Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2013 2013 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 935 Records

• 2013 (6) TMI 883
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the petition.
  2. Alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the respondents.
  3. Locus standi of the petitioners.
  4. Non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.
  5. Alleged suppression of material facts by the petitioners.
  6. Grounds for investigation u/s 237(b) of the Companies Act, 1956.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Petition:
  The respondents raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the petition, arguing that it does not disclose any cause of action, the petitioners have no locus standi, approached the forum with unclean hands, and there is mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioners countered by asserting that the investment made by them is undisputed, and the lack of issuance of share certificates justifies their claim. The court found that a cause of action exists and the petition is maintainable.
  
  2. Alleged Fraud and Misrepresentation:
  The petitioners alleged that the respondents made false representations to induce them to invest, and the shares were fraudulently transferred without their knowledge. The respondents denied these allegations, stating that the transactions were legitimate and supported by MoUs. The court found that the respondents issued shares at a premium without following due procedure and transferred shares fraudulently, justifying an investigation.
  
  3. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:
  The respondents argued that the petitioners have no locus standi as they had denied their title to the shares in a previous suit. The court held that the petitioners, being investors, have the locus to file the petition u/s 237(b) of the Act, supported by cases like *Sofia Busman v. Union of India* and *HSBC (P.) Equity India Ltd. v. Shree Rome Multi Tech Ltd.*
  
  4. Non-joinder and Mis-joinder of Parties:
  The respondents claimed that necessary parties like Parshwa Agrico (P.) Ltd. and Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan were not impleaded, and unnecessary parties were included. The court held that in a petition u/s 237(b), only the company and its Board of directors are necessary parties, and since there were allegations against R2 to R9, they were proper parties.
  
  5. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts:
  The respondents alleged that the petitioners suppressed material facts, including the insolvency and criminal antecedents of petitioner No. 2. The court found that these facts do not affect the jurisdiction to order an investigation under section 237(b) and rejected this contention.
  
  6. Grounds for Investigation u/s 237(b):
  The court found that the business of the R1-company was conducted with the intent to defraud its members and creditors, supported by evidence of fraudulent share transfers and non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court cited cases like *Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board* and *Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal* to justify the need for an investigation.
  
  Order:
  (i) The Central Government is directed to investigate the affairs of the company u/s 237(b) of the Act.
  (ii) Respondent No. 9 is discharged.
  (iii) Parties to bear their own costs.
  (iv) All pending CAs disposed of, interim orders vacated.
  (v) Copy of the order to be circulated to all concerned.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 882
  
  Issues involved:
  The issue involved in this case is the challenge by the Revenue against the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of a certain amount claimed by the assessee company u/s 80IA of the Act.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance under section 80IA of the Act
  The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides. The learned CIT(A) allowed the deduction u/s 80IA for the assessee company based on the submission that the unit in question was set up independently for manufacturing micronutrient fertilizers, not as an expansion of an existing unit. The Tribunal noted that the audit report was filed before the assessment, fulfilling the conditions of section 80IA(7) of the Act. The Tribunal cited various judicial decisions supporting the view that filing the audit report along with the return is not mandatory but directory, and if filed before assessment, the conditions are deemed to be met. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order based on these facts and legal precedents.
  
  Separate Judgement by Judges:
  The order was pronounced by Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, in the presence of representatives from both sides on 19.6.2013.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 881
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of assessment u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Addition of unexplained cash credits and disallowance of interest.
  3. Addition of gifts as income from undisclosed sources.
  4. Disallowance of interest on belated remittance of TDS.
  5. Addition on closing stock of land.
  6. Treatment of agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of assessment u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The assessee challenged the validity of the assessment done u/s 153A read with Section 143(3) of the Act, arguing that the additions were based on income already reflected in the original returns and not on any seized material. The Tribunal, referencing the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Anil Kumar Bhatia, held that once a search u/s 132 is conducted, the Assessing Officer has the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 153A and reassess the total income, including undisclosed income. The Tribunal found that certain books, documents, and cash were seized during the search, triggering Section 153A. Therefore, the assessments were valid.
  
