|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 938 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1329
Issues Involved:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Admission of additional evidence by CIT(A).
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The first issue revolves around the addition of Rs. 7,16,02,224/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO required the assessee to submit confirmations from parties from whom money was received as share application money or loans. The assessee failed to furnish full particulars, PAN, and source of funds. Consequently, the AO treated the sums credited as unexplained and added them to the income of the assessee.
Upon appeal, the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence, including confirmation letters, proof of identity, affidavits, and bank statements. The CIT(A) observed that the AO never explicitly asked for confirmations during the assessment proceedings. After considering the additional evidence, the CIT(A) reduced the addition to Rs. 79,52,500/- and deleted the balance of Rs. 4,95,82,259/-. The CIT(A) found that most advances were received through cheques and were related to plot bookings, which were verified by the AO in the remand report.
The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions for most parties. However, for the remaining Rs. 79,52,500/-, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including affidavits and bank statements, to explain the sources of funds. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire addition under Section 68.
2. Admission of Additional Evidence by CIT(A):
The second issue concerns the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence. The CIT(A) noted that the AO did not ask for confirmations during the assessment proceedings and that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from providing the required details due to the illness of the main director. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, considering it essential for the determination of the assessee's income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to admit the additional evidence, emphasizing that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to produce confirmations during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the additional evidence was crucial for a fair assessment and justified the CIT(A)'s decision.
3. Disallowance under Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act:
The third issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 5,13,95,252/- under Section 40A(3) for payments made in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/-. The AO disallowed the payments, stating they were not covered under Rule 6DD exceptions. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 3,42,60,562/-, allowing relief for payments made for stamp duty and registration charges.
The Tribunal examined the payments and found that many were made in villages not served by any bank, as certified by the village Sarpanch. The Tribunal referred to Rule 6DD(g), which exempts payments made in villages without banking facilities from disallowance under Section 40A(3). The Tribunal concluded that the payments were genuine and necessary due to the lack of banking facilities, thus falling under the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(g). Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the entire disallowance under Section 40A(3).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions under Section 68 and disallowances under Section 40A(3), while dismissing the revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to admit additional evidence and grant relief. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of fair assessment and the necessity of considering additional evidence when the assessee is prevented by reasonable cause from providing it during the assessment proceedings.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1328
Issues involved: Department's appeal against order dated 01.10.2009 by CIT(A) and Assessee's cross objections.
Department's Appeal:
1. Grounds of appeal included erroneous order by CIT(A).
2. Addition of Rs. 25,00,000 u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit and Rs. 50,000 as commission.
3. AO's observations on failure to prove credit-worthiness of creditors and genuineness of transactions.
4. AO's reasoning on unaccounted money routed through bank accounts.
5. CIT(A) deleted the AO's addition.
Assessee's Cross Objections:
1. Challenge to assessment order legality and reopening under u/s 147.
2. Request to quash assessment order.
Details of Department's Appeal:
- AO noted receipt of share capital of Rs. 25,00,000 from 18 parties.
- Parties did not respond to summons or provide details.
- Assessee failed to produce parties or confirmations.
- AO added unaccounted money as share capital.
- CIT(A) deleted the AO's addition.
- Department appealed, citing failure to prove credit-worthiness and genuineness.
- Assessee defended, claiming addition was baseless.
Judgment and Analysis:
- Tribunal reviewed evidence submitted by assessee.
- Assessee fulfilled initial burden under u/s 68 by providing details of share applicants.
- AO did not find discrepancies or conduct independent verification.
- Tribunal cited precedents where primary onus was considered discharged.
- CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld based on lack of error.
- Appeal by Department was dismissed, cross objections withdrawn.
This judgment highlights the importance of fulfilling the burden of proof in cases of unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized the need for thorough verification by tax authorities and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition based on the evidence provided by the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1327
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to revision of assessment order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, non-deduction of tax at source on interest payments, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for various expenses, and examination of foreign exchange fluctuations.
