|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 876 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1336 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... make verification. The ld. Sr. DR advanced his arguments which are identical to ground raised whereas through ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order. After hearing the rival contentions, there is a factual finding in the impugned order that the necessary details were furnished by the assessee along with returns enclosing the certificates of such deduction at source. The TDS was deducted on the interest income credited to P & L A/c and offered in the return of income. This factual finding was not controverted by the revenue. In view of these facts, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore, this ground of the revenue is also having no merit. Same is dismissed in both the appeals of revenue. Finally, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned counsel of both sides at the conclusion of hearing on 9th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1335 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would appear that the baggage includes unaccompanied baggage but does not include motor vehicles. Here, this baggage is completely different from the currency notes. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not decided wrongly that baggage can be synonymous with the currency notes though Smt. Sarkar wants to persuade in other way. When the case proceeds on the basis of baggage it has to be understood whether the subject matter was baggage or not. The subject matter was Indian currency. We therefore uphold the decision of the learned Tribunal and accordingly answer the questions referred to in the manner as follows (1) Question no. 1 In the affirmative. (2) Question No. 2 In the negative. In view of the above decision, we direct the department concerned to implement the order of the learned Tribunal passed earlier as to what amount shall be released after deducting the amount of redemption fine and penalty. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1334 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... al on record. In our considered view all the three items are covered by the decision of the Tribunal for Asst. Year 2003-04 & 2004-05 and also for Asst. Year 2005-06 which has been decided on even date. Since no new facts are pointed out by the Revenue, respectfully following the above decision we decide in favour of the assessee and accordingly dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 13. The Cross Objection No.153/Ahd/2010 Asst. Year 2007-08 filed by the assessee is in support of the order of ld. CIT(A) and since departmental appeal is dismissed the C.O. is also dismissed. As a result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed. 14. In the result, ITA No.4075/Ahd/2008 for Asst. Year 2005-06 is partly allowed and ITA No.1346/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is dismissed and the CO No.153/Ahd/2010 for Asst. Year 2007-08 is also dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 10/12/10.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1333 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... taken in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act? It should be stated with complete statistics and data. (k) Whether the Union of India or the State of Orissa have, till date, found even a single official/functionary guilty of contravention in terms of Section 25 of the Act and whether any complaint has been filed in any Court of competent jurisdiction? If so, the result thereof. (l) The contents and the background of the complaints received and referred in 'Annexure-R1' to the affidavit filed by the Union of India should be stated precisely. Why the enquiry reports as referred to in 'Annexure-R1' to the Affidavit of the Union of India of July 2008, no final reports have been prepared and submitted before this Court till date. Further, it shall also be stated as to why the findings of the interim reports referred in the said affidavit have not been placed before this Court. A complete summary thereof shall be annexed to the Affidavit. 17. Stand over for four weeks.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 7. In the present case also, there is no endorsement found in the document and the passing of consideration is also not duly proved by the complainant by summoning the said Murugesan whose signature is found on the back side. If that is so, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court as followed by the Andhrapradesh High Court is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case and by applying the same ratio, this court is inclined to hold that the complainant failed to prove that he is the holder in due course and hence, has no locus standi to maintain the complaints. On this score alone, the judgments of the courts below are to be necessarily set aside. 8. In the result, both the criminal revisions are allowed by setting aside the judgments of the courts below. Both the complaints filed by the respondent are rejected as not maintainable. The fine paid by the accused is directed to be refunded to them. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1331 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der law. Likewise, a time barred debt is also not legally enforceable debt. 18. In the present case, the complainant himself admits that the business transaction was in the year 2003 and after five years, the complainant and his wife demanded the profit and on mediation, the Petitioner agreed to pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/-that too in advance to the settlement and issued a post dated cheque in the name of the complainant. Even assuming that there is a debt it was only payable to the complainant's wife and not to the Petitioner. 19. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C, Courts can interfere in a proceeding if it is found that there is abuse of process of law and the continuance of the proceedings is an harassment to the party. Therefore, it is a fit case to interfere. 20. In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in STC No. 1126/2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mettur Dam is quashed. Consequently, connected MP is closed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... by the Assessing Authority before this Court, it is this Court which has to decide about the prima facie case of the petitioner. Even though it is true that the order of the Joint Commissioner is distinguishable from the judgment of the Supreme Court, the fact remains that in respect of the same commodity, which is the subject matter of issue in this writ petition, as on date a higher authority under the taxing statute in the State of Tamil Nadu, viz., the Joint Commissioner, has passed an order granting exemption from tax. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the respondents to release the detained goods on the petitioner paying 50% of the amount demanded by the respondents in respect of the said commodity, making it clear that the said payment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and subject to the final adjudication order that may be passed by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1329 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... y under section 271(1)(c) if he files inaccurate particulars of his income in the return or conceals the particulars of income therein. There can be no concealment until there is a duty to disclose. The duty to disclose particulars of income arises at the time when assessee furnishes return of income under section 139 and if in filing his return he conceals the particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars he incurs penalty under section 271(1)(c). In the case of Patna Guinea House vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 0274 (Pat) it is held that there is no case for levy of penalty if income is disclosed in the return of income but assessee has refused to disclose source of income.” Therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, we cancel the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 5. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 10.12.10.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1328 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... antecedents of applicants. The State may also consider while undertaking Legislation regarding the registration and issuance of licences etc. that the preference should be given to technically qualified unemployed graduates with adequate reservation in terms of State policy for women and under privileged citizens of the State, and (vi) the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, shall consider to direct a close scrutiny of income of all the property dealers engaged in this occupation in the State of U.P. for the purpose of assessing their unaccounted income under the provisions of Income Tax Act. 18. With the aforesaid directions, we adjourn the matter to 18.03.2011 with direction to the SIT (CBI), Special Income Tax Investigation Committee and all other authorities as directed herein above to submit their progress reports. The DIG Lucknow shall also submit his report about the alleged incident of beating of lawyer Shri Pankaj Chaturvedi. 19. List on 18.03.2011 at 02.00 P.M.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1327 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... icial pronouncements referred to by the learned counsel for the assessee. However, it is clarified that if in the past estimation of income had been done before allowing depreciation then the Assessing Officer will be justified in allowing depreciation in these years also and not otherwise, because only like things can be compared.” 4. But, in the given case, the A.O. has simply made ad hoc addition without referring to either the past history of the assessee or to any comparable case. He has mentioned so many other things which are not relevant for the purpose. Although the A.O. himself has accepted in the next year a net profit of 1.78% in assessee’s own case, yet the ld. CIT(Appeals) has adopted the rate of 2.5%. The assessee has not filed any appeal. Therefore, we do not interfere in the findings of the CIT(Appeals) and confirm his order. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1326 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d. Here. On the other hand, the windmills were connected to the grid and as already noted by us, its operation atleast for a negligible part of the day could not be denied. Nevertheless we find from the order of the AO that not only hadhe denied the claim of depreciation, but also came to a conclusion that the quantum of depreciation even if allowed, was to be limited to ₹ 43,39,469/-. Since facts relating to the quantum are not readily available on record, we are unable to come to a conclusion as to what is the actual amount of depreciation allowable to the assessee. Hence, while holding that assessee was eligible for 50% depreciation on two windmills, we remit the issue regarding quantification of depreciation back to the AO. Assessee shall be given necessary opportunity for producing evidence regarding the quantum of depreciation. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 03 -12 ---2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1325 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Sessions Court. 14. Both the Criminal Applications are accordingly dismissed. 15. It is clarified that since the Petitioners were released on bail on 10/11/2010 and which order admittedly was not challenged by the State in the Criminal Revision Application which is evident from the prayers in the Criminal Revision Application as also the order passed by the Sessions Court, the effect of the order granting bail may be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and in accordance with law. It is open for the Petitioners to raise this issue of the effect of the order of granting bail and what is the result thereof and the same would be considered by the learned Magistrate. 16. The learned Magistrate may decide the application as directed by the Sessions Court within six weeks after the Petitioners appeared before him either personally or through their advocate. Petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate either personally or through their advocate on 3/01/2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1324 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... person.” A plain reading of the above sub-section would show that only a compensation or consideration which has been enhanced by a court, Tribunal or authority could be deemed as income chargeable to capital gains when such amount is received by the assessee. Here, there is no case for the Revenue that Smt. Chitra Chockalingam was a Tribunal, court or authority. Thus Sec. 45(5) (b) had no application whatsoever. We are of the opinion that both authorities below erred in considering the transfer to have been effected by assessee for the previous years relevant to asst. years 2000-01 and/or 2002-03 for property with address at No.149 Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai. No capital gains could have been assessed in these years. 10. In the result, we are of the opinion that assessee has to succeed in both the appeals. Addition made under the head capital gains for both the years are quashed. Appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16-12-2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1323 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... and in such circumstance, the CIT(A) has gone wrong in limiting the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. 