|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1167 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1096
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - proceedings of Director of Enforcement - proceeds of crime - entitlement to take possession of the properties - provisional orders of attachment - offences u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 - HELD THAT:- all the contentions of the writ petitioners are bound to fail, except the contention relating to the entitlement of the respondents to take possession of the properties immediately after the orders of the Adjudicating Authority. While the orders of attachment passed by the Deputy Director and the orders of confirmation passed by the Adjudicating Authority are liable to be upheld, the direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Director to take possession of the properties alone is liable to be set aside.
the writ petitions are allowed to a limited extent, confirming all other portions of the impugned orders of the Deputy Director and the Adjudicating Authority, except the portion relating to actual physical possession. The respondents are directed to put the petitioners back into possession of the properties. However, the legal and constructive possession of the properties shall be deemed to remain with the Deputy Director/Director and the petitioners cannot alienate, encumber or part with possession of the properties until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings against the accused and until the conclusion of the confiscation proceedings that may be taken up after the decision of the Criminal Courts. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1095
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the domestic and import purchases are liable for tax deduction u/s 194C.
2. Whether the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence.
3. Whether TDS is deductible u/s 194J for payments made outside India.
4. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source.
Summary:
Issue 1: Tax Deduction u/s 194C on Domestic and Import Purchases
The primary issue was whether the domestic purchase of traded goods worth Rs. 27.39 crores and purchases through import worth Rs. 23.03 crores are liable for tax deduction u/s 194C. The CIT(A) concluded that these transactions were purely purchases and not contracts for work, thus not liable for TDS u/s 194C. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in BDA Ltd. vs. ITO (TDS) and other relevant cases. The Tribunal endorsed this view, stating that the ITO had confused job work contracts with trading purchases and that TDS was not deductible on these transactions.
Issue 2: Violation of Rule 46A by CIT(A)
The department contended that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. However, the Tribunal found that all details were already before the ITO, as evidenced by submissions dated 06.10.2008, 14.10.2008, and 14.11.2008. Thus, the Tribunal rejected this ground, finding no justification for the department's claim.
Issue 3: TDS u/s 194J for Payments Made Outside India
The department argued that TDS should have been deducted u/s 194J for payments made outside India. The Tribunal found that section 194J applies only to payments made to residents, and section 195(1) was also not applicable as the payments did not result in taxable income in India. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in G.E. India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. vs CIT, which clarified that payments not resulting in taxable income in India do not require TDS. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the department's grounds.
Issue 4: Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i)
The department disputed the relief allowed by the CIT(A) by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 56,47,12,860/- u/s 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that TDS provisions were not applicable to the payments for trading purchases, professional fees, freight, and sales promotion expenses. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s decision was based on facts and endorsed it, deleting the disallowance sought by the AO.
Conclusion:
Both appeals filed by the department in ITA No. 2824/Mum/2010 and ITA No. 5869/Mum/2010 were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, finding no merit in the department's grounds. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25.07.2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1094
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) for capital expenditure in research and development.
Summary:
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the ld CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06, contending that the disallowance of weighted deduction u/s.35(2AB) for capital expenditure in research and development was erroneous due to the lack of approval from the Secretary, DSIR in Form 3CM.
During the hearing, the appellant's representative submitted that the appellant had applied for recognition of in-house R&D units to the DSIR, providing relevant documents. It was highlighted that the appellant had received recognition from DSIR, valid until 31.3.2007, with a renewal approved until 31.3.2009. The approval in Form 3CM was pending, and efforts were ongoing to obtain it. Reference was made to the approval granted to the appellant's sister concern under section 35(2AB) by DSIR. The appellant requested the matter to be remanded to the AO for consideration based on the expected approval from DSIR. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this course of action.