Revision of Assessment Order u/s 263:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the CIT u/s 263, contending that there was no error in the original assessment order and that the CIT erred in holding it prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The appellant argued that all relevant information was provided during assessment, and the CIT failed to point out specific errors for initiating revision proceedings. The Tribunal held that since the assessing officer had examined the issues and applied his mind before accepting the claims, the CIT's revision was unwarranted.
Non-Deduction of Tax at Source on Interest Payments:
The CIT disallowed tax deduction at source on interest payments to 8 parties totaling Rs. 76,960, as the evidence of filing form 15G was deemed insufficient. The appellant contended that the assessing officer had considered the non-deduction due to form 15G during assessment, and the CIT's revision was unjustified. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer had raised queries and the appellant had provided necessary details, concluding that the CIT's revision was unwarranted.
Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Various Expenses:
Regarding shipping charges and expenses incurred by agents, the CIT observed discrepancies in payments made and lack of evidence to support claims. The CIT disallowed expenses totaling Rs. 15,30,520 under section 40(a)(ia) due to non-deduction of tax at source. The appellant argued that the assessing officer had examined these issues during assessment, but the Tribunal found no evidence of such examination. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the CIT's disallowance decision.
Examination of Foreign Exchange Fluctuations:
The CIT directed a disallowance of Rs. 14,95,214 for alleged errors in accounting for dollar rate fluctuations. The appellant argued that the assessing officer had considered and accepted the explanations provided, rendering the CIT's revision unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer had raised queries and the appellant had submitted detailed explanations, leading to the conclusion that the CIT's revision was unwarranted.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1326
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and assignment of copyright in software developed by Pine Labs for Gemalto.
2. Applicability of Section 19(5) and (6) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
3. Interpretation of Clause 7 of the Master Agreement for Development Services (MSA).
4. Balance of convenience and irreparable injury in granting or vacating the interim injunction.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership and Assignment of Copyright:
The primary issue revolves around the ownership and assignment of the copyright in the software developed by Pine Labs for Gemalto. Pine Labs claimed ownership of the software developed for the IOCL Fleet Card Program, asserting that the assignment of copyright was limited to five years as per Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act. The court noted that Pine Labs was engaged as an independent contractor, making the agreement a contract for service. The court referred to Section 17 of the Copyright Act, which states that in the case of a contract for employment, the ownership vests with the employee unless there is an agreement to the contrary. The court found that the intention of the parties, as reflected in the MSA and other communications, indicated that the copyright was assigned to Gemalto.
2. Applicability of Section 19(5) and (6) of the Copyright Act:
Pine Labs argued that the assignment of copyright was limited to five years and within the territorial limits of India due to the operation of Section 19(5) and (6) of the Copyright Act. The court examined the provisions of Section 19, which state that if the period of assignment is not specified, it shall be deemed to be five years, and if the territorial extent is not specified, it shall be presumed to extend within India. The court concluded that since the MSA did not specify the duration or territorial extent of the assignment, the provisions of Section 19(5) and (6) were applicable, limiting the assignment to five years and within India.
3. Interpretation of Clause 7 of the MSA:
Clause 7.1 of the MSA was a focal point of interpretation. Pine Labs contended that the clause assigned the copyright in presenti, while Gemalto argued that it was an agreement to assign. The court analyzed the language of Clause 7.1, which stated that "Axalto shall be entitled to all property, copyright, and other intellectual property rights in the Project Materials which Pine Labs as beneficial owner assigns to Axalto." The court concluded that the clause indicated a present assignment of copyright. However, the court also considered Clause 7.2, which required Pine Labs to sign necessary documents to enable Gemalto to obtain, defend, and enforce its rights, suggesting that further steps were required to complete the assignment.
4. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Injury:
The court applied the threefold approach from Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh, considering whether Pine Labs proved a prima facie case, where the balance of convenience lay, and whether denial of relief would result in irreparable injury. The court found that Pine Labs had established a prima facie case, as the MSA appeared to be an assignment in presenti. The balance of convenience favored Pine Labs, as allowing Gemalto to continue using the software would cause more inconvenience and irreparable loss to Pine Labs. The court also noted that Pine Labs had calculated its loss at Rs. 20,00,000, which did not fade the element of irreparability.
Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, reinstating the interim injunction in favor of Pine Labs. The injunction restrained Gemalto from infringing Pine Labs' copyright in the software known as Version 1.03 for the IOCL Fleet Card Program. The court clarified that the interim order only applied to Version 1.03 and did not affect the relationship concerning subsequent versions of the software. The appeal was allowed, and the interim order dated 17th December 2009 was directed to operate during the pendency of the suit.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1325
Issues involved: Whether the loss incurred by the respondent-assessee was allowable as a business loss u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Comprehensive Details:
1. Facts: The assessee was allotted naked convertible warrants by a group company, which were to be converted into equity shares at a later date. The company forfeited the amount invested by the assessee when they chose not to subscribe to the shares offered upon conversion.
2. Claim of Business Loss: The assessee claimed the loss as a business loss for the assessment year 1997-98, stating that the warrants were held as stock in trade and it was a prudent business decision not to invest further in the company.
3. Judicial Proceedings: The assessing officer disallowed the claim, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT allowed the appeal, considering the loss as a business loss u/s 37. The revenue challenged this decision under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Court's Decision: The High Court had earlier dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court directed a reconsideration based on the financial position of the company at the time of investment. The Court found that the company was profitable, and the assessee's decision to forgo further investment was a commercial one. Therefore, the ITAT's decision to allow the loss as a business loss was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1324
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD dismissed the Revenue's Stay Petitions as they were filed before the wrong forum. The issue was regarding the inclusion of NCCD for computation of Brand rate of Drawback, and appeals on this issue do not lie before the Tribunal. The Tribunal advised the Revenue to consider moving to the correct forum.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1323
Levy and collection of cess - Labor cess - deduction of TDS - case of Respondent is that the date of the operation of the Cess Act and the Cess Rules in Delhi was 1st January 2002 and consequently the subject contract was not subject to the Cess Act and the Cess Rules - HELD THAT:- The Cess Act had statutory force and came into effect throughout India on 3rd November, 1995 and any circular or notice issued by any Government or any organization including the Appellant herein with respect to the date of its enforcement would have no meaning, inasmuch as, the Cess Act being a Central Act, the date of its enforceability could not be postponed or determined by any State Government or any other organization.
Finally, the Arbitral Awards and the impugned Orders are erroneous for the reason that they failed to take into consideration the aspect that the Appellant was liable to deduct at source cess at the notified rate from the bills for building and other construction works of the Respondent contractors from the date the Cess Act came into force i.e. 3rd November, 1995.
Appeal allowed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1322
Charitable Institution u/s 12A - Tax deduction on donations u/s 80G - Enquiry u/s 80G(5) - Assessee, charitable institution, applied for renewal of the recognition u/s 80G. CIT while examing the approval under section 80G, the assessee has been denied the exemption u/s 11 & 12 by the Assessing Office
HELD THAT:- In the case of SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALI. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. [2008 (4) TMI 396 - ITAT PUNE-A], based on similar facts, CIT denied recognition under section 80G for the reason that the exemption under sections 11 & 12 had been denied to the assessee in the assessment proceedings. As per the Bench, such objection would not ipso facto militate against denial of recognition under section 80G as long as in principle and on a prima facie basis assessee complied with the conditions set out in section 80G(5)(i) to (v).
Having regard to the observations of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of NN. DESAI CHARITABLE TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1999 (5) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], it is clear that in so far as the relevance of 80G(5)(i) is concerned, it is to examine the eligibility of the assessee applicant to claim that its income is not liable to be included in the computation of total income. The Hon’ble High Court emphasized that for the purposes of enquiry under section 80G(5), it is to be seen whether the Trust is registered u/s 12 or not. It has been specifically observed that, “Once a trust is registered under section 12A, its income from property, which includes donations whether covered under section 11(1)(d) or u/s 12 such donations are deemed to be income from property, is not to be included in its total income u/s 11 or section 12.
