|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1359 Records
-
2015 (4) TMI 1286
Principle of in pari delicto - Declaration and permanent injunction by the plaintiff - transferring or creating third party rights in property - dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13-B(2) - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that plaintiff has been taking “convenient stands‟ presumably to defeat the rights of his creditors, without any regard for truth - In this Court's opinion, after obtaining a decree of divorce on the basis of sworn affidavits that the plaintiff had not been cohabitating with his wife since 01st March, 2011, the plaintiff cannot today contend that he has never lived separately from defendant No.1-wife.
It is settled law that when parties to a legal controversy are in pari delicto neither can obtain any relief from the Court, since both are at equal fault or of equal guilt.
This Court is of the view that the present plaint is barred by the principle of in pari delicto - the present plaint and applications are rejected as barred by law under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1285
Determination of retail/distribution tariff of the licensee Damodar Valley Corporation by the appellant West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission - It is the grievance of the respondent/writ petitioners, prior to determination of such retail tariff by the State Commission, on the basis of generation and interstate transmission tariff orders passed by CERC, DVC raised demand notices for differential amount payable for the period from May, 2010 to August, 2010 as also revised bills on and from September, 2013 as per its own calculation.
Whether the respondent/writ petitioners have a right of oral hearing before the appellant State Commission in the matter of determination of retail tariff under section 64 of the Act or alternatively, in the facts of this case they are entitled to such relief on an equitable premise being saddled with the liability to furnish bank guarantee in terms of the order appealed against?
HELD THAT:- A perusal of section 64 would make it clear that an application filed by a licensee for fixation of tariff under section 62 of the Act is to be published in such form and manner as may be specified by the appropriate Commission. In response to such publication, members of the public (including consumers) are entitled to submit suggestions and objections before the Commission. The Commission upon receipt of such suggestions/objections (if any) from the public shall within 120 days from receipt of tariff application consider such suggestions/objections and pass tariff order accepting the application with such conditions or modifications as may be specified in the said order or reject such application after assigning reasons in support thereof - Order under section 64 of the Act is subject to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 111 of the Act at the behest of an aggrieved party where the parties shall be given an opportunity of hearing by the Tribunal while disposing of such appeal.
Natural justice is not a strait jacketed formula. Oral hearing may be a constituent of natural justice but is not an inalienable facet in all cases. Even otherwise whether it is oral or written objection as long as such opportunity is provided . There is no question of violation of principles of natural justice . However the procedure contemplates oral hearing only if decision is to reject application for tariff fixation submitted by the license - Statutory scheme under which the decision is taken, nature and subject matter of enquiry, nature of the decision taken and prejudice, if any, caused to a party in course of such decision making process if only written representation is considered are relevant parameters to decide whether oral hearing is a mandatory requirement in a decision making process.
The scheme of the legislation in the instant case gives rise to an irresistible inference that the objection of consumers and other members of the public before the State Commission under section 64 of the Act are to be made in written form only and no right of oral hearing is reserved in their favour - in view of the fact that the Commission is required to arrive at an informed decision relating to tariff fixation within a time frame under a statutory scheme which requires considering written objections/representations only of the objectors including consumers, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that it was the intention of the legislature to provide oral hearing to objectors/consumers at the time of determination of tariff by the State Commission under section 64 of the Act of 2003.
It is trite law that all consumers are to be treated equally and fairly by the State Commission in the matter of determination of tariff under section 64 of the Act. Merely because the writ petitioners have been directed to furnish bank guarantee they cannot be held to have better rights and treated differently from other consumers/objectors.
The respondent/writ petitioners are not entitled to oral hearing either as of right or on equitable principles in the instant case in the course of fixation of retail/distribution tariff under the Act of 2003 - Appeal disposed off.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1284
Income accrued in India - Permanent Establishment in India under Article 5 of the DTAA between India and Switzerland - transfer of debt securities assessable as capital gain OR business income - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the order of the lower authorities as well as the order of the Tribunal in the case of LG Asian Plus Ltd. [2011 (5) TMI 371 - ITAT, MUMBAI] . We have also gone through the order of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal placed by the ld. AR on record, wherein the Tribunal relying on the decision in the case of LG Asian Plus Ltd. (supra) has decided the very same issue while deciding the case of Platinum Investment Management Ltd [2012 (12) TMI 1057 - ITAT MUMBAI] - Taxability of capital gains on sale of government securities would be governed by Article 13 of the Treaty. Articles 13(1) to 13(5) of the Treaty deal with taxability of capital gains on transfer of specified properties, which do not cover government securities. According to Article 13(6) of the Treaty, gains from allenation of any property other than that referred to in Articles 13(1) to 13(5) shall be taxable only in the contracting state of which allenaior is resident. Therefore, hold that appellant's income by way of capital gains on transfer of government securities would be exempt for tax in India under Article 13(6) of the Treaty.
