether the Delhi Development Authority (the DDA), land of the respondents and others was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release ₹ 14,15,82,253/- for payment of compensation can be treated as "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`the Act') and it was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determining the compensation is the question which arises for consideration in these petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby market value of the acquired land was fixed at ₹ 2,000/- per sq. yd. and direction was issued for payment of compensation to the contesting respondents with 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest.
HELD THAT:- We hold that the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions "local authority" [Section 3(aa)] and "person interested" and was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector; the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him;
the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;
the Division Bench of the HC also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as also the judgments of the Reference Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Reference Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment of the High Court and this judgment.
the cross-objections filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector in C.A. Nos.6564 and 6565 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. However, as the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court have been set aside and a direction has been given for fresh determination of the amount of compensation payable to the respondents, the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court.
Since the matter is more than 32 years old, we direct the Reference Court to decide the matter as early as possible but latest within 9 months from the of date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
We further direct that if the amount of enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court vide judgments dated 27.7.1980 and 14.5.1994 has already been paid to the respondents or their predecessors, then they shall not be required to refund the same.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1301
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of illegal money lending and exorbitant interest rates.
2. Government interference in the registration of complaints against a local MLA and his family.
3. Abuse of power by the Chief Minister and high-ranking officials.
4. Constitutional and legal principles regarding the registration and investigation of cognizable offenses.
5. Impact of government actions on farmers and the rule of law.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Illegal Money Lending and Exorbitant Interest Rates:
The first respondent, an agriculturist, filed a writ petition alleging illegal money lending by the second respondent, who charged 10% interest per month. The petition highlighted that 34 complaints were registered against the second respondent by June 2006. It also mentioned that nearly 300 farmers in Vidarbha committed suicide due to the illegal money lending business and the associated torture.
2. Government Interference in the Registration of Complaints:
The Collector of Buldhana issued an order on 5.6.2006, directing that no crimes against the second respondent be registered without clearance from the District Anti-Money Lending Committee and legal opinion from the District Government Pleader. This order was based on instructions from the then Chief Minister, following complaints by MLA Dilipkumar Sananda about false allegations against his family.
3. Abuse of Power by the Chief Minister and High-Ranking Officials:
The High Court found that the Chief Minister's interference, proven by the Collector's order and telephonic instructions, exhibited gross abuse of power. The High Court quashed both the Collector's order and the telephonic instructions, awarding costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the State Government. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, condemning the Chief Minister's actions as unconstitutional and subversive to the rule of law.
4. Constitutional and Legal Principles Regarding the Registration and Investigation of Cognizable Offenses:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the legal framework mandates police officers to register and investigate cognizable offenses without delay, as per Sections 154 and 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Chief Minister's directive to give special treatment to the MLA and his family was deemed unwarranted and contrary to the rule of law, which does not accord special treatment to any individual in such matters.
5. Impact of Government Actions on Farmers and the Rule of Law:
The Supreme Court highlighted the severe impact of the Chief Minister's actions on the farmers in Vidarbha, who were already suffering due to money lenders. The Court noted that the interference impeded the farmers' access to legal redress and subverted the due process. The Court also referenced the alarming rate of farmer suicides in India, particularly in Maharashtra, underscoring the gravity of the issue.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, declaring the Chief Minister's instructions unconstitutional and quashing them. The Court ordered the State of Maharashtra to pay costs of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority to aid poor farmers. The judgment underscores the paramount duty of maintaining the rule of law and constitutional norms of equal protection, condemning any abuse of power by government officials.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1300
Issues involved:
The judgment involves substantial questions of law related to the assessment year 1998-1999, including depreciation on long-term leasehold properties, disallowance of business expenditure, compliance with Reserve Bank of India's regulatory Directions, and plea for alternative relief regarding excess collection of processing charges.
Depreciation on long-term leasehold properties:
The Tribunal's decision to restrict depreciation only to capital expenditure for any structure by way of addition and/or alteration, rather than allowing depreciation in its entirety in respect of long-term leasehold properties, including perpetuity, is questioned.
