|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 709 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... he Act are satisfied. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution it is evident that the appellant demanded the money from the contractor as he had passed his bills. There is further evidence that when the contractor went along with the shadow-witness on the date told by the appellant for payment of the bribe, appellant asked the shadow-witness to leave the chamber and thereafter the demand for payment of illegal gratification was made and paid. The positive sodium carbonate test vis- -vis the fingers and right trousers pocket of the appellant go to show that he voluntarily accepted the bribe. Thus there is evidence of demand of illegal gratification and the voluntary acceptance thereof. 16. All the submissions made on behalf of the appellant being devoid of any substance, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. Appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender to serve out the remainder of the sentence.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... lected any evidence on record or any expert opinion of the concerned Ministry, whether the Readymade Hosiery Product used in the second certificate would include Readymade Garments also. Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Council also could not show any material or evidence in this regard. 22. The hard reality of the case is that the Respondent has been fighting for the last 25 years and the Council has suggested to delete the name of the Respondent for a period of six months. We are of the considered opinion that keeping the long and multiple litigations into view and the age of the Respondent, we feel it appropriate not to confirm the six months' punishment and that is due to the suffrage caused by the time spent in litigation. 23. Accordingly, the present reference in question is dismissed with no order as to costs. Consequently, the RSA No. 180/2004 filed by the Respondent herein has now become infructuous and stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... as income from other sources or income from business and if under the latter head whether 90% thereof to be excluded under Explanation-(baa) to Sec. 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. It is how these matters are coming before us for the third time. 6. When the appeals were called on for hearing, the assessee s Counsel filed petitions seeking adjournment on the ground that he is out of station in connection with some professional work. No other details are available in the adjournment petitions. We are not convinced on the bona fide of the reason stated in the adjournment petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. These two appeals are very old appeals filed years back in 2002. In spite of notice after notice, the assessee is not appearing and presenting the case as required under law. In the fact and circumstances, these two appeals are dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. Order pronounced in the open Court on Monday the 22nd of November, 2010 at Chennai.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... tion, defects had been recorded by the Registry on 13.12.2005 and the Petition came to be returned on the following day. These Objections were refiled on 07.04.2008. The Learned Single Judge has noted that several months had elapsed even after the issuance of Warrants of Attachment. The Learned Single Judge correctly opined that Objections were required to be filed within three months of the receipt of a signed copy of the Award and that thereafter the Court possessed power to condone delay limited only to thirty days. The matter could have been ended there but nevertheless the learned Single Judge has found that sufficient cause for condoning the delay has not been shown. It is evident that the learned Single Judge was greatly influenced by the fact that several months had elapsed even after the issuance of Warrants of Attachment. We find no perversity in the exercise of discretion. 49. The Appeal is without merit and is dismissed. CM Nos.11595/09 5016/10 are also dismissed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... ded as income of the appellant as held by ITAT Mumbai in the decision cited above. Thus the expenses debited to profit and loss account are required to be reduced by Rs. 6,00,000/-. Respectfully following the above decision of the ITAT, the AO is directed to reduce the expenses by Rs. 6,00,000/- and reduce corresponding closing stock of work in progress to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/-. 3. We have heard rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record. We see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) inasmuch as the assessee has not claimed any revenue expenditure as no P L A/c is prepared. The assessee capitalized this expenditure and claimed as work in progress stock. In any case the TDS has been deducted in the next financial year. Since no expenditure has been claimed in this year, the amount cannot be disallowed u/s 40a(ia). We uphold the order of CIT(A). 4. In the result, revenue s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 8-11-2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1130
... ...
... ... ..... espondent. 17. Mr. Taneja, however, argues that the case would be covered by entry 29 of Schedule-I, Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 which gives the nomenclature of aerated drinks and, therefore, the tax payable is 10%. However, Mr. Sangal has drawn out attention to the impugned order of the Tribunal and submits that the issue did not relate to aerated water . He submitted that there is a settled distinction between the aerated water on the one hand and the aerated drinks on the other hand. He has also drawn out attention to the Notification dated 11.4.1996 vide which Schedule I was amended by adding certain entries after item no. 26. Item No. 37 reads as under - squash, juices, syrups and aerated water when showed in a packet containing He thus points out that there is a specific entry of aerated water and this entry attracts tax @ 7 %. We do not find any merit in the contention of Mr. Taneja. 18. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1129
... ...