No infirmity in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) in holding that the gain arising from transactions in debt securities amounting is assessable as capital gains and not as business income.
Charging of interest u/s.234B & 234C - HELD THAT:- We found that since the alleged income was liable to tax deduction at source u/s.195, therefore, there was no liability to pay advance tax u/s.208 of the Act and in the absence of any liability to pay advance tax, the provisions of Section 234B&234C could not be invoked. The CIT(A) has rightly directed to delete the interest levied u/s.234B&234C, in which our interference is uncalled for. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(A).
-
2015 (4) TMI 1283
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners contended that even if the Impugned Order is to the effect that the New Act is applicable, it is Section 24(1) which will be attracted and not Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issue notice.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1282
Disallowance u/s. 40A(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- We find that while deleting the disallowance made by A.O, ld. CIT(A) has noted that identical disallowance made by the A.O in earlier years was deleted by CIT(A) and order of ld. CIT(A) was also confirmed by Hon’ble Tribunal [2010 (9) TMI 1204 - ITAT AHMEDABAD] . Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A) nor has brought any distinguishing feature of the case for the year under consideration with that of earlier years. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance of claim u/s. 80IA - generation of power and income from steam - HELD THAT:- Various judicial pronouncement referred to by the appellant clearly holds that steam is a form of power and therefore, while considering the profit of the captive power plant, the value of the steam is to be considered.
Recent decision in D.C.W. Ltd V/s. A.C.I.T. MUM [2010 (1) TMI 939 - ITAT, MUMBAI] case has held that steam generated in the power plant is nothing but the bye-product and has got the direct connection with the Industrial undertaking and is therefore, to be considered for the purpose of working out the profit of Industrial undertaking wherei as referred to the unreported decision of Madras High Court in the case of C1T V/s, TANFAC Industries Ltd. Therein the Madras High Court has also held that while working out the profit of Captive power plant, the value of the steam generated and used in the manufacturing process in other unit is to be taken into account. The SLP from the said decision has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In view of this decision, the disallowance cannot be made on the alleged and the imaginary intention of the legislature. If there is any ambiguity in law then only other tools of interpretation such as Finance Minister's speech etc. are to be referred to. Thus allow the deduction u/s. 80IA as claimed by the appellant. As such this ground of appeal is allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1281
Nature of transaction - revenue or capital - foreign exchange fluctuation gain on reinstatement/ realization of ECB loans etc. and profit from export of computer software. - taking into account the prevailing exchange rate as on the end of accounting year is liable to tax or not - HELD THAT:- Whether the gain or loss should be brought to tax or allowed as deduction depends upon whether the foreign currency transactions were carried on account of capital or revenue items. If the foreign currency transactions are undertaken on capital account, the gain made out of such transaction is outside ambit of taxation, of course subject to the application of provisions of Section 43A of the Act. If the transactions undertaken are on account of revenue items, the gain is clearly taxable and so the loss also is clearly allowable. The assessee except making bald assertion that the transactions were undertaken on account of capital items no evidence was brought on record to establish that the foreign currency transactions were undertaken on capital items. AO also had failed to undertake this exercise.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] had clearly held that the actual payment was not a condition precedent for making adjustment in respect of foreign currency transactions as the end of the closing year. We are therefore, unable to concur or agree with the view of the learned CIT(Appeals), that liability could arise only when the contract would have matured, as such a stand is totally divorced from the accounting principles and is in variance with the principle upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (Supra). It can also be seen that the decision in the case of Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (Supra) has been rendered with regard to items in the revenue account and capital account.
We restore the matter to the file of AO with the direction that to re-do the assessment keeping in view the principles enunciated above after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1280
Gain on sale of land - capital gain or business income - HELD THAT:- Assessee is an agriculturist and did not carry on any business. The land was purchased as agricultural land way back in 1979.