In the present case, the objection raised by the CIT to deny the recognition u/s 80G is founded on irrelevant considerations by embarking upon an exercise which is only in the realm of assessment proceedings. Undeniably the assessee is registered u/s 12A and such registration continues.
In this view of the matter, in our view, the assessee fulfils the condition prescribed under clause (i) of section 80G(5). There being no other objection raised by the CIT, we therefore proceed on the basis that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under clauses (i) to (v) and is thus eligible for renewal of recognition u/s 80G(5) - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1321
Taken-up Writ Petition - Misappropriation of public property - Seeking investigation by CBI - illegal gratification for exchange of official favours from the then Chief Minister - validity or genuineness of every investment and every business venture and to compare and verify as to whether the same is linked with any corresponding Quid Pro Quo benefit received by such investor from the State of Andhra Pradesh - seeking relief to call for and examine the records connected with three G.Os - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it emerges from the record forming part of the writ petitions including pleadings of the parties that from May, 2004 onwards, respondent No.52 floated number of companies wherein Quid Pro Quo investments have been made out of the benefits received by the investors / beneficiaries from the decisions of the State Government in various forms like SEZs, irrigation contracts, relaxation/permission for real estate ventures, mines etc. besides payment of huge premium amounts paid in the shares and invested in the companies by such beneficiaries and the money so paid is nothing but corrupt money attracting Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The investigation by the Income Tax authorities with respect to assessment orders of M/s. Jagathi Publications for the year 2008-09 shows huge unexplained cash credit. Similarly, huge escalated face value of shares to the extent of 35 times also was not accepted by the Income Tax authorities and respondent No.52 is directly or indirectly connected with some of the companies which are showing phenomenal growth and these facts make it necessary to ascertain the role of individuals/firms/public servants in the group companies of respondent No.52.
keeping in view the scope of the public interest litigation as settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, we have confined ourselves to the considerations of prima facie satisfaction and regard being had to the manner in which the investments in the group companies of respondent No.52 have been made vis-à-vis the benefits and official favours received by the investors from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, prima facie we are satisfied that there are violations of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act apart from criminal conspiracies and commission of other related offences involving huge magnitude of investment by local and foreign companies, some located in tax haven countries, for which registration of a crime and investigation to remedy the public interest which has suffered, is just and necessary by a well-equipped and specialized agency, having expertise to handle such situations and has the credibility. Analysing as such, the most appropriate agency would be the CBI.
We have also made it clear in the judgment rendered in Writ Petition that the preliminary report was resealed after perusal and it shall remain sealed, among other things in view of the contention of some of the appearing learned counsel for the respondents that in case report of the CBI becomes public, their clients may have to face condemnation in the eyes of the public by unwarranted media publicity even before completion of the investigation. For the reasons mentioned in this paragraph, we have resealed the report.
Accordingly, Writ Petition are disposed of directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a crime and investigate into the accusations indicated hereinabove and other aspects relevant thereto and take the investigation to its logical end in accordance with law.
So far as the deficiencies in the affidavit and verification of the affidavit and the bonafides required of a petitioner, who approaches the Court in public interest, are concerned, the objections raised by the learned senior counsel appear to be tenable. The petitioner himself states in para 10 of the affidavit that he is aware of Taken-up Writ Petition pending before this Court. The basic contentions raised by him are already covered by the material produced in Taken-up Writ Petition as well as connected Writ Petition.
This writ petition is, therefore, only a reiteration of the self-same pleas and is based upon the downloaded documents from the internet. The present writ petition, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements as per rules of this Court for a public interest litigation and as such, is not entertainable, as the petitioner has failed to explain and substantiate the source and authenticity of the information relied upon. Even otherwise, the aspects sought to be contended in this writ petition are already under consideration in Takenup Writ Petition.
We, therefore, decline to entertain Writ Petition No.6979 of 2011 and it is accordingly dismissed
-
2011 (8) TMI 1320
Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable opportunity of being heard.
2. Invoking of Section 145 for non-maintenance of stock book.
3. Verification of written submission for low profit.
4. Addition of interest on performance guarantee as income other than business income.
Summary:
1. Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard:
The assessee contended that the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeal) Jalpaiguri erred by not granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as the notices mentioned in the order were not served to the appellant. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.