Considering the submissions and the appellant's efforts to secure approval from DSIR for in-house R&D facility, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter to the AO. The direction was given that if the appellant obtains approval from DSIR, the claim for deduction u/s.35(2AB) should be allowed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant were upheld, and the appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 18th July 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1093
Issues Involved:
1. Obligation to deduct tax at source on medical reimbursements.
2. Validity of treating the assessee as "Assessee in default" u/s 201(1) and levying interest u/s 201(1A).
3. Opportunity of being heard for the Assessing Officer (AO) before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
4. Consideration of employee returns and tax compliance.
Summary:
1. Obligation to Deduct Tax at Source on Medical Reimbursements:
The primary issue was whether the assessee was obligated to deduct tax at source on medical reimbursements up to Rs. 15,000 paid to its employees. Section 192(1) of the Act mandates that any person responsible for paying income chargeable under the head "salaries" must deduct tax at source at the time of payment. The AO argued that the assessee should have deducted tax on the medical reimbursements as they were paid monthly and not as actual reimbursements. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that medical reimbursements up to Rs. 15,000 per annum, if supported by bills, are exempt u/s 17(2) proviso (v) and need not be considered as part of "salary" for TDS purposes.
2. Validity of Treating the Assessee as "Assessee in Default" u/s 201(1) and Levying Interest u/s 201(1A):
The AO treated the assessee as an "Assessee in default" u/s 201(1) for not deducting tax on the medical reimbursements and levied interest u/s 201(1A). The CIT(A) canceled this order, relying on CBDT Circular No. 603 dated 6.6.1991, which states that medical reimbursements up to Rs. 15,000 are not to be included in taxable salary if supported by bills. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the assessee made a bona fide estimate of the taxable salary and complied with the statutory obligations under section 192.
3. Opportunity of Being Heard for the AO Before CIT(A):
The revenue contended that the CIT(A) did not provide the AO an opportunity of being heard as required u/s 250(1) and 250(2). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had only called for a breakup of figures regarding medical reimbursements, which were the same figures used by the AO in his order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed this ground of appeal.
4. Consideration of Employee Returns and Tax Compliance:
Arguments were made that employees had filed their returns and offered the income under the head salaries, thus no order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) should be passed against the assessee. The Tribunal noted that this assertion had not been examined by the AO or CIT(A) and did not delve into this argument further.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the CIT(A)'s order that the assessee was not an "Assessee in default" for not deducting tax on medical reimbursements up to Rs. 15,000, provided they were supported by bills. The appeal for the assessment year 2009-10 on the order u/s 154 was also dismissed as it became infructuous. The order was pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2013.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1092
Whether the absence of a seat reserved for the depositors in the Managing committee under the bye-law of the Sreekandamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Society), the Election Commission can provide it as a statutory requirement by operation of Section 28(1C) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (Act) - HELD THAT:- Court feel procedural compliance is required by the Registrar to re-classify the Society and issue fresh certificate under the category Primary Credit Society, the Managing committee of which compulsory requires one representative from the depositor's constituency. It is for the Registrar to direct the Society to first suitably amend the bye laws particularly object clause, for re-classifying it as a Primary Credit Society with corresponding changes and constitution of the Managing Committee by providing a seat for depositors quota in terms of Section 28(1C) of the Act. This shall be done at the earliest. However, we make it clear that since Note (ii) of Rule 15 provides only prospective effect for re-classification we make it clear that except for the election upheld by us the Registrar's order on re-classification will have prospective effect in terms of Note (ii) of Rule 15 as stated above. It is for him to consider the transactions already entered by the Society particularly in regard to rate of interest on deposits accepted and loans advanced and make arrangements without retrospective effect on transactions adversely affecting depositors and borrowers. Similarly if RBI sanction is required under the Banking Regulation Act, Registrar will give sufficient time to the Society to take approval from RBI which will apply for application for future operations.
Writ appeals are allowed vacating the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge and by disposing of writ petitions as above. We feel the Registrar should arrange for a close scrutiny of the operations of all the Societies in the State and consider whether the societies function under the bye-laws and under the Act and if not, to take corrective measures including de-classification as required in this case.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1091
Issues involved: Assessment of total income u/s 143(3) for AY 2008-09, difference in valuation of closing stock, applicability of section 43B for excise duty, addition of sales commissions paid to non-resident agents.