5. Nobody appeared for the assessee respondent. We heard Shri Shaji P Jacob, the learned Commissioner for the Revenue. The CIT(A) has held that in a revision matter the Assessing Officer is to carry out the directions issued by the CIT. In fact, the assessing authority is translating the directions of the CIT in an enforceable action. Literally speaking the assessing authority is not exercising ‘his own’ jurisdiction but exercising the jurisdiction “delegated” by the CIT. 6. The delegatee can not go beyond the limit prescribed by the delegating authority. The Assessing Officer can not go beyond the directions of the CIT. Therefore, the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the said disallowance. 7. This appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday the 23rd of December, 2010 at Chennai.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1322 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed. Also, the investigation being affected on account of the disclosure information sought by the Respondent pertains to his own case. No prejudice can be caused to the Petitioner if the D.D. entry concerning his arrest, the information gathered during the course of the investigation, and the copies of the case diary are furnished to the Respondent. The right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case, after the conclusion of the trial, by taking recourse of the RTI Act, cannot be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC. It is required to be noticed that Section 22 of the RTI Act states that the RTI Act would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other law for the time being in force. 7. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the CIC. 8. The petition and the pending application are dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1321 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nfirmed. Further as it is noticed that the provision no longer required and which is credited to the P & L Account is on account of the purchases made by the assessee, it has a direct link with the business activity of the undertaking and the exports of the articles or things is as a consequence of the purchase. By writing back the provision no longer required, what happens is that the purchase cost goes down consequently increasing the export income as it is the profits and gains derived by the undertaking from the export of the articles or things which increases the same would be entitled to the deduction u/s 10B of the Act. In the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Abdul Rahman Industries, referred to supra, the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. 10. The order was pronounced in the court on 10/12/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1320 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ough this stock exchange then the information supplied by this stock exchange would be totally irrelevant. The purchase of shares were not doubted by the AO in the year of purchase, if that be so then, the mode of purchase, whether in the open bid or private placement may not be a crucial aspect for doubting the transaction. It may be a corroborative evidence. All these inferences were not analytically established on the record, rather he just made an inference for doubting the transaction of the assessee. In our opinion the issue required a deeper investigation. Therefore we set aside the orders of both the revenue authorities below and remit the issue to the file of AO for readjudciation. It is needless to say that observations made by us will not impair or injure the case of AO or would cause any prejudice to the defence/explanation of the assessee. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 6.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1319 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... per the terms of the agreement does not fall under the Explanation to Section 37(1). As far as the nature of loss is concerned since the assessee in the business of sale- purchase of the property/ land, therefore, the earnest money paid by the assessee was for purchase of plot of land which should have been stock - in-trade of the assessee and not for acquisition of capital asset. Accordingly, loss due to the forfeiture of the earnest money deposited cannot be a capital loss. The earnest money deposit was made by the assessee was not for acquiring of any capital asset for investment or business assets but it was deposit for the business of the assessee i.e the sale and purchase of land. Accordingly, the forfeiture of earnest money in the case in hand is a business expenditure. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and the claim of the assessee is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2010
-
2010 (12) TMI 1318 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... wed to move further which itself shows that the amount collected by the RTO was not the payment towards infringement of law but in the nature of compensation. From the various details furnished by the assessee, we find the amount has been paid to Gujarat RTO. Therefore, the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agrawal Roadlines P Ltd (supra) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. Respectfully following the said decision and in view of our observations above, we hold that the addition made by the Assessing Officer ITA No. 2081/Mum/2010 (Assessment Year 2005-06 ) and upheld by the CIT(A) is not sustainable and the overload charges paid to RTO by the assessee has to be treated as compensation and not penalty for infringement of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and the ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 31st day of Dec 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1317 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Pramukh is vacant Section 9(2) or when the Pramukh is unable to discharge functions Section 9A will be unworkable. Therefore, for a harmonious interpretation of the different provisions of the amending Act, the non-obstante clause in Section 7(3) must be given a restricted meaning so as not be in conflict with other provisions of the amending Act. 47. The expressions as if the said Act were not enacted' in Section 7(3) of the amending Act apply only where by way of general amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayat and Zilla Adhiniyam 1961, the words Up-Pramukh have been omitted. 48. We, therefore, affirm the orders passed by the District Magistrates in exercise of their power under Section 9(2) and 9A. We cannot agree with the reasoning to the contrary given in the High Court judgment. 49. In light of the above reasoning, the appeals are allowed, the judgments of the High Court in all these cases are set aside. 50. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
........
|