Agricultural operations were carried on for more than 20 years and the land was inherited by Assessee which is in the process of development.
Necessary permission for conversion of land in to residential plots was sought by Assessee's mother and just because Assessee stepped into his mother's shoes, it cannot be considered that Assessee is in the business of purchasing and selling of plots, whereas, Assessee has only sold inherited land, therefore, intention to purchase for business was absent.
Though, it may not be entirely relevant but we cannot ignore the fact that the sale proceeds/capital gains were invested in approved bonds, (NABARD Bonds) and were not invested in any business.
Taxable as capital gains - Decided against the Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1279
Deduction u/s 80IB - deduction denied as return of income was filed on 30.03.2011 and it was belated and not filed within the prescribed time limit namely, as prescribed under Section 80AC i.e., on or before 30.09.2009 - HELD THAT:- In view of this finding recorded in KAREEMSONS PVT. LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1991 (8) TMI 28 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] petitioner is attempting to take an umbrage under it to contend that even in respect of Section 139 occurring elsewhere in the Income Tax Act it has to be held as imbedded with the provision of Section 139(4) also. While examining a provision under fiscal statute and that too exemption provision, the words found in that Section alone is to be looked into or examined and no other provision of the Act can be imported to be read along with said provision since Parliament has consciously omitted to include SubSection (4) of Section 139 of the Act by not inserting the said provision in Section 80AC, 10A or 10 B etc. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view contention raised by Sri.S.Sriranga, learned counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted and same stands rejected.
Condonation of delay in filing the claim - Non filing of return of income along with auditor’s report which ought to have accompanied such return of income, if filed either at a later stage or at any rate before framing of assessment proceedings it becomes a curable defect or return of income at the most such filing of return of income can be construed as an irregularity and not an illegality. In view of the same, contention of learned counsel for petitioner that return of income could not have been filed on or before 30.09.2009 cannot be accepted. Secondly, petitioner was in possession of statutory audit report as prescribed under Companies Act, since same had been obtained on 02.09.2009 itself and petitioner had also obtained tax audit report under Section 44AB on 30.09.2009. As such, only exercise which was required to be undertaken by the petitioner was to file return of income on 30.09.2009 and substantiate its claim during assessment proceedings by furnishing the report of the auditor in From No.10CCB. Having not adopted said course, petitioner cannot be heard to contend that filing of Form No.10CCB along with return of income being mandatory and as such, it had to await such report from the auditor and till then it could not file the return of income, cannot be accepted. Hence, second contention also stands rejected.
CBDT ought to have accepted the cause shown by petitioner for belatedly filing return of income and condoned the delay - As noticed hereinabove except auditor’s report in Form No.10CCB all other materials were available with petitioner to file the return of income. In fact building completion certificate which came to be issued by BBMP on 30.12.2008 was very much available with the petitioner as on 30.09.3009 (last date for filing return of income). As rightly observed by Board – CBDT, petitioner had nine (9) months time and yet it did not file return of income from the date of receipt of completion certificate i.e., 30.12.2008. In that view of the matter, finding recorded by Board at paragraph 7.1 and 7.2 of impugned order which is already extracted supra cannot be held as suffering from any illegality calling for interference at the hands of this Court.
That apart it requires to be noticed that law of limitation cannot be jettisoned on the ground of purported report ought to have been received by petitioner and as such, there has been delay in filing the return of income.
Thus petitioner had all the material available with it for filing of return of income except report of auditor in Form No.10CCB as on 30.09.2009 and nothing prevented the petitioner to file the return of income on that date. In the alternate, petitioner could have said filed said report on or before framing of assessment proceedings. In that view of the matter this Court is of the view that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order calling for interference at the hands of this Court. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1278
Additions made u/s. 68 - unexplained cash credit - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the case of Empire Builtech Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 135 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the summon issued were returned unserved with a remark “ no such company” even the Inspector went to the address and confirmed that no such company exist however in the case in hand, there is no evidence on record to show that physical verifications were done by the Officer. On the contrary, we find that there is no adverse inference drawn in respect of affidavit filed by the assessee in support of establishing the genuineness of the share capital.