  2. Addition of unexplained cash credits and disallowance of interest:
  For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee failed to provide PAN or addresses of creditors for loans amounting to Rs. 2,30,000/-. The Tribunal upheld the addition of these loans as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 and disallowed the consequential interest claim of Rs. 22,439/-, as the assessee did not furnish necessary evidence to substantiate the loans.
  
  3. Addition of gifts as income from undisclosed sources:
  For the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, the assessee claimed gifts of Rs. 1 lakh each from his father. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided confirmation letters and evidence of his father's agricultural background. Without examining the father, the Assessing Officer disbelieved the gifts. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation reasonable and deleted the additions.
  
  4. Disallowance of interest on belated remittance of TDS:
  For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee did not press the ground challenging the disallowance of interest of Rs. 5,573/- on belated remittance of TDS. The Tribunal dismissed this ground as not pressed.
  
  5. Addition on closing stock of land:
  The Tribunal addressed the assessee's grievance regarding the addition of Rs. 2,52,952/- on closing stock of land for the assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to consider the same value for the opening stock of land in the succeeding year, thus partly allowing the related grounds.
  
  6. Treatment of agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources:
  For the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08, the assessee claimed substantial agricultural income. The Assessing Officer rejected these claims due to insufficient evidence of receipts and expenditures. The Tribunal noted the assessee's ownership of agricultural land and the filing of an income and expenditure statement. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence, including adangal extracts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the assessment year 2001-02, partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2002-03 and 2003-04, and partly allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 880
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Rejection of the plaint.
  2. Refund of the amount deposited by the defendant.
  3. Validity of the arrest of the vessel.
  
  Summary:
  
  Rejection of the plaint:
  The defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the suit is barred by law and there was no cause of action, invoking Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claim did not constitute a maritime lien but only a maritime claim, which would not attach to the vessel after its ownership changed. The court noted that the plaintiff's claim included both maritime claims and maritime liens, and the determination of the nature of the claims required a trial. Consequently, the application for rejection of the plaint (A.No.7370 of 2010) was dismissed.
  
  Refund of the amount deposited by the defendant:
  The defendant sought a refund of the amount deposited for the release of the vessel, arguing that the arrest was secured on misrepresentation. The court held that the deposit did not amount to an admission of liability or abandonment of the right to contest the arrest. The plaintiff's claim included items that could constitute a maritime lien, justifying the arrest and the deposit as security. Therefore, the application for refund (A.No.7371 of 2010) was dismissed.
  
  Validity of the arrest of the vessel:
  The court examined whether the plaintiff had made out a case for the arrest of the vessel. It was found that the plaintiff's claim included port dues and pilotage fees, which constitute a maritime lien under Article 4 of the International Convention of Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 1993. The court concluded that the arrest was justified and the amount deposited by the defendant constituted security for the suit claim. The application for the arrest of the vessel (A.No.4772 of 2010) was disposed of with directions to keep the deposited amount in a fixed deposit.
  
  Additional Directions:
  The defendant was directed to file a written statement and was given the option to involve the previous owner of the vessel under Order VIII-A CPC. The trial of the suit was to be expedited.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 879
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act.
  2. Validity of the CIT(A)'s order.
  3. Examination of manufacturing activities at SEZ, Surat Unit.
  4. Consideration of evidence and additional grounds raised by the department.
  5. Cross objections filed by the assessee.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act:
  The department objected to the CIT(A)'s direction to allow the deduction u/s 10A, arguing that no manufacturing activities were carried out at the SEZ, Surat Unit. The AO denied the deduction based on findings from a survey conducted u/s 133A, which indicated that the factory was closed, machinery was rusted, and there were no permanent employees. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had imported raw materials and exported finished goods, substantiated by documents from government agencies, and allowed the deduction.
  
  2. Validity of the CIT(A)'s Order:
  The department contended that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse and should be set aside. The CIT(A) considered the AO's findings and the assessee's submissions, concluding that the AO's denial of the deduction was incorrect. The CIT(A) noted that the survey findings were circumstantial and did not disprove the core evidence of manufacturing activities.
  
