|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 772 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 982
... ...
... ... ..... Garima Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Faraz Khan, Adv. in SLP 18045, Mr. Ajay Vohra, Adv. 18046 of 2009 & Ms. Kavita Jha, Adv. CC 10437/09 Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Adv. O R D E R In S.L.P.(C) Nos.16877/08, 22331/08 & 18118/09 Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. In S.L.P.(C) Nos.18045/09, 18046/09 & CC 10437/09 Leave granted. The Civil Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order, with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 981
... ...
... ... ..... een mentioned. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned only the amount of ₹ 1,91,644/-. However, he is of the opinion that no loan has been diverted for non- business purpose. 16. We further observe that Total Advance amounts to ₹ 1,07,87,166/- out of which advances recoverable in cash & kind is ₹ 1,03,29,558/-, deposits with various agencies is ₹ 2,65,964/- and Advance Income Tax and TDS is ₹ 1,91,644/-. We find from page 3 of the paper book submitted by the assessee that a sum of ₹ 81,61,867/- is reflected against M/s. ICL Ltd. VRS Account. This is a major item out of the amount of ₹ 1,03,29,558/-. The amount of ₹ 2,65,964/- are various deposits (page 4 of the paper book). In these circumstances, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the balance sheet and rework the disallowance if any. 17. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... pport from the ratio laid down in CIT v. J.H. Gotla; 156 ITR 323 (SC); Tara Devi Behl v. CIT; 218 ITR 541 (P&H). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.; 160 ITR 920 even went to the extent that ITO must allow set off even if it is not claimed by the assessee because a duty is cast upon the ITO to apply the relevant provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act for the purpose of determining the true figure of assessee’s taxable income and the consequential tax liability. Merely because the assessee fails to claim the benefit of set off cannot relieve the ITO of his duty to apply section 72 in an appropriate case. In view of these facts and judicial pronouncements, I have found no infirmity in the impugned order, consequently, this ground of the revenue also fails. 6. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of hearing on 1.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 979
... ...
... ... ..... n 2(5B) of the Act. 5. The next contention raised by senior counsel appearing for the appellant, which is alternative in nature, is that respondent may fall within sub-clause (vi), which covers ‘miscellaneous finance company’, which it will be, if it carries on exclusively, or almost exclusively, two or more classes of business referred to in the preceding sub-clauses. We have already noticed that the principal business of the respondent is chitty business which does not fall under sub-clauses (i) to (va) of section 2(5B). Further, only one of its activities falls within sub-clauses (i) to (va), which is hire purchase financing which being a subsidiary business, will not bring the respondent within the definition clause under section 2(5B). We, therefore, reject this contention of the appellant also. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed upholding the order of the Tribunal declaring that the respondent’s principal business is outside the scope of the Act.
-
2009 (12) TMI 978
... ...
... ... ..... 17.11.1994 and 6.9.1996 passed by the competent authority and the tribunal respectively was dismissed by the High Court on 16.2.2005 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10348/2005 was dismissed on 10.5.2005. This being the position, the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to review order dated 16.2.2005 and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... the Extra Royalty Collection Contracts. We are not concerned with such subsequent dispute. Further a wrong or untenable subsequent claim by the government cannot justify a wrong interpretation of Rule 61. The wording of Rule 61 is clear and unambiguous. The State has categorically contended before us that Rule 61 is inapplicable, as the said rule does not refer to Excess Royalty Collection Contracts'. If the State Government wrongly applied Rule 61 to demand higher rate of interest in regard to any subsequent period, it is open to the contractor to contend therein that Rule 61 is inapplicable to Excess Royalty Collection Contracts. 10. We, therefore allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, restore the decision of the trial court and uphold the demand for interest at 12 per annum in respect of the delayed payment of instalments relating to Excess Royalty Collection Contract', without applying the grace period of 15 days under Rule 61 of the Rules.
-
2009 (12) TMI 976
... ...