A close perusal of the submissions made by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings show that the transactions have been made in cheque duly reflected in the bank statements and we find that no adverse inferences have been drawn in this respect nor we find that any verification from the bank have been made by the AO for making the impugned addition.
The entire addition have been made only on the basis of admission of the Director during the course of search proceedings. Admission was made on 9.9.2010 and retracted by the Director on the very next day i.e. 10.9.2010. Further, the addition is based on the surmises that assessee was taking bogus purchase bills and the cash was reintroduced in the form of share capital. However, there is no demonstrative evidence brought on record which could justify the additions made by the AO.
We set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the additions made u/s. 68 - Decided in favour of assessee
Bogus purchases through accommodation bills - whether assessee’s case falls in the first category or second category? - HELD THAT:- n all probability the assessee’s case falls in the first category i.e. goods have been purchased from one party and bills have been taken from another party and there is physical movement of goods - there is no adverse inference in so far as sales are concerned. If the assessee had not purchased goods, then how it has effected the sales - because the assessee is trading in pharmaceutical products which have batch Nos. embedded on it and it cannot be sold without performing the formalities of FDA and other relevant laws relating to the pharmaceutical business.
One thing is clear that assessee was actually purchasing goods and selling them. We have also gone through the audited statement of accounts. We find that the trading results are quantified and so also the closing stock. No adverse inferences have been drawn in these respect. The additions have been made purely on presumptions and surmises and the statement of third party i.e. M/s. Globe Pharma and others who may be providing accommodation bills but the trading account of the present assessee do not show anything which could suggest that the purchases are bogus as there is no adverse inferences in so far as sales are concerned. Without purchases there cannot be any sales. Considering all these facts in totality, we do not find any merit in respect of the additions made on account of alleged bogus purchases which are based merely on the statements backed by no cogent/demonstrative material evidences on record. - Decided in favour of assessee
Alleged 2% commission on account of getting accommodation bills - HELD THAT:- Since we have categorically held that the additions on account of bogus purchases cannot be sustained on the facts of the present case and accordingly we have deleted the same, there remains no reason why the addition on account of alleged 2% commission should be sustained. We, therefore direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of alleged 2% commission in entirety
Addition @5% of alleged cash discount which the assessee might have earned on making cash payment on account of purchases - HELD THAT:- Since the AO presumed that the assessee is making purchases on down payment, the assessee must have earned 5% discount on cash purchases. This entire presumption of facts in itself show that the entire addition has been made on conjectures/assumption. There is no demonstrative material evidence on record to show that the assessee has been made cash purchases and has earned cash discount. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the additions made on this account from all the assessment years under this appeal.
Addition on account of alleged peak cash credit for A.Y. 2010-11 - HELD THAT:- Elsewhere, we have categorically held that there is no demonstrative evidence to justify the additions made on account of bogus purchases/accommodation bills. We, therefore do not find any reason for upholding this addition. We, therefore direct the AO to delete the addition on this account.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1277
Unexplained cash deposit in the bank u/s 68 - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- Primary burden to prove the cash deposited in the bank account is on the assessee, which has not been discharged fully. She has allowed time to produce the purchaser to explain the transactions whether they have paid the amount to the assessee or not with evidence.
Hence sufficient time has been provided by the AO at the time of remand report even the assessee could not produce the purchaser to verify the transaction. The case laws relied upon by the Assessing Officer are squarely applicable on the assessee. The case law referred by the ld. AR is on Section 69 of the Act i.e. unexplained investment - we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the Assessing Officer to give one more chance to the assessee to explain the source of cash deposited as the burden lies on her. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) to the ld Assessing Officer. Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1276
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - non furnishing of the documents - assessments proceedings were completed meaningfully under provision of section 143(3) - HELD THAT:- Penalties levied u/s 271(1)(b) r.w.s. 142(1) for non furnishing of the documents, are not sustainable, when relevant assessments were completed meaningfully after due process of scrutiny under the provision of section 153C r.w.s 143(3)/144 of the Act. Considering the same, we find the present case the assessments were computes after scrutiny. Therefore, we find that these are not fit cases for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly ground raised by all these appeals are allowed. See Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. Assistant Director of Income [2007 (8) TMI 386 - ITAT DELHI-G] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1275
Revision u/s 263 - Deduction u/s 54F filled in revised return - AO's order except a reference about a letter of revised computation there is no discussion or observation about the merits of allow ability of the claim u/s 54F qua acquisition of house property - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that income tax assessment shall be fair and reasonable; the valid claim which are due to the assessee should be allowed to it.