  3. Examination of Manufacturing Activities at SEZ, Surat Unit:
  The CIT(A) examined documents related to imports, exports, and approvals from the Customs and Central Excise Department, finding no discrepancies. The CIT(A) concluded that the assessee's unit was eligible for deduction u/s 10A, as the manufacturing activities were conducted with due approvals and proper documentation.
  
  4. Consideration of Evidence and Additional Grounds Raised by the Department:
  The department argued that the CIT(A) accepted additional evidence, but the CIT(A) clarified that all details were submitted to the AO during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found no reason to deny the deduction, as the CIT(A) had considered all relevant documents and submissions.
  
  5. Cross Objections Filed by the Assessee:
  The assessee's cross objections were dismissed as not pressed, following the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s order for all three assessment years.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, allowing the deduction u/s 10A for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09, and dismissed the department's appeals and the assessee's cross objections. The order was pronounced in the open court on June 19, 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 878
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Disallowance of deduction u/s 10B on sales to SEZ units received in Indian Rupees.
  2. Eligibility of deduction u/s 10B for the manufacture of Copper Cladded Glass Epoxy Laminates (CCGL).
  3. Reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond four years.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Disallowance of deduction u/s 10B on sales to SEZ units received in Indian Rupees

  The assessee, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing and trading of Printed Circuit Boards (PCB), claimed deduction u/s 10B for sales worth Rs. 15,37,683/- to another SEZ unit. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the deduction since the sales were made to an SEZ unit in India and the proceeds were received in Indian Rupees. This disallowance was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The ITAT, following a precedent in the assessee's own case, dismissed the assessee's ground, holding that the assessee had not brought convertible foreign exchange into India, hence not entitled to exemption u/s 10B.

  Issue 2: Eligibility of deduction u/s 10B for the manufacture of CCGL

  The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 10B for the export of CCGL, asserting that the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing but merely processing the raw material. The CIT(A) upheld this view. The ITAT noted that the AO and CIT(A) concluded the activities performed by the assessee (cutting, shearing, de-oxidation) did not result in manufacturing a new product. The ITAT restored the issue to the AO to examine the exact position of the Excise Department regarding CCGL export, requiring a detailed factual analysis to determine if the process constituted manufacturing.

  Issue 3: Reopening of assessment u/s 147 beyond four years

  For A.Y. 2004-05, the AO reopened the assessment based on new information from a survey conducted u/s 133A, revealing the assessee was selling raw materials without manufacturing. The ITAT upheld the reopening, stating it was based on tangible material indicating income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts. Similarly, for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07, the ITAT affirmed the reopening of assessments, noting it was justified by incriminating material found during the survey, and not merely a change of opinion.

  Conclusion:

  The ITAT dismissed the assessee's grounds regarding the disallowance of deduction u/s 10B on sales to SEZ units received in Indian Rupees. The issue of deduction u/s 10B for the manufacture of CCGL was restored to the AO for further examination. The reopening of assessments u/s 147 was upheld for A.Y. 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07 based on new material from the survey. All appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 877
  
  Issues Involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, Kolkata regarding disallowance of expenditure to sub-contractor u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and disallowance of Puja subscription.
  
  Disallowance of Expenditure to Sub-contractor u/s 40(a)(ia): The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance of expenditure to sub-contractor u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure due to late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Virgin Creations, holding that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect. The CIT(A) found that the TDS was deducted and deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, thus disallowance was not warranted. The ITAT Kolkata upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
  
  Disallowance of Puja Subscription: The Revenue also appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of Puja subscription. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Bata India Ltd. and held that the expenses were customary and incurred for business exigency. The ITAT Kolkata found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order as it was in line with the decision of the High Court, and thus dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
  
  Separate Judgement: The ITAT Kolkata, comprising Shri N.S. Saini, Accountant Member, and Shri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, pronounced the order on 21st June, 2013.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 875
  
  Issues involved: Writ petition u/s Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing FIR u/s 384, 441, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
  
  The Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered by A.K. Patnaik and Ranjan Gogoi, JJ., addressed the issues raised by the petitioners, nationals of Uganda, who sought the quashing of FIR KIR No. 88 of 2013 registered at MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. The FIR accused them of offenses u/s 384, 441, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
  
  Extortion Offense (u/s 384 IPC): The Court analyzed the FIR and highlighted that for the offense of extortion u/s 383 IPC to be established, the delivery of property following a threat is essential. Since no property was delivered to the accused as per the complaint, the Court concluded that the offense of extortion was not made out, and the registration of the FIR u/s 384 IPC was unjustified.
  