Assessment of total income: The assessee, engaged in manufacturing electronic equipment, filed return for AY 2008-09 showing income of Rs. 4,67,42,288. AO assessed total income at Rs. 5,87,15,732, noting a difference of Rs. 1,03,90,361 in closing stock valuation due to exclusion of excise duties.
Valuation of closing stock: AO added the difference in closing stock valuation, as per books, to the total income. Assessee contended that excise duties were not accounted for in stock valuation. CIT(A) directed recasting of stock accounts to include excise duties as per section 43B, allowing deduction only on actual payment.
Applicability of section 43B: Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s order, citing section 43B which allows deduction for expenses only on actual payment basis. Confirmed that excise duty component in sales should be debited only to the extent actually paid to the Government.
Sales commissions to non-resident agents: CIT(A) ruled that tax deduction at source (TDS) was not applicable on commissions paid to non-resident agents based on precedent. Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal, following precedent decisions favoring the assessee.
Conclusion: Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal, upholding CIT(A)'s orders on both issues related to stock valuation and sales commissions to non-resident agents, based on legal provisions and precedents.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1090
The Supreme Court of India ordered a three-week delay for a special leave petition to allow the assessee to submit an additional affidavit. The Court requested information on the conversion factor used by the assessee for converting the number of cakes into weight and for the last three years.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1089
Issues involved: Determination of whether membership fees and entrance fees collected by the assessee are capital receipts or revenue receipts for the purpose of taxation.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai heard two appeals by the assessee Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. against the orders of the Ld CIT (A), Thane. The assessee contended that the receipts collected at the time of admission to the membership of the Bank were one-time receipts credited to the capital account, thus constituting capital receipts and not income. The Assessing Officer taxed the membership and entrance fees as revenue receipts, considering them part of normal banking activity. The CIT (A) upheld this view without examining the nature of the amounts. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the amounts collected compared to the bye-law requirements and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed assessment of the nature of the receipts to determine their classification as capital or revenue, setting aside the previous orders for reconsideration based on facts and law.
In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue of the nature of the membership and entrance fees was remitted to the AO for further examination and clarification.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1088
Period of limitation for initiation of suit. - Administrator had granted right to construct/develop the suit land - Sale to nominee or 3rd party - Breach of fiduciary duty - validity of sale made.
HELD THAT:- We have adverted to some of these events because they would suggest prima facie, though in fairly unmistakable terms, that parties were in dispute over the transactions which Ferani entered into right. The record before the Court would, prima facie, indicate that from time to time the administrator raised objections to those transactions and was confronted with the defence by Ferani that the transactions accorded with the prevailing market price and were genuine transactions. In this background, the fact that the administrator chose to file the suit only in May 2008 assumes significance. Equities have intervened in the meantime. It has been stated before the Court on behalf of Ferani that in the interregnum steps have been taken for the removal of encroachment and for carrying out the work of development. Third party rights have intervened.
Even after the suit was instituted on 13 May 2008, an application for ad interim relief was moved before the Learned Single Judge only on 3 March 2010. The only explanation which the administrator had for the delay in moving an application for ad interim relief is that the Sub Registrar and the Municipal Corporation had been moved not to register documents or, as the case may be, to grant building permission and it was only in October / December 2009 that the Municipal Corporation informed him that absent any injunction, it would proceed with permissions.
Admittedly, in the meantime, the work under the project was continuing. These are circumstances which must weigh with the Court in declining to grant a stay on construction at the ad interim stage. The order which the Learned Single Judge passed precludes the sale of any unit whatsoever without the consent of the parties. Parties are in dispute and an order of the Court restricting the sale of constructed premises only with the consent of the parties would virtually bring the entirety of the project to a stand still. The entitlement of the administrator under the agreement dated 2 January 1995 is to the receipt of a share in the gross total consideration equivalent to 12%. The grant of injunctive relief restraining Ferani from selling its units would therefore neither be in accordance with the equities of the situation nor the mutual rights and obligations of the parties.
Accordingly, the Appeals shall stand disposed of in terms of the directions. A Commissioner is appointed for recording evidence.