... ... ..... (4). So, there cannot be any development of any road without its construction. Adding additional facility cannot be said that an infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to Section 80IA(4). 5. In view of the above, we hold that the assessee did not develop any infrastructural facility in the nature of road as defined in Explanation to sub-section (4) to 80 IA of Income Tax and therefore, the action of the A.O denying the deduction to assessee under 80 IA need no interference from our side. We uphold the same. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06. Facts being similar and following the same reasonings, the rejection of claim u/s. 80IA(4) need no interference from our side.” 3. In view of the above covered nature of the issue, we are of the opinion that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open Court on 30th November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 82. At the time of the hearing, the Learned Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act was consequential. Therefore, we dismiss this ground of the appeal. 83. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2001-02 is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2002-03 is partly allowed for statistical purpose, in the Assessment Year 2003-04 is dismissed and in Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The assessee’s cross objection in Assessment Year 2001-02 is partly allowed for statistical purposes, the appeal in Assessment Year 2002-03 is partly allowed in the manner indicated above and in the Assessment Year 2004-05 is partly allowed in the manner indicated above. Order signed, dated and pronounced in the Court on 19th day of November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1127
... ...
... ... ..... found to be in order. Vehicle expense was related to business purposes for which disallowance were deleted. The learned CIT(A) accordingly restricted the addition to Rs.41,190/-. On consideration of the rival submissions, we do not find it to be a fit case for interference. The learned CIT(A) on proper appreciation of the facts and material on record rightly restricted the addition to the above amount because on several heads expenses were not found to be personal in nature because they were connected with the business activities of the assessee. In the absence of any material adverse in nature against the assessee on record, we do not find it to be fit to interfere in the order of the learned CIT(A). We confirm his findings and dismiss this ground of appeal of the revenue. In the result, ground No.2 of the appeal of the revenue is also dismissed. 10. No other point is argued or pressed. 11. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 12-11-2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... me is from business the remuneration paid to the partners has to be deducted while tile profit and loss. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that on the facts the Revenue has no case on the merits. So far as the question of law is concerned, we have to answer the same in favour of the Revenue. Hence, these appeals deserve to be dismissed by upholding the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and they are dismissed.” Thus once it is held that unaccounted assets declared as income during survey is to be assessed under the head business, then assessee is entitled to claim higher amount of remuneration to partners as per limit prescribed under section 40(b).Since there is no dispute over the calculation, we decline to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A) in granting higher remuneration to the partners. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 30.11.10.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... tion which is the requirement under section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act. The order of the first respondent, in rejecting the petitioners application for the assessment year 2009-10 on the ground that their objects were non-educational, cannot be faulted. Even if the petitioners contention that registration under A. P. Act 30 of 1987 is not a condition precedent, in view of the judgment of this court in New Noble Educational Society v. Chief CIT (2011) 334 ITR 303 (AP) (judgment in W. P. No. 21248 of 2010 and batch dated 11-11-2010), is to be accepted, since the object of "eradicating unemployment" can neither be said to be integrally connected with or as being ancillary to, the object of providing education, the order of the first respondent in rejecting the petitioners application for exemption under section 10(23C)(vi) for the assessment year 2009-10 cannot be faulted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1124
... ...
... ... ..... such offences are held to be cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Magistrate of the first class. 11. Therefore, the High Court ought to have considered this provision which makes the first information report acceptable by the police in the sense that the police could investigate into the matter and if found guilty could have also filed a report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure. before the Court on which the Court could have taken the cognizance of the offence. 12. Be that as it may, since the High Court has not considered both these provisions, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court holding that the first information report filed in the present case was liable to be investigated and a police report on that basis can be entertained by the criminal court by taking cognizance of the same. In that view, we allow this appeal and dismiss the petition filed before the High Court by Respondent No. 1 under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1123
... ...
... ... ..... urt of Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad is already heavily over-burdened, in our opinion, that is again not a ground for transfer of trial. If at all the said Court is over burdened, it will be open to the High Court to request the State Government to create another Court of a Special Judge at Ghaziabad and we are confident that having regard to the nature of the case and the serious concern already shown by the State Government by issuing Notification dated 10th September 2008 promptly and expeditiously, the State Government will take appropriate steps in that behalf so that the guilty are brought to book at the earliest not only in this case but in other sensitive trials, stated to be pending in that Court, as well. 27. For the afore-stated reasons, as at present, we do not find any merit in the request of the CBI for transfer of the trial from Ghaziabad to any other place. Accordingly, the prayer is declined. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... assessment order 2000-01 Hon’ble ITAT had allowed payment of ESIC to Government Account within grace period of 5 days, therefore, following the decision of the ITAT i.e. disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is reduced to Rs. 911/-. The appellant would get relief of Rs. 804/-. This ground of appeal is partly allowed.” 16. We are of the view that the order of the Assessing Officer has to be confirmed. Admittedly the CIT(A) has given relief only in respect of payments which had been made within the grace period of 5 days allowed under the ESIC Act. Such payments have to be considered as payment made within the due date. We, therefore, confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal of the revenue. 17. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 16. In the result appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes , while appeal by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 26th day of Nov. 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1120
... ...
