|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 876 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1316 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Inv. Wing of the department was relied on, without verification of the facts qua-the-assessee. The assessee successfully explained the entries. 9. In view of the above, none of the case laws relied on by the department is applicable, since there is no applicability of section 68 of the Act, as parties concerned were not creditors of the assessee. 10. For the above discussion, finding no justification on the grievance raised by way of ground no.2, this ground is rejected. 11. Apropos ground no.3, the addition of ₹ 16,500 was made by the AO on the basis of alleged possibility of commission have not been paid for obtaining the accommodation entries of ₹ 8,25,000. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. 12. Since the deletion of the addition of₹ 8,25,000 has been upheld, ground no.3 also loses force and is rejected as such. 13. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. 14. Order pronounced in open court on the conclusion of the hearing on 07.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1315 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the dispute between the Respondent and LIT or the Government of Punjab. The Petitioners are not responsible for the said dispute. The Petitioners have entered into an agreement with the Respondent and this is for the Respondent to adhere and act upon the said agreement. The Respondent company is bound by the terms of the contract between them and the Petitioners and cannot wriggle out of the said terms, because it has disputes with a third party . 22. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit Co. Pet. No. 8/2009, Sunil Kothari Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited and Co. Pet. No. 107/2009, Balwant Singh Today Homes and Infrastructure Private Limited. However, I defer order on admission, appointment of Provisional Liquidator and publication of citations for a period of six weeks in order to enable the Respondent to negotiate with the Petitioners or deposit the principal amounts in the Court. The question of interest is left open. Re-list on 1st February, 2011.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1314 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itioner Nos.3 and 4 have converted themselves into Public Limited Companies, leave is given to the petitioners to correct the cause title, the body of the petition and the scheme accordingly, but it should be specifically stated in the scheme that these companies were Private Limited Companies and the date on which they were converted into Public Limited Companies. On the above assurance and condition, this application is allowed by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) to (j) of the application. In the event, the petitioners supply a legible computerized print out of the scheme and the schedule of assets in acceptable form to the department, the department will append such computerized print out, upon verification, to the certified copy of the order without insisting on a handwritten copy thereof. The petitioner is to pay a consolidated cost of 200 G.Ms to the Central Government. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1313 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t tax has to be paid even on printing of tickets irrespective whether in the State of Karnataka or outside, definitely Entry 62 of State list would bar levy of such tax on activity outside the Karnataka. Unless tickets are sold in the State of Karnataka levy of tax would not arise, though it is traceable to draw of the lottery, which takes place outside Karnataka. The State law is nothing but indirect method adopted by the State to tax the sale of lottery tickets, which cannot be done in the light of Judgement of the Apex Court in Sunrise Associates Vs. NCT, New Delhi. 27. In view of the discussion and reasoning above, we hold that State has no legislative competence to make the impugned State Act and the orders impugned are liable to be struck down. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed setting aside the orders of the learned single Judge. Amount, if any, deposited by the appellants, shall be refunded to them within four months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1312 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R The Appeals are admitted. List for hearing on its own turn.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1311 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... laim of the assessee and even similar issue traveled to the Bombay High Court in the case of Tata Sons (supra). The Hon'ble Mumbai High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue, and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court vide Income Tax Appeal No.209 of 2001 for A.Y. 1985-86, Dt.2.4.2004 and Tribunal Order in assessee’s own case for A.Ys 1981-82 and 1982-83 in ITA Nos.3846 & 3847/Mum/84, we dismiss this ground of appeal raised by the revenue. 13. In so far as C.O filed by the assessee is concerned, it is similar to the ground No.1 raised by the revenue, since we have already considered the issue and dismissed the revenue’s appeal, there is no separate adjudication is required with regard to the C.O. 14. In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C.O. filed by the assessee is rejected. Pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1310 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... st to be charitable in nature, the examination which is necessary at the stage of examining the applications of section 11, 12 and 13 of the Act by making regular assessment are not that much relevant at the time of processing the application for registration. In our considered opinion, the learned Commissioner has gone deep into the aspect and has tried to conclude that the Trust is not carrying or pursuing its main object of providing education. It is undisputed that the Trust is running a nursing college which is a charitable activity, indeed. Therefore, in our opinion, the Trust is entitled to registration at this stage. What the Commissioner has looked into is to be looked into at the stage of making assessment of a particular year. Accordingly, we direct the Commissioner to grant registration to the Trust, and allow the claim of the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 22nd December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1309 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... orders of the assessing authority on this point are not erroneous. At the worst, the view of the assessing authority is one of the possible views. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (109 Taxman 66) has held that in order to revise an order under sec.263, the order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the present case, it is not possible to hold that the orders are erroneous. Therefore, we find that the revision proceedings of the Commissioner of Income-tax are liable to be set aside. So also it is not possible to hold that an order is erroneous if the Assessing Officer has adopted a view possible in law. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the revision orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax are not sustainable in law. They are set aside. 7. In result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 15th of December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1308 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... provision made for NPA are decided against the assessee following the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in assessee’s own case, 318 ITR 435. 15. The issue regarding disallowance of provision for NPA while computing book profit u/s 115JA is decided against the assessee in view of Explanation(g) to section 115JA inserted by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.1998, as was done in earlier appeals. 16. The issue of disallowance of lease equalization charges while computing book profit u/s 115J is allowed in favour of the assessee by virtue of the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision (supra). 