Disallowance of business expenditure:
The Tribunal's affirmation of disallowance of liabilities for business expenditure amounting to &8377; 1,31,002 on the ground that they relate to an earlier previous year, despite the assessee receiving relevant bills during the next previous year, is challenged.
Compliance with RBI's regulatory Directions:
The issue revolves around whether the RBI's regulatory Directions mandating investment of surplus funds in specified securities preclude the disallowance of business expenditure under Section 14A of the I.T. Act, deeming it as incurred in relation to earning exempt dividend income, and whether the Proviso to that section precludes such disallowance.
Plea for alternative relief regarding excess processing charges:
The question arises as to whether the Tribunal should have directed alternative relief for the deferred liability of excess collection of processing charges, debited in the yearly account, to meet the contingency in case of success of the Revenue's appeal under Section 260A of the Act.
The judgment admits an appeal on the substantial questions of law and directs the appellant to file the requisite number of paper books within two months after Christmas Vacation. Notice-of-Appeal is to be served upon the respondents by the concerned Department. The application is disposed of, and all parties are instructed to act on a photostat signed copy of the order.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1299
The Supreme Court of India allowed exemption, condoned delay, and issued notice in the case. Mr. V. Balaji, representing the respondents, accepted notice and was granted four weeks to file a counter affidavit. The petitions were tagged with S.L.P. (C) No. CC 18408/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1298
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory or directory.
2. Whether Section 151A is subject to Article 324 of the Constitution.
3. The effect of pending election petitions on the obligation to hold bye-elections under Section 151A.
4. The interpretation and harmonization of Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory or directory:
The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates holding bye-elections within six months of a vacancy, are mandatory or directory. The High Court had held that Section 151A is mandatory, emphasizing that the literal rule of interpretation should be applied. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 151A is directory, not mandatory, because it does not override the provisions of Sections 84, 98(c), and 101(b), which deal with election petitions and the declaration of election results. The Court noted that Section 151A should not render these other sections otiose, indicating that the legislature did not intend for Section 151A to be absolute.
2. Whether Section 151A is subject to Article 324 of the Constitution:
The Court addressed whether the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it the authority to supervise and conduct elections, are limited by Section 151A. The High Court had ruled that Section 151A's non-obstante clause meant it was not subject to Article 324. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Article 324's broad powers must be harmonized with Section 151A. The Court emphasized that the Election Commission retains its discretion to decide when to hold elections, particularly in cases where election petitions are pending.
3. The effect of pending election petitions on the obligation to hold bye-elections under Section 151A:
The Supreme Court examined the impact of pending election petitions on the requirement to hold bye-elections. The High Court had directed the Election Commission to hold bye-elections despite pending petitions, asserting that Section 151A's time limit was mandatory. The Supreme Court, however, found that pending election petitions must be resolved before holding bye-elections. It referenced the decision in D. Sanjeevayya's case, which held that vacancies are not available for bye-elections until election petitions are resolved. The Court reiterated that a vacancy must be "available for being filled up," which is not the case when an election petition is pending.
4. The interpretation and harmonization of Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed the apparent conflict between Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the resignation of a member and the resultant vacancy, and Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act. The High Court had ruled that once a resignation is accepted and a vacancy is declared, Section 151A mandates a bye-election within six months. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the vacancy does not become "available for being filled up" until the resolution of any pending election petitions. The Court emphasized the need for harmonious construction, ensuring that Section 151A does not nullify the provisions allowing for election petitions and declarations of election results under Sections 84, 98, and 101.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that Section 151A is directory and not mandatory, and that the Election Commission is not compelled to hold bye-elections while election petitions are pending. The Court emphasized the need to harmonize Section 151A with other provisions of the 1951 Act and the Constitution, ensuring that vacancies are only filled when they are genuinely available for bye-elections. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition for holding bye-elections in the contested constituencies was dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1297
Issues involved: Jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act
Summary:
1. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee arose from the order of Ld. CIT(A) XXIII, New Delhi.
