|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 936 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1278 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t the said fine amount and in case of any default in paying the above fine amount within the above stipulated time, the revision petitioner is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to deposit the fine of ₹ 2,80,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs and eighty thousand) before the trial court on or before 30th December. 2010. If there is any failure on the part of the revision petitioner in depositing the above fine amount, the trial court is free to take coercive steps to secure his presence and to realise the fine amount. On realisation of the fine amount, a sum of ₹ 2,75,000/-(Rs. Two lakhs seventy five thousand only) shall be paid to the complainant as compensation under section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and the remaining amount shall be deposited in the State Exchequer. Coercive steps if any pending against the revision petitioner shall be deferred till 30.12.2010. This Crl. R.P. is disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1277 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... #8377; 41 lakhs. We do not think assessee can escape from penalty because the materials seized and explained in the Tribunal's order speak of assessee's suppression and inflation of expenditure, which if estimated would have led to higher addition to the returned income. In order to avoid penalty in search cases, what is provided in Explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c) is that disclosure should be made in the course of search. However, in this case, the assessee offered additional income for assessment only after the department collected evidence and almost determined the magnitude of evasion. We therefore find that income additionally offered after detection was rightly treated by all the authorities, including the Tribunal, as concealed income in respect of which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the penalty levied is not the maximum penalty, there is no scope for quantum of relief. Therefore the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1276 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial Liquidator. In addition, further costs of ₹ 25,000/- be paid to the respondent. Costs be paid within three weeks from today. The restoration of the petitioner company's name to the Register will be subject to the petitioner filing all outstanding documents required by law and completion of all formalities, including payment of any late fee or any other charges which are leviable by the respondent for the late filing of statutory returns. The name of the petitioner company, its directors and members shall then, as a consequence, stand restored to the Register maintained by the respondent, as if the name of the company had not been struck off, in accordance with Section 560(6) of the Companies Act, 1956. 12. Liberty is granted to the respondent to proceed with penal action against the company, if so advised, on account of the company's alleged default in compliance with Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1956. 13. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1275 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rinciple of preponderance of probability would also not apply against the assessee. Since, the A O wanted to tax the alleged payment of “on money” in the case of the assessee; therefore, burden was upon the A O to prove that assessee made payment of “on money” from undisclosed sources, which has not been discharged in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the A O has not brought sufficient material against the assessee to make the above addition. The A O made addition merely on suspicion and assumption of facts, which cannot take place of legal proof. It is thus a case of no evidence for making the addition. We are, therefore, of the view that the authorities below were not justified in making the addition against the assessee. We accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 01-09-2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1274 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... But, the chain of evidence produced by the prosecution must show that in all human probability the offence was committed by no one other than the accused. Applying these settled principles of law, we are of the view that the circumstances, which the prosecution has been able to prove in this case, do not lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, the appellants Mahender Kumar and Ramshree were party to a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of deceased Om Parkash or that the appellant Mahender Kumar had otherwise committed his murder. Considering that the family members of the deceased suspected an illicit relationship between the appellants, the possibility of the story of 'last seen' having been concocted at a later date, on account of that suspicion, when the police gave a clean chit to the initial suspect Ajay Kumar, cannot be altogether ruled out. 22. The appellants are given benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1273 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ments. 12. From the analysis of the statement of prosecution witnesses PWs 12, 13, various details about the injuries sustained by the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused spoken to by Dr. PW-3, categorical assertion of Satpal A-2 in respect of question No. 20 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., conduct of I.O. PW-14 in not recording statement of the injured accused who were also present in the same hospital when he visited to record the statement of injured complainant party, it is clear that two groups of people clashed inter se with weapons causing injuries to each other, we hold that the complainant party was the aggressor and in the absence of definite material and explanation from the prosecution side, the High Court is right in acquitting all of them. 13. In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeals. On the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1272 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... Mum/05 dated 18-01-09 c. Vikrant Tyres Ltd vs. ITO 247 ITR 831 (SC) d. DCIT vs. Sincome Formulations (I) Ltd 106 ITD 19 3(SB/Mum) e. Apollo Tyres Ltd vs. CIT 255 ITR 273 (SC) f. CIT vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd 318 ITR 252 (Mum) 10.1 We are of the considered opinion that section 115JB of the Act is attracted in the case of the appellant. The appellant has not also been able to show us that the deductions as claimed by it from the net profit as per the P & L account were allowable as per the provisions of the Act, keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd (supra). In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A) on the issues agitated by the appellant in the present appeal and confirm the same. Thus, we reject all the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. This order is pronounced in the open court on 30-09-2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1271 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... sclosed in the return advocates for non concealment of income. In our opinion, where there is disclosure of relevant information in the return, the concealment of income cannot be attributed to the assessee. Considering the above, we have examined the assessee’s case where relevant information is furnished in the return or its annexure but failed to add back to the income returned and whether the penalty is attracted in such case. In our considered opinion, when the particulars are available in the returns and its enclosures say Audit Report filed u/s 