... ... ..... e (105 ITR 133) it was held that the actual condition and intended user were relevant for determining the nature of a land. But nevertheless, the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering the valuation of an asset under the Wealth-tax Act and dictum laid down there cannot be straightaway transported in a proceedings under the Income-tax Act. In the case of CIT vs. S.S.Sangaralingam (162 CTR 400), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that when Revenue records showed a land to be agricultural in nature till it was sold, merely because agricultural operations were not done just prior to the sale, it would not be sufficient enough a reason to treat the land as non-agricultural. We are, therefore of the opinion that the CIT(A) was justified in holding the land to be agricultural in nature not exigible to levy of capital gains tax. We do not find any merit in this appeal of the Revenue, which therefore stands dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 26 -11- 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1119
... ...
... ... ..... deduction will have to be allowed in the year in which business centre arrangement is entered into. However, the assessee, despite the unchallenged findings of the CIT (A), is fair enough to contend that the balance expenditure is to be allowed as deduction in the year in which business centre arrangement is terminated, as the amount paid by the assessee will cease to yield any benefits any further. Once again, there is no dispute that arrangement is terminated during the course of business and it is not even allegation of the Assessing officer that it was a collusive arrangement meant for undue benefit to the contract party. On these facts, and bearing in mind entirety of the case, we uphold the grievance of the assessee and direct the Assessing officer to delete the impugned disallowance of ₹ .8,66,667/-. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 12. Ground No.2 is thus allowed. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 30th November, 2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1118
TDS u/s 194A - Motor Accident Claims - interest accrued on the amount of compensation without deduction of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) - Whether such interest awarded by the Tribunal is to be spread over from the date from which it is payable to the date of actual payment? - HELD THAT:- It is clear from Section 194-A (3)(ix), that if the payment of interest is being made to more than one claimant then unless the interest payable to each claimant separately exceeds Rs. 50000/- in each case, the person responsible for payment is not required to deduct tax.
The Apex Court in the case of KS Krishna Rao v. CIT [1989 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] held that where a compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act is enhanced by the order of the Court on a reference u/s 18 of that Act or on further appeals, interest on enhanced compensation cannot be taxed all in a lump sum as having accrued on the date on which the Court passes order for enhanced compensation; the interest has to be spread over on annual basis right from the date of delivery of possession till the date of order on a time basis.
This Court is of the view that the interest awarded has to be spread over in number of years from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment because the right to receive compensation arises immediately on occurrence of accident and the interest is awarded by the Tribunal or the Courts for the delay that occurs due to the delay in determination of the compensation and if the interest for the financial year payable to each of individual claimant exceeds Rs. 50000/- then only question of TDS will arise.
So far as obligation of Petitioner/Insurance Company responsible for the payment is concerned, it is made clear that before releasing the amount of interest claimant shall be required to submit an affidavit to the effect that claimant has furnished a declaration on form No. 15-G of Rule 29-C of the Income Tax Rules in terms of Section 197-9(1-A) of the Income Tax Act for each financial year in the office of Insurance Company so that concerned Insurance Company is relieved of its obligation of payment of TDS.
Hence, appeal stands disposed of.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... ne has appeared nor even adjournment application has been received though the notice of hearing had been given well in advance. It can therefore be reasonably concluded that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr. (118 ITR 461- at pages 477/478) that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, court/ tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution as held by Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai in case of M/s. Chemipol Vs Union of India in Excise appeal No.62 of 2009. We are convinced that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeals of the assessee as unadmitted. 2. In the result all these appeals of the assessee stand dismissed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on today i.e. 15.11.2010.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... upporting the assessee’s view that business loss could be adjusted against 90% export incentives for working out the deduction u/s 80HHC. The learned CIT(A) has followed the Tribunal’s decision for deleting the interest charged u/s 234B, the order being dated 21-08-2009 in ITA Nos. 540 to 543/2009. The Revenue is aggrieved and has mainly taken a ground that the Tribunal order, supra, has not become final. 3. We have heard both sides and it remains the fact that the learned CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer not to charge interest under section 234B in both the years following the Tribunal order dated 21-08-2009 which order has been passed in favour of the assessee. No other decision was brought to our notice against the decision of the Chennai Bench. Therefore, by following the above mentioned order, we dismiss the appeals of the Revenue. 4. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed. 5. The order was pronounced in the court on 26.11.10.
-
2010 (11) TMI 1114
... ...
... ... ..... ipt’ from a document? In my opinion, it does not. What is significant is that the definition of ‘receipt’ is inclusive, but not exhaustive. It opens with the words “receipt includes”. Therefore, if the document contains something more than what is required to be mentioned in the receipt, the same does not cease to be a ‘receipt’ merely by addition of certain other words so long as the said document does not fall in any other category of the documents such as promissory note, bond etc. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the document in question falls within the definition of ‘receipt’ in Section 2(23) of the Act and the Court below has committed an error in holding that the same is a promissory note. As the receipt is liable for being impounded under the Act, the Court below is directed to refer the same to the competent authority for this purpose. On the premises as above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
........
|