Matter restored back before Single Member Bench with directions and questions framed to be decided.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1087
Issues involved: Appeal against cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance u/s 14A and u/s 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1 - Disallowance u/s 14A:
The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, disallowing an amount u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and a penalty was imposed. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, citing relevant case laws. The ITAT set aside the additions, leading to the cancellation of the penalty as per legal precedents. The appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision was dismissed, and the AO was directed to re-adjudicate the matter.
Issue 2 - Disallowance u/s 94(7):
An amount was disallowed u/s 94(7) of the Act, and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, and the ITAT's decision in the quantum appeal led to the cancellation of the penalty as the additions were set aside. Legal precedents were cited to support the decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the AO was directed to re-adjudicate the matter.
General Observations:
The appeal was dismissed as the additions forming the basis of the penalty were set aside by the ITAT, rendering the penalty unsustainable. The legal principles established by various court decisions were applied to support the cancellation of the penalty. No additional grounds were raised, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1086
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of "Three Star" hotels from eligibility for bar licenses.
2. Introduction of distance restrictions for new bar licenses to four-star and above hotels.
3. Allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
4. Impact on tourism promotion and the State's liquor policy.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of "Three Star" Hotels from Eligibility for Bar Licenses
The appellants/petitioners, who are star hotels with categorization above "Three Star," challenged the amendment introduced by SRO No. 779/2011 dated 09/12/2011, which deleted "Three Star" from the category of hotels entitled to bar licenses under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. They argued that this amendment was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and against the objective of tourism promotion.
The court found that the primary objective of Rule 13(3) is to promote tourism by granting bar licenses to star hotels, which are major players in the tourism industry. The deletion of "Three Star" hotels from eligibility for bar licenses does not achieve the objective of reducing alcohol consumption and undermines the promotion of tourism. The court held that the amendment was discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and declared it unconstitutional.
Issue 2: Introduction of Distance Restrictions for New Bar Licenses to Four-Star and Above Hotels
The appellants/petitioners also challenged the introduction of sub-rule (3E) to Rule 13 by SRO No. 202/2012 dated 27-03-2012, which prohibited the grant of new FL-3 licenses to hotels within a radius of 3 Kms in Grama Panchayats and 1 Km in Municipal/Corporation limits from another hotel/restaurant with an FL-3 license. They argued that this amendment was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14.
The court found that the distance rule introduced by sub-rule (3E) was arbitrary and created a monopoly for existing hotels, preventing the construction of new hotels in major tourism centers. The court held that this amendment was discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and declared it unconstitutional.
Issue 3: Allegations of Arbitrariness, Discrimination, and Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
The court considered the appellants/petitioners' allegations of arbitrariness, discrimination, and violation of Article 14. It noted that the amendments discriminated between existing hotels with bar licenses and new hotels seeking licenses, without any rational basis. The court held that the amendments were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Issue 4: Impact on Tourism Promotion and the State's Liquor Policy
The court examined the impact of the amendments on tourism promotion and the State's liquor policy. It found that the amendments undermined the objective of promoting tourism by denying bar licenses to new three-star hotels and imposing distance restrictions on new four-star and above hotels. The court held that the amendments were inconsistent with the State's tourism policy and the objective of Rule 13(3).
Conclusion:
The court declared the deletion of "Three Star" hotels from Rule 13(3) by SRO No. 779/2011 and the introduction of sub-rule (3E) to Rule 13 by SRO No. 202/2012 as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court vacated the impugned orders and directed the respondents to consider and grant FL-3 licenses to all eligible hotels with three-star and above and heritage classification based on the unamended rules.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1084
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A).
Summary:
Issue 1: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin pertained to the condonation of a 100-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The assessee, engaged in civil construction business, faced financial difficulties due to non-payment of bills by customers, resulting in a loan of Rs. 7 crores becoming a non-performing asset. Legal proceedings with banks and government departments further hindered the assessee's ability to file the appeal in time.
The ld. representative for the assessee argued that the delay was beyond the assessee's control, citing financial crises and multiple litigations as reasons for the delay. On the other hand, the ld. DR contended that there was no reasonable cause for the delay, emphasizing that court proceedings were not sufficient grounds for missing the filing deadline.