2. Invoking of Section 145 for Non-Maintenance of Stock Book:
The assessee argued that the Ld. C.I.T. (Appeal) Jalpaiguri erred by upholding the invoking of Section 145 by the A.O. for non-maintenance of a stock book. The A.O. observed that the assessee did not maintain any stock register and labor muster roll, leading to the rejection of the trading results u/s 145 of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the books of account, stating that the A.O. had valid reasons for dissatisfaction over the correctness of the accounts due to the lack of unified stock register, unverifiable labor payments, and self-made vouchers for expenses.
3. Verification of Written Submission for Low Profit:
The assessee claimed that the low profit was due to emotional issues related to executing work in their native village affected by river erosion. The A.O. estimated the net profit at 4% of the gross contractual receipts, while the assessee declared a net profit of 1.73%. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, directed the A.O. to recompute the total income by taking the net profit rate at 2% on the gross contractual receipts.
4. Addition of Interest on Performance Guarantee as Income Other than Business Income:
The assessee contested the addition of Rs. 61,622/- as income from other sources, arguing it should be treated as business income. The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court, held that the interest income on performance guarantee should be treated as business income. Consequently, no separate addition of Rs. 61,622/- was required since the net profit was already recomputed at 2%.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the A.O. to adopt a net profit rate of 2% on gross contractual receipts and treating the interest income on performance guarantee as business income.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1319
Issues involved: Interpretation of Sec.195 and Sec.40(a)(i) regarding payments of commission and professional charges to non-residents.
Issue 1: Applicability of Sec.195 for commission and professional charges payments
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the applicability of Sec.195 for payments of commission and professional charges. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and emphasized that unless the income is taxable in India, there is no obligation to deduct tax u/s 195. It was highlighted that the overseas agents, being non-residents, do not accrue income in India, and therefore, the commission payments made to them are not liable to tax deduction. The Tribunal concluded that no tax is deductible u/s 195 on such commission payments, making the expenditure allowable and outside the scope of Sec.40(a)(ia).
Issue 2: Applicability of Sec.40(a)(i) for commission and professional charges to non-residents
The Revenue also challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on the applicability of Sec.40(a)(i) for commission and professional charges paid to non-residents. The Tribunal reiterated that since the overseas agents do not receive income in India, there is no requirement to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessing officer failed to prove the payee's intention to receive payment within India, thus justifying the deletion of the addition made on this issue. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment clarified that payments of commission and professional charges to non-residents do not fall under the purview of Sec.195 and Sec.40(a)(i) if the income is not taxable in India. The decision was based on the principle that income must accrue in India for tax deduction obligations to apply. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that in the absence of proof of income accruing in India, no tax deduction is required on such payments, making them allowable expenditures.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1318
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the warranty defense under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
2. Proof of the bill (Exhibit 102) under the provisions of the Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of the proviso to Section 14 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Warranty Defense under Section 19(2) of the Act:
Section 19(2) of the Act provides that a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offense if he proves that he purchased the article of food from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor, or dealer with a written warranty in the prescribed form. In this case, the vendor (accused No. 1 to 6) produced a bill (Exhibit 102) purportedly showing the purchase of the food article from the applicants (manufacturers). However, the bill did not contain any written warranty as required under Rule 12-A of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The Supreme Court in Rajaldas Gurunamal Pamanani v. State Of Maharashtra held that a written warranty is required in both cases under Section 19(2)(a)(i) and (ii). Thus, the vendor failed to prove the warranty as required under Section 19 of the Act, and the defense under Section 19(2) was not valid.
