|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 928 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 880 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ment to ALP is also decided in favour of the assessee in several decisions referred to in the stay petition, we are of the view that the assessee has made out a prima facie case. Considering the balance of convenience, relative hardship and the financial position of the assessee, we are of the opinion that it would be just and appropriate to grant an order of stay on recovery of outstanding demand for a period of six months from the date of this order, or till the appeal is disposed of, whichever is earlier. The assessee is, however, directed to pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards the outstanding demand on or before 31.03.2013. The appeal is fixed for hearing out of turn on 17th April, 2013 and the date of hearing of the appeal was announced in the open court. Hence no separate notice of hearing be sent to the parties. 6. In the result, the stay petition is allowed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on this 1st day of February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 879 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... As in that case, in the present case also, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has been remanding matters to the Transfer Pricing Officer for re-computation on the basis of guidelines given by a Special Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of LG Electronics India Ltd. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that a remand might not be warranted However, as in that case, in the present case also, we are of the view that the said issue is for the Tribunal to decide and we would refrain from making any comments thereon. Therefore, we renotify this matter on 19.03.2013 and direct that, in the meanwhile, the respondent shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner in respect of the demand in the present case. Hopefully, the Tribunal would have disposed of the appeal by that date. Neither party shall seek any adjournment before the Tribunal. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (2) TMI 878 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10B of the Income Tax Act,1961 even though there is no such provision in Section 10A and Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3) Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising in the present case is covered in favour of the respondent assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Gem Plus Jewelery India Ltd. reported in (2011) 330 ITR 175 (Bom.) In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 877 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... s. So far as the ground no.1 is concerned, it is in respect of the disallowances of the royalty payment of ₹ 3,08,01,101/- which was paid to Carraro Spa, Italy by the assessee. We have already adjudicated and decided the identical issue in the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05. Following our detailed reasoning in the A.Y. 2003-04 on this issue, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in this year also and ground no.1 is dismissed. 17. So far as ground no.2 is concerned, it is in respect of rate of depreciation on the computer peripherals and accessories. We have already decided the identical issue in the A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05. As the facts are identical as reasoning given in the preceding years, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) directing the A.O. to allow the depreciation @ 60% on the computer peripherals and accessories. Accordingly, ground no.2 is dismissed. 18. In the result, all three appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 18.02.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 876 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t. This has not been done. Rather, contrary to the provisions of Rule-46A without confronting the evidences filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) to the AO, those evidences have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 9. In this view of the situation, we are of the opinion that the matter should be restored back to the file of AO with a direction to frame denovo assessment as per provisions of law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. We direct accordingly. 10. Since we are directing the AO to frame denovo assessment as per law, we do not express any opinion on the additions which have been upheld by Ld. CIT(A) as those will be reconsidered by AO as per aforementioned direction. With these observations the appeal filed by the assessee is considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on the 14th day of Feb.2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 875 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... each a conclusion different than the one reached by the Court below....” 38. Thus, what is required to be considered is whether the trial court while considering such an application has considered the relevant criteria for grant of injunction based on the material and evidence or not. If the broad principles with regard to grant of injunction provided under O.39 R.1-2 are considered, the discretionary order does not call for any interference. In the facts of the present case, the impugned order refers to these relevant aspects including the criteria for grant of injunction, the conduct of the parties and also the aspect of prima facie case, balance of convenience etc. Therefore, it does not call for any interference in the present Appeals from Orders and both the Appeals from Orders deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed. 39. In view of dismissal of the Appeals from Orders, the Civil Applications do not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (2) TMI 874 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d Capsules Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2012 343 ITR 89 (SC) such issue in the context of deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act has been settled. It is held that it would only be the net of the interest excluding the expenditure incurred in earning such interest income which should be excluded for the purpose of under Section 80 HHC of the Act. To our mind, same would apply even when the revenue desirous to exclude certain interest income from the deduction available under Section 80IA of the Act. In our view, the Tribunal committed no error. 3. In the result, tax appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law Whether Income Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the delay payment charges of ₹ 8.78 crores receivable from the GEB were not required to be added to the total income of the assessee on account of the developments which took place after the end of the year under consideration.
-
2013 (2) TMI 873 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... esent case, finally held that since the substantive additions made in the cases of Shri Mukesh Garg could not sustain, the protective additions made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of assessee partnership firm cannot survive. With these observations, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee. There is nothing before us to take a different view in this regard. We are unable to see any perversity, infirmity and ambiguity in the impugned order as alleged by the ld. DR. It is a well-settled position of law that when substantive addition has been deleted by the competent statutory authority, then the protective addition made thereunder and related to the substantive addition cannot survive. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the impugned order and all grounds raised in these appeals are devoid of merits and we dismiss them all. 10. In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 872 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other sources which have no nexus with the business and profession of the assessee in book profit u/s. 40(b)(v) for working out remuneration allowable to partners? 3) Counsel for the parties state that so far as question (a) is concerned, for the assessment year 2000-01, identical question raised by the revenue in respect of the same respondent assessee was not entertained by an order dated 21/1/2013 of this Court. This was in view of the fact that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in assessee's own case in Income Tax Appeal No.86/2011 rendered on 26/7/2011. Question (a) is therefore, not entertained. 3) The appeal is admitted on question (b).