2. The main issue in Revenue's appeal was the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee was regularly assessed in Delhi, but the assessment was reopened by the I.T.O. Ward 1(5) Faridabad. The records were later transferred to ACIT Circle 23(1), New Delhi. The order u/s 143(3)/147 was passed on 29.12.2008.
3. The assessee raised 11 grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A), one of which related to nonservice of notice u/s 148. Ld. CIT(A) held that the order passed by the A.O. was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction.
4. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee argued that the notice u/s 148 was not issued by the A.O. having jurisdiction over the case, rendering the assessment bad in law. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anjil Khosla case was cited in support.
5. The Tribunal found that the notice u/s 148 was issued by the A.O. Ward 1(5), Faridabad, while the assessee was assessed in Delhi. The assessment completed by ACIT, Circle 23(1), New Delhi based on the Faridabad notice was deemed bad in law. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions to support the cancellation of the assessment.
Decision:
- The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
- The cross objection filed by the assessee was allowed.
- The order passed by Ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment was upheld.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1296
Issues involved: Appeal against order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2009-10.
Summary:
The only issue raised in the appeal was whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to recomputed the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C by adjusting the seized cash against the advance tax liability of the assessee.
In this case, a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted, and cash amounting to Rs. 90 lakh was seized. The assessee requested to adjust the seized cash against the tax liability for the assessment year 2009-2010. The return filed showed total income of Rs. 3,09,60,420/- with tax payable of Rs. 81,87,091/-. The AO created a demand of Rs. 83,55,014/- without allowing the adjustment sought by the assessee from the seized cash.
The assessee filed an application u/s 154 challenging the AO's order. The AO, in the rectification order, allowed the credit of seized cash only from September 2009 and charged interest u/s 234B and 234C. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) against this order.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to adjust the seized cash against the advance tax liability from the date of request and recomputed the interest u/s 234B and 234C. The department appealed this decision.
The ITAT held that the seized cash was to be adjusted against the advance tax liability, following precedents and the decision of the Delhi High Court. The interest under sec. 234B and 234C was to be computed accordingly. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s order with the mentioned observations.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1295
Issues involved: Determination of whether income received from ICICI bank should be assessed as 'income from house property' or as 'income from other sources'.
Issue 1: Classification of income from ICICI bank
The Revenue raised the dispute regarding the classification of income received from ICICI bank. The Tribunal referred to a previous case for A.Y 2005-06 where a similar issue was decided. It was noted that the assessee had been in possession of the premises for 40 years, with the tenancy right received after the dissolution of a partnership. The property owners allowed the creation of a sub-tenancy with ICICI Bank Ltd. for 15 years. The Tribunal found that the assessee became a deemed owner as per the provisions of section 27[iiib] r.w.s. 269UA(f)(i) of the Act. The agreement with ICICI Bank Ltd. for 15 years supported the assessee's claim as the deemed owner, entitling them to deduction u/s.24(a) of the Act. Citing precedents from Mumbai Tribunal and Calcutta Tribunal, the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, confirming the order of the CIT(A) and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Decision:
The Tribunal decided the issue against the Revenue, confirming the classification of income received from ICICI bank as 'income from house property'. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced on December 29, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1294
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice u/s 148.
2. Passing of assessment order u/s 144.
3. Permanent establishment and core business activities.
4. Deduction of expenses against commission income and other income.
Summary:
1. Validity of the notice u/s 148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice u/s 148, arguing that the Assessing Officer (AO) had no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The CIT(A) upheld the notice, stating that the AO had sufficient reason to believe income had escaped tax based on the assessee's activities in the subsequent assessment year. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the AO only needed a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment, which was adequately supported by the AO's findings.