2. Proof of the Bill (Exhibit 102) under the Provisions of the Evidence Act:
The bill (Exhibit 102) was produced by the complainant (Food Inspector) but was not proved in accordance with Section 67 of the Evidence Act, which requires proving the signature and handwriting on the document. The complainant admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the execution of the bill and did not verify the authenticity of the bill with the manufacturer. The Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Ram Pal Singh Bisen held that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the bill (Exhibit 102) as required under the Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 14 of the Act:
Section 14 of the Act mandates that a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer must provide a warranty in writing in the prescribed form when selling any article of food to a vendor. The proviso to Section 14 deems a bill, cash memorandum, or invoice as a warranty. However, for the proviso to apply, the bill must be proved to have been issued by the manufacturer. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the bill (Exhibit 102) was issued by the applicants, the proviso to Section 14 could not be invoked. The Courts below erred in relying on the bill without it being properly proved.
Conclusion:
The trial Court and the appellate Court were not justified in convicting the applicants based on the unproven bill (Exhibit 102). The applicants were acquitted of the offense under Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the bail bonds were canceled with a refund of any fines paid.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1317
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rules 173Q(b) of Central Excise Rules regarding non-accounting of finished goods in account books.
Summary:
Issue 1: Non-accounting of finished goods under Rules 173Q(b) of Central Excise Rules
The High Court considered a reference made by the Appellate Tribunal regarding the non-accounting of 788.86 MTs of finished goods by the respondent-company, which was not recorded in the account books as required under Rules 173Q(b) of the Central Excise Rules. The substantial question of law was whether this non-accounting amounted to a contravention of Rules 53 and 173Q(b) and (d) of the Rules.
The Court referred to a similar case decided by the Apex Court in Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, where it was held that confiscation of scrap, meant for recycling and not taken outside the premises, was not justified. Applying this precedent, the Court found that in the present case, the scrap in question was also intended for recycling and was not taken outside the premises. Therefore, the confiscation of the scrap and imposition of penalty were deemed illegal. The penalty of &8377;25,000 imposed on the assessee was not challenged and hence upheld.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference in favor of the respondent, holding that the non-accounting of finished goods did not amount to a contravention of the relevant Rules based on the interpretation provided by the Apex Court's decision in a similar case.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1315
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to a suit for recovery of money due to loss of goods, with issues including non-joinder of necessary party, lack of privity of contract, liability of bailee, and exchange rate calculation.
Non-joinder of necessary party:
The Trial Court appropriately addressed the issue of non-joinder of M/s. KLM Airlines as a necessary party, ruling that the Appellant, as the handling agent, cannot escape liability for the lost consignment. The contract between the Appellant and the carrier indemnifies the Appellant but does not exempt it from liability towards the Respondent. The law allows the bailor to directly sue the sub-bailee for the value of lost goods, irrespective of the lack of privity of contract between the parties.
Lack of privity of contract:
The argument that there was no privity of contract between the Appellant and the Respondent was rejected by the Court. The Appellant's role as an agent of M/s. KLM carrier makes it liable for the lost goods, even without a direct contract with the Respondent. The agreement between the Appellant and the carrier does not absolve the Appellant of responsibility for the lost consignment.
Liability of bailee:
The Appellant's defense of having taken due care as a bailee was refuted based on Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act, 1872. The Court clarified that in cases of carriage by air, the liability of the bailee or sub-bailee is governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, not the Contract Act. The strict liability of carriers under relevant Acts precludes them from evading responsibility by sub-bailment.
Exchange rate calculation:
The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision to use the conversion rate of foreign currency on the date of judgment for awarding damages. Citing a Supreme Court decision, it was established that the conversion rate on the date of judgment is appropriate for suits involving foreign currency. The Appellant's argument to use the rate on the date of booking the consignment was dismissed.
The appeal was deemed without merit and dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs and the bank guarantee discharged.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1314
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suits filed by the appellants.
2. Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by the respondents in obtaining the decrees.
3. Validity of the arbitration awards dated 13.3.1992 for want of registration.
4. Validity of the orders dated 30.3.1992 directing the awards be made the rule of the court.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Suits:
The appellants sought a declaration that the orders dated 30.3.1992, the decrees drawn in terms of the awards dated 13.3.1992, and the agreements dated 12.3.1992 were null and void due to fraud and misrepresentation. The challenge was primarily to the orders making the awards the rule of the court. The first appellate court and the High Court erroneously concluded that the suits were barred by sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was incorrect as the challenge was to the court orders and decrees obtained through fraud, not merely to the arbitration agreements and awards.
2. Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The agreements dated 12.3.1992, the awards dated 13.3.1992, and the resulting court decrees were found to be fraudulent. Fraud involves deceit, concealment of material facts, and abuse of confidence. The appellants alleged they were misled into signing documents under the belief they were related to a panchayat settlement, not realizing they were consenting to arbitration awards and court decrees. The respondents' witnesses provided inconsistent and contradictory evidence, and the appellants did not sign the written statements in the suits. The entire arbitration process was a sham, orchestrated to avoid stamp duty and registration charges, demonstrating clear fraud and misrepresentation.
3. Validity of the Arbitration Awards for Want of Registration:
The arbitration awards created rights in immovable property and were thus compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. As the awards were not registered, they could not be acted upon under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The awards were inadmissible in evidence, and decrees could not be passed based on unregistered awards. This principle was upheld in precedents like Ratan Lal Sharma vs. Purshottam Harit and Lachhman Dass vs. Ram Lal.
4. Validity of the Orders Directing the Awards be Made the Rule of the Court:
The arbitration proceedings were found to be collusive and sham, with no genuine dispute being referred to arbitration. The entire process was a ruse to avoid stamp duty and registration charges. The arbitrator, C.B. Sharma, acted fraudulently, and the court was misled into making decrees in terms of the awards. Therefore, the decrees dated 30.3.1992 were invalid as they were obtained through fraudulent means.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the first appellate court and the High Court, and restored the decrees of the trial court, which had decreed the suits filed by the appellants. The court recognized the fraudulent nature of the arbitration proceedings and the resulting decrees, emphasizing the importance of genuine dispute resolution and adherence to legal procedures.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1313
Issues involved: Interpretation of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) for rent received from excess portion of building used for credit facility business.
Interpretation of u/s 80P(2)(a)(i): The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the rent received from the excess portion of a building used for providing credit facility to members is eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal noted that as per sec.80P of the Act, only profits and gains attributable to specified activities are eligible for deduction. Since providing credit facilities is the core activity and the rental income is assessable under "income from house property," the Tribunal held that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i).
Interpretation of u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii): The Tribunal also analyzed the applicability of u/s 80P(2)(c)(ii) for the rental income. Referring to a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the Tribunal highlighted that income attributable to an activity in which the cooperative society is engaged is exempted under this section. However, when a society lets out its property and receives rental income, it does not qualify as profits or gains attributable to the society's activity. The Tribunal emphasized that letting out surplus space does not fall under clause (c) of Section 80P(2) and therefore, the rent received is not eligible for exemption under section 80P(2)(c).
Conclusion: After considering the arguments and legal provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80P for the rental receipts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the assessee was not granted the requested deductions.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1312
Issues involved:
The judgment involves disputes on three different grounds: (1) Addition on account of sundry creditors, (2) Additions on account of payment to retired partners and wives of deceased partners under the provisions of partnership deed as diversion of income, and (3) Disallowance of payment made to a retired employee.
Issue 1: Addition on account of sundry creditors
The AO noted discrepancies in the balance sheet of the assessee regarding sundry creditors, which led to an addition of Rs. 2,68,564. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, stating that the assessee was following the cash method of accounting, making the sundry creditors unjustified. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on similar disputes in previous assessment years.
Issue 2: Additions on account of payment to retired partners and wives of deceased partners
The dispute centered around deductions claimed by the assessee for payments made to retired partners and spouses of deceased partners under the partnership deed. The AO disallowed the claim, considering it as a diversion of income. However, the Tribunal, after examining the partnership deed, allowed the claim, stating that it was a case of diversion of income and not application of income, as argued by the authorities.