17. The last issue regarding charging of interest u/s 234B, being mandatory but consequential, the Assessing Officer is directed to give consequential relief, if admissible, to the assessee. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. 19. To summarize the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1307 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... learly emerge from the orders of the authorities below. However, it is pointed out that as per the assessee the correct interest leviable ought to be ₹ 70,898 only. Accordingly, it was prayed that the matter be set aside to the file of the AO to enable the assessee an opportunity to explain the correct working of the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative has not seriously disputed the prayer of the assessee on this score. As a result thereof, we restore the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of recomputing the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act, after allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The AO shall redetermine the interest chargeable under s. 220(2) of the Act after considering the. submissions of the assessee in accordance with law. Thus, on this ground the assessee partly succeeds. 43. Resultantly, the three captioned appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1306 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... .10.2005 17.10.2005 November 2005 14073 (ESIC) 24.12.2005 20.12.2005 January 2006 14916(ESIC) 22.2.2006 14.2.2006 In the absence of any supporting material placed on record by the assessee to show that as per actual date of payment the amount has been paid within the grace period, as stated by him in the grounds of appeal, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the matter should go back to the file of the Assessing Officer and accordingly we set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities on this account and send back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall decide the same afresh in the light of our observation hereinabove and according to law after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purposes . 7. In the result, assessee's appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.12.2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1305 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... in turn, deployed these funds for generation of power, therefore, this fact alone is sufficient not to make any disallowance. Even, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (15 ITJ 329) considered the newly inserted provision of sec. 14A of the Act along with rule 8D stating how the disallowance of direct and indirect expenses incurred for earning exempted income is to be calculated. In the present appeal, the assessee company decided to install non-conventional power unit as per the scheme of the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh for deferred of salestax/ Central sales-tax, on the basis of investment made in nonconventional power generation unit, therefore, no interest is disallowable as per the decision from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boycee (supra). Therefore, this ground of the assessee is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 15th December, 2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1304 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... m dated 15th February, 2010, is made absolute till the disposal of the appeals.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1303 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Exemption from building tax u/s 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act - hostel building of an educational institution - entitled for exemption from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975, which provides for building tax exemption for buildings used for "educational purposes" or not?
Whether "educational purposes" referred to in the above Section has only a restricted meaning covering buildings, where students are imparted education; or whether it has a wider meaning covering hostel buildings owned by educational institutions to provide accommodation to students in the premises of the educational institutions? - HELD THAT:- Wherever hostel is compulsory for approval of a course study or an educational institution by the regulatory body as in the case of medical and nursing colleges, hostel building is an integral part of the educational institution, and so much so, accommodation to students provided in the hostel building is for educational purpose and therefore the hostel building qualifies for exemption from building tax. In view of the above finding, we are unable to agree with the denial of exemption to hostel building attached to the nursing school.
Whether hostel facility to students provided by other educational institutions, which are not compulsorily required under the educational regulations to provide accommodation to students, is an educational purpose qualifying the hostel buildings for tax exemption? - HELD THAT:- The hostel buildings are constructed by educational institutions to attract students to their institutions. Many educational institutions provide only basic facilities like building, electricity and water connections for hostels and in fact, students are running mess on sharing basis. So much so, the State's contention that hostels attached to educational institutions are commercial ventures intended to make profit, in our view, is unacceptable. In order to consider whether hostel provided by an educational institution is for educational purpose or not, we have to consider the consequences if such educational institution does not have hostel facility to provide accommodation to its students. Obviously, such educational institutions have to source students locally, which may be possible only in the case of Schools. In fact, thousands of schools and colleges in the State do not have hostel facility because they depend on students from the local area only - In fact, without hostel facility, many educational institutions will not have required number of students to run it. We, therefore, feel accommodation is a necessary facility, which an educational institution is required to provide to it's students; and so long as the purpose of stay of students in the hostel is to study in the educational institution, the purpose of such building, which is used for accommodation of students, qualifies as educational purpose.
The buildings owned by educational institutions for providing hostel accommodation to students qualify for building tax exemption under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act. However all buildings accommodating students do not qualify for building tax exemption because there are so many lodge buildings constructed by various people around educational institutions which do not have hostel facility, to rent out to students in such educational institutions. Letting out of buildings by private agencies is a commercial activity whether tenants are students or not. In other words, only hostel buildings owned by educational institutions for accommodating it's own students in such hostels will qualify for exemption under clause (b) of Section 3(1) the Act.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1302 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the Delhi Development Authority (the DDA), land of the respondents and others was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi and who was asked to release ₹ 14,15,82,253/- for payment of compensation can be treated as "person interested" within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`the Act') and it was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector and the Reference Court for determining the compensation is the question which arises for consideration in these petitions filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby market value of the acquired land was fixed at ₹ 2,000/- per sq. yd. and direction was issued for payment of compensation to the contesting respondents with 15 per cent solatium and 6 per cent interest.