In Goetz case [2006 (3) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT] , the claim of the assessee was refused to be entertained by the AO as no revised return was filed. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the AO may refuse to entertain the claim in the absence of revised return.
The appellate authorities i.e. ITAT can entertain the same as they have the vested power provided by the statute. Various CBDT circulars and other judicial precedents also enjoin a duty on the AO to consider lawful claims of the assessee though they may not have been claimed in the return.
The legal position which emerges from the above is to the extent that AO may refuse to entertain the claim by way of revised return. However, if this claim is valid then there is no bar on his power to allow any claim in terms of above judgments and CBDT circulars . In this case what we find is that the AO has allowed the claim without commenting on the merits of the claim of the assessee and there is no observation in this behalf and what facts were filed along with return of income.
AO should have made proper observation about the validity of the claim and eligibility of the assessee which is totally missing. Thus we are inclined to hold that the AO’s order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
CIT looking at the lack of inquiries, instead of disallowing the claim outright should have set aside the erroneous issue back to the file of the AO to properly conduct inquiries and decide the merits of the claim. Consequently, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT but we modify the order by a direction of setting aside the issue to the file of the AO to decide it afresh after conducting proper inquiries in accordance with law by providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1274
Allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(7)(a) - income earned out of “saloon” business activity of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The core activity of the hotel business include a hiring of rooms, halls, restaurant, bar etc. integral or core activity of the hotel business the saloon section also would have started along with hotel prior to the March, 2001. There are no facts on the records regarding the profile of the customers to the said saloon activities. It is not the case of the assessee that the users of the saloon are only the inmates of the hotel and the same is not open to the outsiders. In that case, where the saloon is not closed for the outsiders, the ‘saloon’ cannot be said to be the integral part of the hotel activity.
The same should be considered on indifferent business activity. We have also analyzed if the saloon activities i.e. hair dressing, hair dying, trading of the Lakme products this saloon by way of franchisee agreement are akin to the restaurant and bar sections of the said hotel business. In our opinion, the hair dressing/dying etc being related to cosmetics, shall not be equated to the food and drinking sections. These are necessities of the hotel business unlike saloon section which is merely desirable to hotel business. From this point of view also, the saloon section cannot be described having close nexus to the hotel activities. Therefore, the receipts from the ‘saloon’ section are not ‘derived from’ the hotel business.
Regarding learned counsel’s argument relating to relying on the cited orders of the Tribunal, we find the same is misplaced. It is not the case that the AO denied deduction in respect of the eligible hotel receipts of the assessee. What is denied only in respect of a source of income i.e. saloon activity. Therefore, cited judgments by the assessee’s counsel are misplaced. Thus, relevant arguments of the Ld. Counsel are dismissed.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that for above reasons also, the order of the Ld. CIT (A) fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. There is no issue raised before us by the assessee about the jurisdiction, qua the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Therefore, we are desist from entering into relevant debate - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1273
TDS u/s 195 - royalty payment - expenditure on imported software - India- USA DTAA or India- Singapore DTAA - HELD THAT:- The issue before the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of M/s Wipro Ltd [2010 (8) TMI 1053 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] was regarding allowability of expenditure of imported software whether capital in nature or revenue. There was no issue before the Hon’ble High Court whether the said expenditure was in the nature of royalty and only a passing reference was made by the Hon’ble High Court that the Commissioner rightly pointed out that it is not a royalty. In any case, when the prior decision in case of CIT Vs M/s Synopsis International Ltd [2013 (2) TMI 448 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and in the latest decision in the case of M/s Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 195 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] on the issue of payment being royalty then the contention raised by the learned AR is devoid of any merits. The Tribunal in case of M/s Synopsis International Ltd. (Supra) for the assessment year : 2006-07, has decided an identical issue against the assessee
-
2015 (4) TMI 1272
Deemed dividend u/s 2(22) (e) - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals), on going through the Agreement to Sell in question specifically found that part of the amount is stated as advance and that assessee is 1/3rd owner of the property in question. However, in the Agreement to Sell, assessee claimed to be owner of the property in question. In the Agreement to Sell, it is stated that assessee shall receive the balance amount at the time of execution and registration of the Sale Deed. However, till date, no Sale Deed is executed by assessee in favour of the assessee. Therefore, there is no question of making further payment to the assessee as advanced against the property in question. The other co-owner have never entered into any Agreement to Sell with the company. There was a difference in the property number also as noted by the CIT(Appeals). CIT(Appeals) was justified in holding that assessee's contention is after-thought and the entire transaction relate to sham transaction. The factual discrepancies have not been explained during the course of arguments before us as well. CIT(Appeals) was, therefore, justified in deciding the issue against the assessee.