  Criminal Trespass (u/s 441 IPC): The judgment further examined the allegation of criminal trespass u/s 441 IPC, emphasizing that the intent to commit an offense or to intimidate, insult, or annoy is a crucial element. Given the existence of a business transaction between the accused and the complainants, the Court determined that the accusation of criminal trespass was unfounded.
  
  Criminal Conspiracy (u/s 120B IPC): The Court clarified that for the offense of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B IPC to apply, there must be an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act. Since the offenses u/s 384 and 441 IPC were not established, and no other illegal act was alleged, the Court concluded that no case of criminal conspiracy against the accused was substantiated.
  
  Protection of Liberty (Article 21 of the Constitution): The judgment highlighted Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing that it safeguards the life and personal liberty of all individuals, including foreigners. The Court underscored the state's obligation to protect the liberty of foreigners within the country and ensure that their rights are upheld in accordance with the law.
  
  Decision: Based on the analysis of the allegations and legal provisions, the Supreme Court quashed the impugned FIR and directed the immediate release of any petitioner's passport that may have been impounded due to the now-quashed FIR. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioners from Uganda.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 874
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment involves issues related to the treatment of provisions for leave encashment, staff incentive, and gratuity in the computation of book profits u/s 115 JB of the Income Tax Act.
  
  Issue 1: Provision for Leave Encashment
  The first common issue was whether the provision for leave encashment should be added back to the book profits u/s 115 JB of the Act. The Assessing Officer treated it as an unascertained liability, while the CIT(A) held it to be an ascertained liability based on actuarial valuation. The Tribunal referred to relevant principles from previous court decisions and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that such provisions constitute a liability and if determined on actuarial valuation, cannot be considered unascertained.
  
  Issue 2: Provision for Staff Incentive
  The second common issue was whether the provision for staff incentive was an unascertained liability. The Assessing Officer added this provision to book profits, considering it unascertained, while the CIT(A) treated it as an ascertained liability. The Tribunal found that no evidence was presented regarding the policy followed by the company for staff incentives. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination after obtaining the scheme of staff incentives from the assessee.
  
  Additional Issue: Provision for Gratuity
  In the assessment year 2006-07, the issue was whether the provision for gratuity should be considered an ascertain liability. The Assessing Officer added this provision to book profits, but the CIT(A) held that since it was based on actuarial valuation, it should not be treated as an ascertain liability. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) citing previous decisions and held that once a liability is determined on actuarial valuation, it cannot be considered unascertained.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of the revenue for statistical purposes based on the decisions regarding the treatment of provisions for leave encashment, staff incentive, and gratuity in the computation of book profits u/s 115 JB of the Income Tax Act.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 873
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for assessment year 2009-10. Grounds raised include disallowance of deductions u/s 80P(2)(e) and u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
  
  Deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) - Storage Charges:
  The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) for storage income, but AO disallowed it based on High Court judgment that storage was part of business activity, not letting out. CIT(A) confirmed disallowance citing similar past decisions. Tribunal remitted issue of letting out godowns to AO for verification, allowing deduction for external letting but not for internal use. Second limb of the issue was allowed for verification.
  
  Deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) - Dividend and Interest Income:
  Assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) on dividend and interest income. AO rejected claim as investments were part of business activity. CIT(A) dismissed appeal despite past Tribunal orders in favor of assessee. Tribunal remitted issue back to AO for re-computation in line with past Tribunal directions, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes.
  
  In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed on both grounds of deduction u/s 80P(2)(e) and u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 872
  
  Issues involved: Disallowance of deduction u/s 35D and addition of unutilized MODVAT credit.
  