HELD THAT:- We hold that the DDA falls within the definition of the expressions "local authority" [Section 3(aa)] and "person interested" and was entitled to participate in the proceedings held before the Land Acquisition Collector; the failure of the Land Acquisition Collector to issue notice to the DDA and give an opportunity to it to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the land owners was fatal to the award passed by him;
the DDA was entitled to notice and opportunity to adduce evidence before the Reference Court could enhance market value of the acquired land entitling the respondents to claim higher compensation and, as no notice or opportunity was given to the DDA by the Reference Court, the judgments rendered by it are liable to be treated as nullity;
the Division Bench of the HC also committed serious error by further enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the contesting respondents without requiring them to implead the DDA as party respondent so as to enable it to contest their prayer for grant of higher compensation.
In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as also the judgments of the Reference Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Reference Court for deciding the two references afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, which shall necessarily include opportunity to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. The Reference Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by the observations contained in the judgment of the High Court and this judgment.
the cross-objections filed on behalf of the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector in C.A. Nos.6564 and 6565 of 2001 are disposed of as infructuous. However, as the judgments of the Reference Court and the High Court have been set aside and a direction has been given for fresh determination of the amount of compensation payable to the respondents, the Union of India and the Land Acquisition Collector shall be free to participate in the proceedings before the Reference Court.
Since the matter is more than 32 years old, we direct the Reference Court to decide the matter as early as possible but latest within 9 months from the of date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
We further direct that if the amount of enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court vide judgments dated 27.7.1980 and 14.5.1994 has already been paid to the respondents or their predecessors, then they shall not be required to refund the same.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1301 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ict Anti-Money Lending Committee was constituted by the Government of Maharashtra vide resolution No. MLA.1204/CR/280/C/7/S dated 19th October, 2009 for protecting the farmers against unscrupulous money lenders and not for protecting the wrong doers, but in total disregard of the scheme of the Act, the Chief Minister gave instructions which had the effect of frustrating the object of the legislation enacted for protection of the farmers. The instructions given by the Chief Minister to District Collector, Buldhana were ex facie ultra vires the provisions of the Act which do not envisage any role of the Chief Minister in cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act and amounted to an unwanted interference with the functioning of the authorities entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act enacted for regulating, controlling transactions of money lending and protecting unsuspecting borrowers against oppression and harassment at the hands of unscrupulous money lenders.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1300 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at section precludes such disallowance of expenditure ? iv) Whether the Tribunal should have held that the assessee’s plea for a direction for alternative relief to the extent of the deferred liability for excess collection of processing charges in the sum of ₹ 325,15,18,102/- debited in the yearly account of instant year is legitimate and necessary to meet the contingency in the event of success of the Revenue’s appeal under Section 260A of the Act and reversal of the Tribunal’s order allowing the cumulative liability of ₹ 613.20 crore on that account for assessment year 1996-97 instead of spreadover ? The appellant shall file requisite number of paper books within two months after Christmas Vacation. Let Notice-of-Appeal shall be served upon the respondents by the Department concerned on usual course. Accordingly the application is disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1299 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... esh Thakur,Adv. ORDER Exemption allowed. Delay condoned. Issue notice. Mr. V. Balaji, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks and is allowed four weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. Tag the petitions with S.L.P. (C) No.......CC 18408/2010.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Section 84 of the Act. In such cases, we have little hesitation in holding that such casual vacancies are not available for being filled up and the Commission will have to wait for holding elections in such Constituencies until a decision is rendered in regard to the latter part of Section 84 of the 1951 Act during the life of the House. The view expressed by the High Court that a case has to be decided in accordance with the laws as existing on the date of adjudication, while salutary in principle, are not attracted to the facts of this case in view of the provisions of Section 84 of the 1951 Act. 36. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court is, accordingly, set aside and the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein for a direction to hold bye-elections for the 28- Vemulawada Assembly Constituency and 29-Sircilla Assembly Constituency is dismissed. Having regard to the facts involved, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1297 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to the assessee u/s 148 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the A.O. at Ludhiana issued notice u/s148 for the Assessment Year 1996-97. The decision of ITAT was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Since the issue is covered by the decisions referred to above in favour of the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the A.O. on the basis of assessments reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 by the A.O. at Faridabad is bad in law. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) canceling the assessment. 6. Since, we have upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the Revenue’s appeal and the C.O. is in support of the order of Ld. CIT(A), the CO filed by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO. filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 9th December 2010.
........
|