2. Passing of assessment order u/s 144:
The assessee objected to the assessment order passed u/s 144, arguing it was invalid as the reassessment was initiated u/s 148. The Tribunal rejected this objection, clarifying that the AO is empowered to resort to Section 144 for making a best judgment assessment if the assessee fails to file a return of income u/s 139(1), which is equivalent to not filing a return u/s 148.
3. Permanent establishment and core business activities:
The assessee contested the AO's determination that it had a permanent establishment (PE) in India as per Article 5 of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between India and Singapore. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's contention, stating that the assessee's core business activities were carried out by the Industrial Sales Division (ISD) of National Panasonic India Limited (NPIL). The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO's findings were based on adequate reasons.
4. Deduction of expenses against commission income and other income:
The assessee sought relief for expenses against commission income and other income, which were assessed on a gross basis. The Tribunal agreed to restore the matter to the AO for factual verification and fresh decision regarding the quantification of allowable expenses. The AO was directed to allow deductions for expenses incurred in connection with earning commission income from group companies and other incomes, subject to verification. For AY 2002-03, no deduction was allowed as no working for expenses was available.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order u/s 144, confirmed the existence of a PE in India, and directed the AO to verify and allow deductions for expenses in AY 2003-04 and 2004-05. The appeal for AY 2002-03 was dismissed, while the appeals for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05 were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1293
Issues involved: The judgment involves the applicability of Section 194C of the Income Tax Act on expenditure incurred on packing material, sales promotion, and gift articles, as well as the deletion of notional interest assessed on the debit balance of a partner's capital account.
Applicability of Section 194C on Expenditure: The appeals filed by the revenue concern the applicability of Section 194C of the Act on expenses related to packing material, sales promotion, and gift articles for the assessment year 2006-07. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims of the assessees under section 40(a)(ia) for not deducting tax at source. However, the learned CIT (A) ruled in favor of the assessees, stating that the payments fall under 'Contract for sales' and not 'Work contract,' thus outside the purview of Section 194C. The CIT (A) relied on decisions of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court to support this stance. The Tribunal also referenced previous cases to support the decision, ultimately upholding the CIT (A)'s ruling.
Deletion of Notional Interest on Debit Balance: In one of the appeals, the revenue challenged the deletion of notional interest assessed on the debit balance of a partner's capital account. The Assessing Officer proposed adding notional interest on the debit balance, but the CIT (A) disagreed and deleted the addition. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT (A), noting that the Partnership Firm did not pay interest on the credit balance of the partners, and there was an overall credit balance when considering all partners' capital balances. As such, the Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s decision on this issue.
Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the revenue, affirming the decisions made regarding the applicability of Section 194C on expenditure and the deletion of notional interest on the partner's capital account.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1292
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of police officer u/s 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure to require attendance of a person for investigation outside his jurisdiction.
In this case, the petitioner, an Engineer at Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., filed a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash an Annexure-3 notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Detachment, Thiruvananthapuram Rural, directing the petitioner to appear before his office for an enquiry related to a missing person case.
The court noted that u/s 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer conducting an investigation can require the attendance of a person within his own or adjoining station who is acquainted with the facts of the case. However, since the petitioner is a resident and works in Ernakulam, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the notice directing the petitioner to appear before him in Thiruvananthapuram was beyond the officer's powers.
Therefore, the court allowed the petition and quashed the Annexure-3 notice. It was clarified that while the notice was quashed, the Investigating Officer still has the authority to question the petitioner and record his statement, but he must approach the petitioner for this purpose.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1291
Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act based on under-valuation of closing stock during a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act.
Summary:
1. The cross appeals were directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-I, Rajkot for the assessment year 1992-93 confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
2. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was conducted, leading to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act. The assessing officer calculated an addition on account of under-valuation of closing stock, initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. The assessee contended that the ITAT had set aside the original assessment order, hence the penalty order should also be set aside. The assessing officer had reduced the addition while framing the assessment on the directions of the ITAT.
4. The ITAT reversed the findings of CIT(A) and directed the assessing officer to decide the market value of the stock at a lower rate. The penalty proceedings initiated were found to be not in accordance with law as the satisfaction of the assessing officer was not recorded and the original quantum order had been set aside.