After considering both sides' submissions and reviewing the material on record, the Tribunal acknowledged the 100-day delay but found that the financial crisis faced by the assessee was a reasonable cause for missing the deadline. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, citing a relevant judgment. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the Commissioner of Income-tax(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for further consideration on its merits.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, granting relief in the matter of the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(A).
-
2012 (7) TMI 1083
Issues involved: The judgment deals with the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on ad-hoc disallowances.
Summary:
Issue 1: Confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on ad-hoc disallowances
The assessee, engaged in textile goods business, filed a return at a loss. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss claimed, resulting in nil income assessment. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the penalty was imposed on various ad-hoc disallowances totaling Rs. 97,16,578. The assessee did not furnish any explanation during the penalty proceedings.
Issue 2: Assessee's defense and Commissioner's decision
The assessee argued that due to business problems, necessary information couldn't be provided to the Assessing Officer. The penalty was contested on the grounds that all additions were ad-hoc and not challenged, hence penalty for concealment cannot be justified. The Commissioner upheld the penalty based on the presumption that non-filing of details implies incorrect income particulars.
Issue 3: Tribunal's decision
The Tribunal noted that major disallowances were ad-hoc, and the details were available in audited accounts. As the additions were not found to be bogus and were based on audited evidence, the penalty for concealment of income was deemed unjustified. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled that making incorrect claims does not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Order pronounced on 25th July 2012 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1082
Issues Involved:
1. Compassionate appointment eligibility and delay in application.
2. Validity of appointment process and adherence to statutory rules.
3. Impact of marriage and change in family status on compassionate appointment.
4. Procedural requirements for compassionate appointment applications.
Summary:
1. Compassionate Appointment Eligibility and Delay in Application:
The Supreme Court addressed the eligibility and delay in applications for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 5, the application was made within the permissible period stipulated by the scheme, hence the High Court's decision to allow the appointment was upheld. However, in the case of Respondent No. 1, who applied 12 years after attaining majority, the application was deemed belated and the High Court's decision to grant the appointment was reversed. Similarly, in the case of Respondent No. 4, the application was within the prescribed time but not in the proper format, which was not considered a valid ground for rejection.
2. Validity of Appointment Process and Adherence to Statutory Rules:
The Court emphasized that appointments should comply with statutory rules and government orders. For instance, the appointment of the Appellant in preference to Respondent No. 5 was set aside due to lack of a fair and competitive selection process. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that Respondent No. 5 was entitled to the appointment as per the statutory rules and the compassionate appointment scheme.
3. Impact of Marriage and Change in Family Status on Compassionate Appointment:
The Court considered the impact of marriage and change in family status on the eligibility for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 1, who had married and settled with her husband, the Court found that the delay of 14 years in applying for the appointment, along with her changed family status, disqualified her from being considered for compassionate appointment. The High Court's decision to grant the appointment was reversed.
4. Procedural Requirements for Compassionate Appointment Applications:
The Court highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in filing applications for compassionate appointments. In the case of Respondent No. 4, the initial application was not in the prescribed format, but the Manager's acknowledgment and subsequent actions indicated that the format was not a critical issue. The Court ruled that the application should not be rejected solely on the basis of format if it substantially conveyed the request for appointment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing various issues related to compassionate appointments, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory rules, timely applications, and consideration of family status changes. The appeals were disposed of with specific directions based on the merits of each case.
Final Orders:
1. Civil Appeal No. 7556 of 2008: Dismissed.
2. Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2009: Allowed; High Court's order set aside.
3. Civil Appeal No. 33421 of 2009: Dismissed.
4. Civil Appeals Nos. 31908 of 2010 and 6607-08 of 2011: Allowed; High Court's orders set aside.
5. Civil Appeal No. 4467 of 2010: Dismissed.
The parties were directed to bear their own costs in all the appeals.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1081
Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge by the revenue against the order of the Ld CIT(A) regarding the exemption u/s. 54F for the A.Y. 2003-04.