  Disallowance of deduction u/s 35D:
  The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2001-02. The ITAT restored the appeal for deciding Grounds No II & VI, which were not decided earlier. Ground No II related to the disallowance of deduction u/s 35D amounting to Rs. 14,70,263 made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) against the assessee's claim. The ITAT referred to previous decisions in the assessee's own case for AY 1999-00 and AY 2002-03 where deduction u/s 35D was allowed. Following the precedent, the ITAT directed the AO to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 35D for the year under consideration. Ground No II of the appeal was accordingly treated as allowed.
  
  Addition of unutilized MODVAT credit:
  Ground No VI of the appeal related to the addition of unutilized MODVAT credit of Rs. 3,86,76,373 made by the AO. The assessment year under consideration was 2001-02, and section 145A was applicable. The ITAT observed that section 145A requires the inclusion of tax, duty, cess, etc., in the valuation of purchases, sales, and inventory. As the authorities had not adjusted other figures with the amount of tax, duty, cess, etc., the ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of AO for fresh consideration in accordance with relevant judgments and the provisions of section 145A. Ground No VI was allowed for statistical purposes.
  
  The judgment was pronounced on June 7, 2013, by Dr. S.T.M. Pavalan, Judicial Member.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 871
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the division or distribution of the individual properties of the family members was outside the scope of the arbitral mandate.
  2. Whether the refusal to allow representation by an advocate violated Section 34(2)(a)(iii) of the Arbitration Act.
  3. Whether the arbitrator could order the dissolution of the family partnership firm.
  4. Whether the cross-objections filed by the respondents were maintainable.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Scope of Arbitral Mandate:
  The appellants argued that the arbitration agreement and subsequent documents constituted a reference to arbitration that included the division of family properties, including agricultural lands. The respondents contended that the agricultural lands were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The court found that the arbitration agreement covered disputes related to family properties, including those held by individual members, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide on these matters. The learned District Judge's contradictory findings were deemed incorrect, and the arbitrator's jurisdiction was upheld.
  
  2. Representation by Advocate:
  The appellants maintained that the arbitrator's direction to conduct proceedings without lawyers was based on an informal understanding to avoid delays. The respondents argued that they were denied fair representation. The court held that the arbitrator's discretion to refuse legal representation, applied equally to both parties, did not violate Section 18 of the Arbitration Act. The decision to not allow lawyers was justified to prevent delays, and the parties were given full opportunity to present their case through written submissions.
  
  3. Dissolution of Partnership Firm:
  The arbitrator's order to dissolve the family partnership firm, Weikfield Ventures International, was challenged by the respondents. The court found that the dissolution of the firm was within the arbitrator's jurisdiction as it was part of the family business disputes referred to arbitration. The arbitrator's decision was supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in V.H. Patel & Co. & Others vs. Hirubhai Himabhai Patel & Others, which allowed arbitrators to dissolve partnerships under certain conditions.
  
  4. Maintainability of Cross-Objections:
  The appellants argued that cross-objections were not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The respondents contended that they were entitled to challenge adverse findings through cross-objections. The court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order 41 Rule 22, applied to arbitration proceedings in court. The cross-objections were deemed maintainable as they challenged adverse findings while supporting the overall decision to set aside the award.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the learned District Judge and dismissing the respondents' application under Section 34. The cross-objections filed by the respondents were also dismissed. The arbitrator's decisions regarding the scope of the mandate, representation by advocates, and the dissolution of the partnership firm were upheld.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 870
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification of income from share transactions as capital gain vs. business income.
  2. Disallowance of custodial charges u/s 14A.
  3. Disallowance of operating and other expenses u/s 14A.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Classification of Income from Share Transactions
  The primary issue was whether the income earned from share transactions should be classified as capital gain or business income. The CIT(A) allowed the income to be treated as capital gain, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the assessee consistently showed investments in shares and mutual funds in the balance sheet and treated them as investments, not stock-in-trade. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as the assessee's past assessments also treated similar transactions as capital gains.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance of Custodial Charges u/s 14A
  The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 12,55,377/- on account of custodial charges, invoking provisions of section 14A, arguing that these charges were paid for earning exempt dividend income. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the total charges, amounting to Rs. 1,25,538/-, reasoning that custodial charges were essential for ensuring safe custody of investments, which included both taxable and exempt income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that only the expenditure attributable to earning exempt income should be disallowed.
  