5. The penalty imposed by the assessing officer was quashed, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the dismissal of the revenue's appeal.
Judgment: The penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act based on under-valuation of closing stock during a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was quashed by the ITAT due to lack of recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer and the setting aside of the original quantum order by the ITAT.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1290
Issues involved: Appeal against conviction and sentence u/s 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issue 1 - Sanction for Prosecution:
The appellant challenged the legality of the sanction order, contending that it did not demonstrate proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that the sanction order must reflect consideration of evidence before granting sanction. However, upon examination of the sanction order (Ex.P2), it was found that the authority had duly considered all relevant facts and certified its competence to sanction prosecution. The trial court and High Court both upheld the validity of the sanction order, with no illegality observed. The appellant's claim of improper sanction was dismissed, as the order was deemed to be in accordance with the law.
Issue 2 - Demand of Bribe:
The appellant claimed that no bribe demand was made, challenging the conviction based on evidence. Both trial court and High Court analyzed the evidence, affirming that the appellant did demand a bribe for the tax certificate delivery. Witnesses PWs. 2 and 3 testified to the demand made by the appellant. The courts found no inconsistencies in the evidence and upheld the conviction. The meticulous orchestration of the trap by the prosecution was noted, with no arbitrariness detected in the findings. The appeal was dismissed based on the concurrent findings of the courts below, concluding that the demand for bribe was established, leading to the conviction under the Act.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1289
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the contract and tender process.
2. Allegations of tortious interference and conspiracy.
3. Impleadment of new parties (Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and EXIM Bank).
4. Amendments to the plaint and prayers.
5. Maintainability of appeals.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Contract and Tender Process:
The core issue revolves around the establishment of a Sugar Mill Project in Ethiopia, funded by the Government of India through EXIM Bank. The project was divided into seven sub-projects, each with separate tenders. The appellants claimed that a completed contract had evolved in their favor, while OIA contended that formal contracts were yet to be executed. OIA demanded a 15% commission from the appellants, which led to disputes and the alleged introduction of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. as a substitute contractor due to the appellants' refusal to pay the commission.
2. Allegations of Tortious Interference and Conspiracy:
The appellants alleged that OIA engineered the removal of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. from the project to introduce Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. The plaintiffs (Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. and Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd.) filed suits for perpetual and mandatory injunctions, asserting that OIA failed to execute formal contracts and threatened to introduce a third party. They claimed that a concluded contract existed between them and TENDAHO, and that OIA's actions were aimed at replacing them with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. for vested interests.
3. Impleadment of New Parties:
The plaintiffs sought to amend their plaints to include Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. and EXIM Bank as defendants. The amendments were allowed for Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., but not for EXIM Bank. The court noted that the presence of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. was necessary for determining the real question in controversy, as they were alleged co-conspirators and beneficiaries of the tortious interference.
4. Amendments to the Plaint and Prayers:
The court allowed the amendments to the plaints and the inclusion of new prayers. The amendments were deemed necessary to address subsequent developments and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The court emphasized that the amendments did not change the nature of the suit but were essential for a holistic determination of the dispute. The new prayers included declarations that the sub-contract agreement with Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. was invalid and void, and injunctions against further actions based on the disputed agreements.
5. Maintainability of Appeals:
The court addressed the maintainability of the appeals, noting that appeals are not maintainable against consent decrees as per Section 96(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellants should have filed review petitions before the learned Single Judge if they believed the consent was incorrectly recorded. The court also referenced the Delhi High Court Act, which provides for appeals from judgments of single judges exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The court concluded that the appeals were not maintainable as they sought to reverse orders passed on concession.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the amendments to the plaints and the impleadment of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. The amendments were deemed necessary for the effective adjudication of the case, and the presence of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. was crucial for determining the real matter in dispute. The appeals were found to be devoid of merit, and costs were imposed on the appellants.
........
|
9911796707