... ... ..... d observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the reliance by the assessee on the decisions in the case of Krishna Textiles(supra) and of the ITAT, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandhu Brothers(Chembur) is totally misplaced. 10.6. In view of the foregoing and especially in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Fakir Mohammed Haji Hassan(supra), we uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of ₹ 14,35,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure represented by the unaccounted stock and the disallowance of claim for set off of current and brought forward depreciation. Thus, ground no. 3 & 4 in the appeal are dismissed. 11. No additional ground has been raised in terms of residuary ground No.6, accordingly, the said ground is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 975
... ...
... ... ..... spondent's case, is not very convincing. Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, speaks of abatement of proceedings once an original application under the said Act was admitted. In this case, what is important is that by operation of Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the 1965 Rules, the order of suspension would not survive after the period of 90 days unless it was extended after review. Since admittedly the review had not been conducted within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days, since neither was there any review nor extension within the said period of 90 days. Subsequent review and extension, in our view, could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. 12. For the said reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and the Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 13. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 974
... ...
... ... ..... er. However, as per majority view, Assessing Officer is directed to allow the amount of bad debt reflected in the provision of ₹ 15,84,669/- in the subsequent assessment year, when the claim has been made by the assessee after writing off the bad debts in the books of accounts as irrecoverable. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow bad debts in subsequent years when the bad debts are actually written off in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly. 3. There was no difference between Accountant Member and Judicial Member in respect of other grounds/appeal for all the assessment years. In paragraph 87, of the proposed order of Judicial Member, there is a typographical error. In that paragraph, reference to paragraph 79, will be read as paragraph 77. In the result, for the statistical purposes, all the appeals of the revenue and assessee for are treated as partly allowed. This order is pronounced in open Court on Dated 18th December, 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 973
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of section 13(1)(b) wren to applicable because they were applicable in the case of the trust established for charitable purposes”. 5. On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the orders of the learned Director of Income Tax (Exemption). 6. On consideration of the above facts, we are of the view that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of Dawoodi Bohra Jamat and Others Vs. CIT (supra) which is confirmed by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT(A) Vs Dawoodi Bohra Jamat (supra). By following the same reason for decision, we set aside the impugned orders and direct the learned Director of Income Tax (Exemption) to grant registration to the assesses u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 7. As a result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. Order pronounced on 22nd December 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 972
... ...
... ... ..... g the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y.200304 and the Revisional Authority was satisfied that this ground for invoking powers u/s.263 of the Act was not legal and valid, with the result, the power u/s.263 of the Act was not invoked on that ground. 3. In the above view of the matter, the said question did not arise for consideration before the Tribunal. If this be so, the question sought to be raised by the appellant in this appeal does not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The submission, thus, made by Mr.Chatterjee does not hold water. 4. Mr.Chatterjee, so far as other questions sought to be raised in the appeal are concerned, fairly states that they have been dealt with by the Tribunal with which no fault can be found. 5. In the above view of the matter, none of the questions need consideration. The appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed for want of substantial question of law. Both the appeals, thus, stand dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... is case, the Department#s appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case and the issue would be dealt with in future in an appropriate case. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 970
Pre-deposit - Held that: - the Respondent shall be entitled to invoke and encash the aforesaid Bank Guarantee and on invoking the Bank Guarantee the ABN Amro Bank shall pay the aforesaid amount to the Respondent. On encashment of this Bank Guarantee, the condition of pre-deposit shall be treated as satisfied - petition allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 969
... ...