  Issue 3: Disallowance of Operating and Other Expenses u/s 14A
  For the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire operating and other expenses of Rs. 8,87,242/-, claiming they were incurred for earning exempt income. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 10% of the expenses, amounting to Rs. 83,840/-, noting that these expenses were for routine office maintenance and earning other taxable income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding the reasoning sound and consistent with the facts.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by both the assessee and the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on all issues. The income from share transactions was to be treated as capital gains, custodial charges disallowance was restricted to 10%, and operating expenses disallowance was also limited to 10%.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 869
  
  Issues involved: Stay petitions against penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for multiple assessment years.
  
  Summary:
  The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata considered stay petitions filed by the assessee against penalties imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for various assessment years. The assessee had voluntarily disclosed income from five bank accounts before a search was conducted, and assessments were completed accepting the returned income. The assessee argued that no penalty should be levied as the disclosed income was accepted and taxes were paid before the search. The assessee proposed to pay &8377; 25 lakhs against the total demand for penalties by a specified date. The Revenue opposed granting the stay, claiming the disclosure was prompted by the search.
  
  The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the penalty, acknowledged the assessee's disclosure and acceptance of the income from bank accounts. It granted a payment scheme, directing the assessee to pay &8377; 25 lakhs by a certain date and subsequent monthly instalments. The appeals were scheduled for an early hearing. Consequently, the stay petitions were allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 868
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to the order allocating funds to Panchayat Samities within Bharatpur District.
  
  Contentions:
  1. The Government must adhere to guidelines for fund allocation.
  2. Recommendations of the Board overseeing development were overlooked.
  3. Budget announcement for Panchayat Samiti a day before scheduled meeting.
  4. Allegations of political influence favoring certain Panchayat Samities.
  5. Alleged violation of fair and proportionate budget allocation principles.
  
  Judgment Details:
  The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in challenging government policy decisions, highlighting the government's role in development and fund allocation. Guidelines were deemed advisory, not legally binding. The court cautioned against interfering with policy decisions unless they are unfair, unjust, or mala fide. Judicial review is constrained by specific legal boundaries. The court cited precedents to support this position.
  
  Regarding the timing of budget allocation before the Board meeting, the court clarified the Board's limited role in supervising program implementation, not budget allocation. Proposals were solicited from Panchayat Samities, and the petitioner's proposal was duly considered for fund allocation. The court rejected the argument that the budget allocation was illegal due to the timing.
  
  The petitioner's contention on proportionate fund distribution based on area backwardness was dismissed. The court noted the relative nature of "backwardness" and the lack of evidence to support Nagar's comparative backwardness. Decisions on development areas are within the government's discretion, and the court cannot adjudicate on disputed factual matters in writ jurisdiction. The allocation to Panchayat Samiti, Nagar, indicated due consideration of the petitioner's proposal.
  
  The court rejected the claim that Panchayat Samiti, Kaman, was favored due to political interference, citing the entitlement range for its budget allocation. Lack of evidence supported the contention of undue influence by respondents. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of respecting government decisions in development matters.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 867
  
  Issues involved:
  1. Propriety of the Grievance Redressal Committee's decision to label the petitioners as wilful defaulters.
  2. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Grievance Redressal Committee.
  3. Procedural fairness and transparency in the adjudication process.
  
  Summary:
  
  Propriety of the Grievance Redressal Committee's Decision:
  The petitioners challenged the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee of the respondent bank, which rejected their representation against being classified as wilful defaulters u/s a master circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated July 1, 2011. The relief sought was the annulment of notices dated February 7, 2013, and March 4, 2013, which informed the petitioners of their inclusion in the wilful defaulters list.
  
  Adequacy of Reasons Provided:
  The court observed that the Grievance Redressal Committee's decision, dated December 1, 2012, was a four-line decision unsupported by any discernible reason. The minutes of the committee meeting on November 19, 2012, failed to show any application of mind or assessment of the petitioners' representation. The court emphasized that reasons are the lifeblood of every decision affecting the rights of parties and must be clear and explicit to indicate due consideration of the points in controversy.
  