Exemption u/s. 54F:
The assessee, an individual, declared Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of land and claimed exemption u/s. 54F for the entire capital gain. The A.O. disputed the claim as the land was in the name of the assessee's son. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the claim based on the appellant's contribution to the construction of the residential house. The Ld CIT(A) referred to the decision in CIT Vs. P.R. Seshadri and held that the appellant was entitled to the exemption u/s. 54F. The revenue appealed against this decision.
Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that despite the property being in the son's name, the appellant had made significant contributions to the construction of the residential house. The appellant relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of P.R. Seshadri to support the claim for exemption u/s. 54F.
Revenue's Argument:
The Ld. D.R. contended that the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prakash v/s ITO had settled the law regarding ownership for claiming exemption u/s. 54F. The revenue argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate ownership or title in the property of the son.
Decision:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and the written submissions. It noted that the appellant had not shown clear ownership or title in the property despite contributions to the construction. Referring to the legal principles established in the case of Prakash v/s. ITO, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not meet the ownership requirements for claiming exemption u/s. 54F. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the revenue's appeal and reversed the order of the Ld CIT(A).
The judgment was pronounced on 25th July 2012 by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1080
The Gujarat High Court heard a case regarding the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) and its inclusion in the computation of Brand rate of Drawback. The court formulated substantial questions of law related to the nature of NCCD as a duty of Customs and the appeal process under the Customs Act, 1962. The court issued notice to the respondents for further proceedings.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1079
The High Court of Allahabad heard a case regarding power purchase rates and minimum consumption guarantee scheme. The court admitted the case for further consideration and directed the parties to file their respective Paper-Books within six weeks for a future hearing.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1078
Turnover Tax - determination of compounded rate of tax - comparable parameters - Section 7 of the KGST Act - HELD THAT:- the tax paid would necessarily include the tax assessed and the payment of tax at compound rate in Section 7 applicable to the case of the assessee would definitely enable the Assessing officer to arrive the highest turnover tax payable for any of the previous three consecutive years; taking into account the assessed tax, as modified in appeal, revision or other proceedings. The question raised by the assessee in STRs 59 & 61 of 2012, has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, since the assessment of the earlier year 2008-09 is remanded, the determination of the highest turnover tax for the purpose of granting facility of payment of tax at compound rates would also depend on such assessment proceedings directed to be de-novo completed. In the above circumstance, we answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, but all the same remand the assessment to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in accordance with law.
The Sales Tax Revisions are ordered as above.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1077
Issues involved: Appeal against transfer pricing adjustment for assessment year 2006-07.
i) Explanation for impugned addition to Arms Length Price (ALP): The appellant contended that the assessing authority should have accepted the explanation and refrained from making the addition to ALP as determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and approved by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 92CA of the Act.
ii) Jurisdiction of TPO and principles of natural justice: The appellant argued that the reference to TPO was without jurisdiction and against principles of natural justice as no opportunity was given prior to the reference, which was a violation of law, facts, and circumstances.
iii) Error in upholding reference to TPO: The appellant claimed that the DRP erred in upholding the reference to TPO, indicating a procedural flaw in the assessment process.
iv) Comparable cases and determination of ALP: The appellant contended that the comparable cases cited by the TPO were uncomparable, leading to contradictory reasoning and an unreasonable difference in ALP, which should have been deleted.
v) Method for determination of ALP: The assessing authority and DRP were criticized for not following the method for determining ALP as adopted by the appellant and approved by the statute.
vi) Consideration of objections and comparable cases: The TPO and DRP were urged to consider the objections raised by the appellant, along with the comparable cases and case law provided, before determining the difference in ALP for making additions to the declared income.
vii) Excessive, arbitrary additions: The appellant argued that the additions were excessive, arbitrary, and unreasonable, requesting a substantial reduction in the same.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidences crucial for determining ALP and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, ensuring natural justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to redecide the issue of interest u/s 234D of the IT Act in conjunction with the transfer pricing issue. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of fair assessment procedures and compliance with legal principles.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1076
The Gujarat High Court issued an oral order on a case, with Mr. Rajesh H. Shukla as the judge. The respondent, State of Gujarat, waived service of notice. Ad interim relief was granted in terms of Para No.15c until the next hearing on 7th August 2012.
........
|
9911796707