-
2013 (2) TMI 870 - SUPREME COURT
Power of RIICO authority to cancel the alloted land - Obligation on the part of RIICO to provide access to road - Lease deed executed with a clear stipulated time to develop land in 5yrs - failure to fulfill the conditions may amount to recover its possession - Writ of Mandamus
Whether a person can directly seek writ petition before applying any other remedies available to him in leese deed - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that writ does not lie merely because it is lawful to do so. A person may be asked to exhaust the statutory/alternative remedy available to him in law.
Whether the matters/disputes relating to contract can be enforced through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. - HELD THAT:- the court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The primary purpose of a writ of mandamus, is to protect and establish rights and to impose a corresponding imperative duty existing in law.Thus, the writ does not lie to create or to establish a legal right, but to enforce one that is already established.
Whether RIICO had authority to cancel the alloted land by not providing access to road. - HELD THAT:- The State of Rajasthan had acquired the land in exercise of its eminent domain and transferred the same to the appellant-RIICO after receiving the consideration amount and executed the lease deed in its favour. The State exercised its power in transferring the land to RIICO under the Rules 1959. However, further allotment by RIICO to the respondent-company was under the Rules 1979.
Rule 11-A of the Rules 1959, as amended created a legal fiction by which the respondent-company had become a lessee and the State of Rajasthan, the lessor and RIICO had no authority whatsoever, to cancel the allotment of land made in favour of the respondent-company, since it was only the State of Rajasthan that had the authority to cancel the said allotment; by not providing for an access road, the purpose for which allotment was made by RIICO stood defeated, and this was what had resulted in the delay of the development of the said land, and in such a fact-situation, cancellation of land was not permissible; there was a constructive obligation on the part of the appellant-RIICO to provide an approach road with respect to the land which was allotted; and that RIICO had failed to co-operate with the respondent-company to accomplish the task it had undertaken.therefore, the entire project was to be completed within a period of five years. that construction was just made on the fraction of the entire land.the lessee will not transfer nor sub-let nor relinquish rights without prior permission from the appellant. However, it is evident that the respondent-company had negotiated with a third party for development of the land.
-
2013 (2) TMI 868 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the earlier letters dated 11.01.2013, 14.01.2013 and 16.01.2013 shall stand withdrawn. He assures this court that the petitioner can meet him and if remedial measures are available to the petitioner, the petitioner will be informed so that there is necessary action even from the side of the petitioner. It is further stated by him that as certain tenders have been opened it may not be possible for the petitioner to participate in them but there is no such impediment for other tenders which are not opened and the petitioner may participate in them. Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Stay application also stands disposed of. We appreciate the stand taken on behalf of the respondents as also Col. Ballaney Rajesh.
-
2013 (2) TMI 867 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Manipulation of bidding process in contravention of provision of Section 3(3)(d) - Engagement in cartelization and bid rigging - nascent stage of competition jurisdiction would be one of the factors to be taken into consideration while inflicting penalties - process of bid rigging in the matter of supply and installation, testing and commissioning of Modular Operation Theatre (MOT for short) and Medical Gases Manifold System (MGMS) at Sports Injury Centre (SIC hereinafter), Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
Held that:- This was a contract for building a Operation Theatre for the Sports Injury Centre (SIC) which subject itself is relatively new. This Sports Injury Centre was to be created before the Commonwealth Games. The said games were to be held in India in the year 2010. The MDD seems to have completed this exercise within time and at least there is no evidence to suggest that the said Operation Theatre has not worked well. The Commonwealth Games were undoubtedly a matter of national importance and prestige. Some credit has to be given to MDD for this purpose. We would, therefore, bring down the penalty of MDD to 3%. In that view, showing due consideration to all the other factors, and to maintain the parity between the parties, we would bring down the penalty from 5% of the average turnover of last three years to 3% of the average turnover of last three years even in case of PES and MPS also. Calculated in that light, the penalty would be as per the following table:-
We, therefore, inflict the penalty as shown in the table. The penalties imposed by the CCI in the impugned order dated 16.04.2012 shall stand modified to that extent. The three enterprises on whom the penalties have been imposed are directed to deposit the amount of penalties within 90 days of the receipt of this order.