  Procedural Fairness and Transparency:
  The court highlighted that the process of adjudication must be fair and transparent, especially given the grave consequences of being labeled as a wilful defaulter. The Grievance Redressal Committee's decision must reflect the defence of the would-be wilful defaulter against the preliminary committee's opinion and evidence. The court criticized the committee's decision for being perfunctory and lacking detailed reasoning, which is required to ensure fairness and transparency.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court set aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee dated December 1, 2012, and directed the committee to hear the petitioners afresh with due seriousness and provide a reasoned decision. The respondent bank was also instructed to recall any information circulated about the petitioners being wilful defaulters and to communicate this to the petitioners. The petitioners were awarded costs of 3000 GM from the respondent bank for its inappropriate appreciation of the seriousness of the procedure and tardy conduct.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 866
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the petition.
  2. Arbitrary and unreasonable action by the respondent.
  3. Enforcement of contractual rights and obligations.
  4. Direction to negotiate gas price in good faith.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Petition:

  The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the dispute pertains to a contract between the petitioner and the respondent. The court held that the relief sought is against the arbitrary action of the respondent, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the preliminary objection about non-maintainability of the petition was rejected.

  2. Arbitrary and Unreasonable Action by the Respondent:

  The petitioner, Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (GSPCL), challenged the respondent, GAIL (India) Ltd.'s letters dated 4.5.2012 and 24.1.2013, which stated that the Gas Sales Agreement (GSA) would stand terminated with effect from 01.01.2014. The court found that the respondent's action was arbitrary and not in line with the directive of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas regarding pooling of RLNG prices.

  3. Enforcement of Contractual Rights and Obligations:

  The petitioner argued that the respondent did not engage in bona fide negotiations to determine the gas price effective from 01.01.2014, as required under the GSA. The court noted that the respondent failed to respond to the petitioner's communication dated 01.10.2011 until 21.12.2011 and introduced a new concept of "aligning future price of RLNG with market conditions prevalent," which was not part of the original agreement.

  4. Direction to Negotiate Gas Price in Good Faith:

  The court directed the respondent to engage in bona fide negotiations with the petitioner to arrive at the gas price effective from 01.01.2014. The petitioner is to approach the respondent by 15.07.2013, and the respondent must complete the negotiation within three months from the receipt of the petitioner's communication.

  Conclusion:

  The court quashed and set aside the respondent's communications dated 04.05.2012 and 24.01.2013 and directed the respondent to engage in bona fide negotiations with the petitioner to determine the gas price effective from 01.01.2014. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 865
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Penalty u/s 271FA for non-filing of AIR within the prescribed time.
  2. Applicability of penalty on a State Government entity.
  3. Reasonable cause for non-filing of AIR.
  4. Validity of advisory letter as notice u/s 285BA(5).
  5. Impact of no loss to the department due to late filing.
  6. Consideration of nominal entries in AIR filing.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Penalty u/s 271FA for non-filing of AIR within the prescribed time:
  The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed u/s 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for non-filing the Annual Information Return (AIR) within the time prescribed u/r 114E(5) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that filing of AIR is mandatory under section 285BA(1) and there is no exception to this requirement.
  
  2. Applicability of penalty on a State Government entity:
  The assessee argued that as a part of the Revenue Department of the State of Punjab, the penalty should not be imposed on the State Government. However, the Tribunal did not accept this argument and upheld the penalty.
  
  3. Reasonable cause for non-filing of AIR:
  The assessee claimed a bona fide belief that the AIR for the whole district was to be filed by the Registrar of the Ferozepur District. The Tribunal rejected this argument, noting that there was no document placed before any of the authorities to support the claim that there was no case of registration in the said years.
  
  4. Validity of advisory letter as notice u/s 285BA(5):
  The assessee contended that the advisory letter issued on 20.11.2006 could not be considered as notice u/s 285BA(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the advisory letter and subsequent notices were served on the assessee, and the argument that no notice was served was rejected.
  
  5. Impact of no loss to the department due to late filing:
  The assessee argued that no loss was caused to the department due to the late filing of the AIR, and hence, the penalty should be quashed. The Tribunal held that the mere violation of the filing requirement justifies the levy of penalty, as it is not automatic but discretionary.
  