Issue 3: Disallowance of payment made to a retired employee
The AO disallowed a payment of Rs. 5.00 lacs made to a retired employee as pension, citing lack of evidence of partner agreement. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, but the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the claim should not be disallowed solely on the ground of lack of partner agreement, as no amount can be paid to an employee or ex-partner without partner consent.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, overturning the decisions on the second and third disputes while upholding the addition on account of sundry creditors.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1311
The High Court of Bombay upheld the decision of the ITAT to set aside the CIT's order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act regarding the valuation of toiletries. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer had already addressed the CIT's concerns during assessment, and there was no error in the Assessing Officer's decision. The CIT's order was deemed to be based on a mere change of opinion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1310
Issues Involved:
1. Computation of income under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act.
2. Disallowance of expenses under section 40A(9) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Addition of notional interest.
4. Calculation of depreciation.
5. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D.
6. Credit for MAT under section 115JAA.
7. Deduction under section 35(1)(ii).
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Computation of Income under Section 115JB:
The primary issue was whether the assessee could adjust the debit balance in the Profit and Loss Account against the Share Premium Account and Revaluation Reserve, as per a scheme sanctioned by the High Courts, for computing book profit under section 115JB. The Tribunal held that such adjustments, though permitted by the High Court, were not in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. The statutory auditors had qualified their report stating that the adjustment was not in line with accepted practices. The Tribunal concluded that the AO must determine the correct amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation without considering the adjustment, thereby allowing the assessee's claim.
2. Disallowance of Expenses under Section 40A(9):
The assessee incurred expenses for running a school and other facilities, which were disallowed by the AO under section 40A(9). The CIT(A) allowed the claim based on a previous ITAT order for the assessee's own case, which relied on a Kerala High Court judgment. However, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of details, as the assessee had failed to provide necessary information during the assessment.
3. Addition of Notional Interest:
The AO added notional interest on deposits made by the assessee, which were under legal disputes and unlikely to be recovered. The Tribunal, following its earlier decisions and various High Court judgments, held that no real income accrued to the assessee due to the financial difficulties of the debtors. The addition was deleted.
4. Calculation of Depreciation:
The assessee argued that the opening WDV for the assessment year should be the same as the closing WDV of the previous year, which included capitalized interest expenditure. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the depreciation by adopting the correct opening WDV as per the previous year's assessment order.
5. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234D:
The Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234D, following the Supreme Court's decision in JCIT vs. Rolta India Ltd., which clarified that interest under these sections applies to companies liable to pay tax under section 115JB.
6. Credit for MAT under Section 115JAA:
The Tribunal directed the AO to quantify the MAT credit as per the provisions of section 115JAA, ensuring that the credit is carried forward and set off in accordance with the law.
7. Deduction under Section 35(1)(ii):
The AO disallowed the deduction claimed for donations made to Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute, questioning its approval status. The Tribunal found that the institute was notified by the CBDT, and the notification was effective retrospectively, covering the relevant assessment year. The deduction was allowed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal provided a detailed analysis and directions on each issue, ensuring compliance with legal provisions and accounting standards. The appeals and cross-objections were partly allowed for statistical purposes, with specific instructions for the AO to follow.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1309
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Learned CIT(Appeals)-I, Baroda for Assessment Year 2005-06 regarding deletion of addition on account of delayed payment to employee's contribution to P.F. and disallowance of depreciation, interest on vehicle loan, and insurance premium on vehicle.
Issue 1 - Delayed Payment to Employee's Contribution to P.F.: The Assessing Officer disallowed an amount related to employees' PF contribution, but the CIT(A) allowed the claim citing relevant precedents. The ITAT referred to various decisions, including the Apex Court's decision in Vinay Cement Ltd., and held that employees' contribution towards P.F. made before the due date of filing return is allowable under section 43B. The Revenue argued for the application of section 36(1)(va) over section 43B, but the ITAT relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.
Issue 2 - Disallowance of Depreciation, Interest on Vehicle Loan, and Insurance Premium on Vehicle: The Assessing Officer disallowed these expenses as the vehicles were not owned by the company but by the Directors. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim after considering that the vehicles were used for business purposes, reflected in the company's books, and there was an agreement to transfer the vehicles to the company's name. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision based on the evidence presented and the Supreme Court's ruling in Mysore Minerals vs. CIT.
In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.
........
|
9911796707