... ... ..... idered view, cannot be counted. The Tribunal in this regard held thus “3. We are of the view so long as the applicant could claim no lien on the post of Dy. Superintendent of Police in C.B.I., he could not claim any seniority in C.B.I. After he was absorbed on 9.11.1994, he could claim lien on that post and the earlier lien with U.P. Police would cease to exist from that date. Accordingly, we find no merit in the claim of the applicant for his seniority from 1977 as Dy. Superintendent of Police in C.B.I. Further, the claim also appears to be barred by time. If the applicant considered himself entitled to seniority from 1977, he ought to have come immediately after the date he was denied seniority by the respondents.” We find no infirmity in the aforesaid view of the Tribunal. 18. For the foregoing reasons, appeal deserves to be allowed and is allowed. The judgment dated March 8, 2002 impugned in the present appeal is set aside. Parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... not possible, Cenvat credit is refunded in cash. This appears to be the Scheme of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. With a view to achieve this object, the Central Government has specifically enacted Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the effect that the bar created by Rule 6(1) will not apply for goods exported. Considering the conscious and express provisions contained in Rule 6(6)(v) for exported goods, to deny the permission to export under bond and/or to levy 10 on the value of the exported goods under Rule 6(3)(b) on the footing that the printed books exempt and, therefore, attract Rule 6(1) would be incorrect and completely nullify and frustrate Rule 6(6)(v)." 9. Commissioner(Appeals) has also taken the same view. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. 10. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objection in support of Order-in-Appeal is also disposed of. Pronounced in Court on 17.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 967
... ...
... ... ..... the High Court for consideration by following dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. RAMARAJU SURGICAL COTTON MILLS reported in (2007) 294 ITR 328 and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SARAVANA SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED reported in (2007) 293 ITR 201. 4. In the light of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the above said decision, in respect of the three questions of law, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to re-consider the issue as directed by the Supreme Court in the above said judgment. As regards the 4th question of law, it is seen that the issue has been remitted back to the authorities to consider the issue afresh and when that being the position, from the order of the Tribunal, the said question of law does not arise for consideration. Hence, the said question of law is not answered. The tax case appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (12) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... ,937 985,327 985,327 Do 12,372,900 253,644 253,644 SC Contractors 25,057,735 12,372,900 12,684,835 260,039 260,093 Do 12,684,838 44,330,989 897,680 246,194 233,841 B Sureshbabu Jayasri tubewells & others, Jaipur 12,826,446 11,528,783 6,700,000 204,605,705 4,267,948 3,850,303 184,629,945 71,495,583 16. Hence in the interest of justice, the statement needs to be re-examined with reference to the books of account of the assessee to see whether the mobilization advance accounted in the books of account of the assessee,, there after it was paid to sub contractors to carry out the work. If it is actually received by the assessee and thereafter it was paid to the sub contractors after retaining his commission, in such circumstances the assessee is entitled for credit of TDS on this account. Hence we set aside the issue to the file of CIT(A) to examine this issue afresh. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 4.12. 2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... unsel appearing on behalf of the appellant seeks leave to withdraw these appeals with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be available to the appellant against the order impugned in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for subject to just exceptions including limitation.
-
2009 (12) TMI 964
TDS u/s 194A - Motor Accidents Claims - deduction at source of income tax payable on the interest received by the claimant on the compensation - HELD THAT:- The present claim petition was filed some time in the year 2001 and we see no reason why the amount that is sought to be withdrawn today, should be taken to have accrued all at once on the passing of the award and not year to year. Accordingly, we direct that the following procedure as laid down in the case of Hansaguri [2006 (10) TMI 383 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] shall be followed in the present case and in all the similar cases arising in future before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Order Accordingly. The Civil application stands disposed of.
-
2009 (12) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... ,73,680/- is too deleted.” 7. We have considered the rival contentions and found that assessee’s claim on account of discount and rebate pertains to bills raised on behalf of Siti Cable Network Limited. During the year, certain credit notes were issued by Siti Cable to the assessee’s customers against whom billing was raised by the assessee company. Accordingly, these amounts were received less by the assessee company. This was in the nature of rebate and discount claimed by the assessee. Full details of such rebate were mentioned in the books of account and AO has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in the accounts, accordingly no adverse inference can be drawn against these expenses claimed under the head rebate and discount. The finding of CIT(A) remained uncontroverted, we therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the same. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st December, 2009.
........
|