  6. Consideration of nominal entries in AIR filing:
  The assessee pointed out that there were only nil entries in the relevant assessment years and cited a similar case where the penalty was dropped. The Tribunal noted that the nominal number of registrations exceeding Rs. 30 lacs still required the filing of AIR, and no relief could be given on this issue.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, confirming the penalties imposed for non-filing of AIR within the prescribed time. The decision emphasized the mandatory nature of AIR filing and rejected the arguments related to reasonable cause, advisory notice validity, and the impact of nominal entries.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 864
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Nature of the impugned letter dated November 30, 2012.
  2. Validity of the impugned letter and the right to withdraw the public offer.
  3. Alleged violations of Regulations 11(1) and 11(2) of the Takeover Regulations of 1997.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Nature of the Impugned Letter
  The Tribunal examined whether the impugned letter dated November 30, 2012, was merely advisory or constituted an "order" u/s 15T of the SEBI Act. The Tribunal concluded that the letter was binding in nature, as it mandated changes and warned of appropriate action for non-compliance, thereby qualifying as an "order" under Section 15T of the SEBI Act. This interpretation aligns with the Tribunal's previous rulings, emphasizing that every order passed by SEBI is subject to appeal to ensure that aggrieved parties have a forum for redressal.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of the Impugned Letter and Right to Withdraw the Public Offer
  The Appellant made a Public Announcement on October 20, 2011, to consolidate its shareholding in the Target Company. The Respondent delayed its comments on the Draft LO, rendering the open offer outdated. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's request to withdraw the offer was bona fide, as the offer had become redundant due to the delay. Regulation 27 of the Takeover Regulations of 1997 allows withdrawal under certain circumstances, including when the offer has outlived its purpose. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent failed to act within the prescribed timeframe under Regulation 6(2) of the ICDR Regulations, which mandates SEBI to issue comments within 30 days. The Tribunal held that the Respondent's inaction justified the withdrawal of the public offer, thereby allowing the appeal on this ground.
  
  Issue 3: Alleged Violations of Regulations 11(1) and 11(2)
  The Respondent alleged that the Appellant violated Regulations 11(1) and 11(2) of the Takeover Regulations on three occasions. The Tribunal observed that such allegations could have adverse monetary consequences and should be addressed through lawful proceedings as per the SEBI Act and Takeover Regulations. The Tribunal noted that the Respondent did not follow the due process for investigation and adjudication as required by Regulations 15I and 15J of the SEBI Act and Chapter V of the Takeover Regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c) of para 7, without making any observations on the merits of the alleged violations.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned letter, permitting the withdrawal of the open offer, and directing the return of the escrow amount. The Tribunal emphasized the need for SEBI to follow due process in making allegations and taking actions against entities. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2013 (6) TMI 863
  
  Issues Involved: Reopening of assessment and amalgamation of companies.
  
  Reopening of Assessment:
  The Appellate Tribunal ITAT DELHI heard an appeal by the revenue against the order of Ld CIT(A) for assessment year 2003-04. The assessee filed a cross objection challenging the reopening of assessment. The Ld counsel for the assessee cited a Delhi High Court decision in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. to argue that if no additions are made for the income for which assessment was reopened, then any other income cannot be included. The reasons for reopening mentioned an alleged amount of &8377; 3.60 crores received as an accommodation entry, but no such addition was made in the assessment order. The Ld DR argued that this information was the starting point of investigation, leading to an addition of commission income. However, the Tribunal found that no additions were made related to the alleged amount, thus following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court, the assessment was deemed unsustainable.
  
  Amalgamation of Companies:
  The Ld counsel for the assessee also raised an issue regarding the amalgamation of the assessee company with another company. Despite the amalgamation being effective from 1.4.2005, a notice u/s 148 was issued after the amalgamation had taken place. The counsel argued that the assessment should have been explored in the hands of the amalgamated company. Citing the Spice Entertainment Ltd. case, it was contended that the assessment was not sustainable due to this ground. The Ld DR did not counter this argument, and the Tribunal, having already passed the order, did not delve further into this issue or other issues on merit.
  
  In conclusion, the cross appeal of the assessee was allowed, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced on 7th June 2013.

  ---

12345678........ 47