-
2013 (2) TMI 866 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... the liability of interest payable by the assessee. Ordered accordingly. No costs.’ Even otherwise the law is well settled that the payment of interest under the Act is compensatory in nature. The authorities shall re-do the exercise of calculating the interest and thereafter issue a fresh demand if they choose to recover the same. That would meet the ends of justice………………….” 8.4.1. In conformity with the directions of the Hon’ble Court (supra) we direct the AO to work out the liability of actual interest payable by the assessee. While doing so, the AO shall keep in view the ruling of the Hon’ble Court in the case of Solar Automobiles India (P) Ltd. DCIT which contained in the order of the Hon’ble Court (supra). It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, the assessee’s appeals for the AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10 are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of February, 2013
-
2013 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ect the Assessing Officer to allow the depreciation on goodwill. ITA No.1033/Del/2011 - 10. In this appeal raised by the Revenue, the only ground raised is against cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 26,05,072/-. The penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. 11. While deciding the assessee’s cross-objection above, we have held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill. Since the disallowance on the basis of which the penalty was levied has been deleted and a direction has been issued to allow the depreciation on goodwill, the basis for levy of penalty does not survive. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) wherein he has cancelled the penalty. 12. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 28th February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hand in these nefarious transactions. 20. In view of the foregoing and also considering the fact that the customs duty sought to be evaded is quite huge of the order of ₹ 3.23 crore and the fraud on the exchequer has been perpetrated in a systematic and well planned manner and all the appellants have played a part in the same, we are of the considered view that there is a strong prima facie case against all the appellants attracting penal consequences under the provisions of section 112(a)/(b) of the Customs Act. We have also taken into account the plea of financial hardship made by a few of the appellants. Accordingly, we direct the appellants to make the following pre-deposits towards penalty within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on April 10, 2013. On such compliance, the balance of penalties adjudged against the appellants shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeals. (Pronounced in the court on February 8, 2013).
-
2013 (2) TMI 863 - ITAT COCHIN
Suppression of sales turnover in respect of sale of IMFL and cooked food, soft drinks / soda, etc. - Held that:- In this case it is not in dispute that the purchase made by the taxpayer was recorded in the books of account. It is not the case of the revenue that the taxpayer has purchased any IMFL outside the books of account. Therefore, there is no investment outside the books of account. As found by the PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES. [1999 (4) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] what is to be taken is only the profit element embedded in such suppressed turnover. CIT(A) has rightly found that what is to be added is only the profit element embedded in such transaction and not the entire turnover. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 862 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv.¸Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. for Mrs Anil Katiyar, Adv. ORDER Heard learned Solicitor General for India. Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 861 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re convinced that the pleas of the defendants in the application for leave to defend do not disclose any substantial defence and are frivolous, vexatious and moonshine. o p /o p 26. The application of the defendants for leave to defend is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p 27. Axiomatically, the plaintiff becomes entitled to a decree for the principal sum of Rs.21,21,550/-. However, as far as the claim of the plaintiff for interest is concerned, no rate of interest having been agreed upon between the parties, the plaintiff cannot be awarded interest at any rate in excess of the rate which the fixed deposit receipts of nationalized banks on an average fetch. The plaintiff is thus awarded interest from the date of dishonour of the cheque and till the date of institution of the suit, pendente lite and future till the date of payment, at the rate of 10% per annum. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of this suit as per schedule. o p /o p Decree sheet be drawn up. o p /o p
-
2013 (2) TMI 860 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... falls within these rates. Not only that they also satisfy the other tests as set out in the CPWD Manual discussed aforesaid. 22. Thus the process adopted by the respondent in scrutinizing the tenders of the petitioners and coming to the conclusion of high rates is itself faulty and is liable to be quashed. 23. We thus set aside and quash the decision of the respondent dated 30.11.2012 cancelling the earlier tender where the petitioners are successful as L-1 and the bids submitted by the petitioners to be processed in accordance with law in pursuance to the NIT No.21 dated 15.11.2012. The subsequent tender e-process carried out in pursuance to tender notice No.24 dated 13.12.2012 also stand quashed. 24. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs of ₹ 10,000/-. 25. Learned counsel for the petitioner however waives the costs. 26. In view of the aforesaid order passed in the writ petition, the stay application has become infructuous, it is accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (2) TMI 859 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... e opportunity of cross examination of M/s. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. inspite of specific request made by the assessee vide his letter dated 30th November 2007. Non-providing opportunity of cross examination amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. In the light of the fact, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and think it proper to send back this matter to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to provide opportunity to the assessee to cross examination of M/s. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, considering the various decisions cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative. The CIT(A) will decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The assessee is at liberty to file necessary evidence in support of it’s claim and the same shall be considered by the CIT(A) afresh. 10 In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
........
|