No merit in the appeal of the assessee on these grounds. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the appeal of the assessee are dismissed.
Addition of mobile expenses, car depreciation for personal purposes - AO without pointing out as to which of the expenses were used for personal purposes, made disallowance of 1/5th of the expenditure on this issue - HELD THAT:- CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of the assessee. Assessee submitted that it is adhoc addition without pointing out any defect in the books of account of the assessee and in the alternate contention, submitted that addition is excessive in nature.
Considering the explanation of the assessee and findings of the authorities below, we are of the view it is adhoc addition in nature. However, considering assessee's status to be individual, personal use of these facilities i.e. mobile charges and car depreciation could be used for personal purposes, we modify the orders of authorities below and direct that 1/10th disallowance may be made out of this addition. In the result, this ground is partly allowed.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1271
Wealth tax assessment - properties not liable to be included in the computation of the wealth of the assessee - HELD THAT:- The Coordinate Bench in THE ACWT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR VERSUS SHRI NIRANJAN LAL DATA, [2012 (3) TMI 638 - ITAT JAIPUR] had considered all these properties in dispute for the purposes of wealth tax purposes and had held that all the six properties are not to be included in the wealth of the assessee by giving a detailed reasoning against each property.
In this order when facts and circumstances are identical, properties are same for wealth tax purposes and Coordinate Bench had decided this issue for many years in favour of assessee and even revenue has been filing appeals repeatedly before us. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of revenue on the basis of finding given by the Coordinate Bench in order above.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1269
Deduction u/s 80HHC - ITAT referring the issue to the file of A.O., to exclude 90% of “net” interest income excess of interest received or paid provided there is direct nexus between interest earned and paid after establishing the fact that all the interest income except the interest on income tax is forming part of the profits of the business and not income from other sources - HELD THAT:- Substantial questions of law stands covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. v/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax [ 2012 (2) TMI 101 - Supreme Court] in favour of the Respondent-Assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1268
Condonation of delay of 81 days in filing appeal - Jurisdiction - power of appellate Assistant Commissioner to condone delay beyond 60 days - section 47(1) of the Puducherry Value Added Tax Act, 2007 - HELD THAT:- Accepting the sufficient cause for delay supported with medical certificate, this court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and accordingly the same is set aside and remitted back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1267
Release of Reward Money - Representation of the Government - It is the contention of the petitioner that, in accordance with the Scheme framed by the State Government, that the petitioner was entitled to an amount of ₹ 9,02,50,000/- as a reward on the basis of the huge recovery of taxes made by the Government on the basis of the information given by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- If the citizens who acting on the representation made by the Government, give some valuable information and upon receipt of such information the tax recoveries are made and subsequently, the citizens are made to run from pillar to post for getting such reward, citizens would lose faith in the system and would not come forward to give the information. We have further observed that this would result in a loss to the Public Exchequer.
Though in the present case, Mr. Sonpal submits that entire recovery is not on account of the information given by the petitioner, but has fairly admitted that part of the recovery is on the basis of the information given by the petitioner - If that be so, the Respondent-Authorities can very well determine as to what percentage of the total recovery is attributable to the information received from the petitioner. If that determination is made, a determination as to how much amount the petitioner is entitled to in accordance with the Scheme framed by the Government can be easily made.
Stand over to 21st July, 2015.
-
2015 (4) TMI 1266
Non prosecution of appeal - appeal adjourned many times as none was present on behalf of the assessee - HELD THAT:- It can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd. [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT [1996 (3) TMI 92 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT]
It is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing then it may if so advised pray for a recall of this order and decisions on merits. The said order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.
........
|
9911796707