44AB of the Act and failure to make additions on account of 43B of the Act and the inclusion of excise duty, freight etc do not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of Pune Bench decision in the case of Kanbay Software P Ltd (supra). Accordingly, the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th day of September 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1270 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed and not when the work is going on. As the four assessment years under consideration are the years in which the project was unfinished, naturally the sale of TDRs cannot be included in the income of the assessee. However it is made clear that the sale proceeds of TDRs would be included in the total income of the assessee in the assessment year 2008-2009, subject to the availability of other deductions, as per law. The learned A.R. has stated at Bar that the assessee voluntarily included such amount in the income for the assessment year 20082009, assessment of which is still in progress and the assessment order has not yet been passed. We, therefore, hold that the amount of sale of TDRs in the years in question should not be taxed but the same be accounted for in the year of completion of project, that is A.Y. 2008-09. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. 4. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 15th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1269 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... is necessary. The powers so conferred u/s. 254 (2) do not contemplate rehearing which would have the effect of re-writing an order affecting the merits of the case. Otherwise there would be no distinction between the power to review and the power to rectify a mistake. The point raised in the misc. application submitted by the assessee virtually seeks a review of the order passed by this Tribunal, which is clearly beyond the scope of section 254 (2). 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are convinced that there cannot be any dispute with the proposition that power under sub-section (2) of section 254 is to rectify the mistake apparent from the record, but that power does not clothe the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to review of its earlier order or re-write a fresh judgment. By present Miscellaneous Applications assessee virtually seeking review, therefore, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is rejected. The Order pronounced in the Court on 30.09.2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1268 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... of interest on the borrowed loan. Therefore, the provisions of section 194A cannot be invoked in these transactions. In the instant case, though the assessee has made the payment of financial charges but the A.O. has treated it to be the payment of interest charges and invoked the provisions of section 194A of the I.T. Act. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law, we are of the view that revenue has wrongly treated the payment of financial charges as a payment of interest and disallowed the entire payment. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and held that for payment of financial charges, no TDS is required to be deducted. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for the deduction of the entire payment of financial charges. We accordingly direct the A.O. to allow the deduction of the financial charges paid by the assessee after setting aside the order of the CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 24.9.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1267 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l. The contrary view expressed by the Tribunal and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not, therefore, legally sound. So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled. The view taken by the High Courts of Allahabad, Karnataka, Madras and Bombay is, however, affirmed. 23. In the result these appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and those passed by the Wakf Tribunal shall stand set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-Wakf Board for the eviction of the appellants dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We make it clear that this order shall not prevent the Wakf Board from instituting, if so advised, appropriate civil action before the competent Civil Court for redress in accordance with law. No costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1266 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ises only when the main plea is rejected. NEITHER, we approve such an approach of the Division Bench in principle nor, as discussed above, are we inclined to approve, on merits, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Arun Excello Foundation Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 108 TTJ (Chennai) 71 on the question of grant of proportionate deduction”. 6.5. In view of the ground reality as deliberated upon in the foregoing paragraphs and as the issue before us is similar to the issue raised for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and in conformity with the finding of the Hon’ble Bench in the assessee’s own case and also the Special Bench of Hon’ble Pune Bench referred supra, we are of the unanimous view that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80-IB (10) of the Act for the assessment year under dispute. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1265 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ale deed is not the ground to hold that the assessee had no intention to purchase the two flats as one unit.” 9.2. On a close reading of the ruling of the Hon’ble Court, we find that the Hon’ble Court was magnanimous in its endeavour that those said apartments were situated side by side and due to modification effected, by opening the door in between the two apartments , the two flats will become as one Unit whereas in the present case, the assessee had invested in two residential properties situated (i) one at Koramangala and (ii) another at far off Domlur II Stage which, in any stretch of imagination, cannot be categorized as one Unit to take sanctuary of the Hon’ble Court’s ruling referred supra. We are, therefore, in total agreement with the Ld. CIT (A)’s reasoning in this regard. It is ordered accordingly. 10. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1264 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ate, cannot go to offset the cost of acquisition of the units. Therefore, AS-13 has no application to the facts of the present cases where units are bought at the ruling NAV with a right to receive dividend as and when declared in future and did not carry and vested right to claim dividends which had already accrued prior the purchase. 23 For the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and, accordingly, these civil appeals filed by the Department are dismissed with no order as to costs.” 8. In view of the decision of Hon’ble apex court in the case of Walfort Share And Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), the issue being exactly identical and admittedly the assessment year involved is 2001-02, respectfully following the Hon’ble apex court we confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 9. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this day of 17th Sept, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1263 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... and therefore cannot be invoked in the present Assessment Year. In the show cause, it was specifically pointed out that invoking of Rule 8D may lead to enhancement. The CIT(A), following ITO V Daga Capital Management Pvt Ltd (117 ITD 169 Mum SB) and applying rule 8D, the CIT(A) determined the amount to be disallowed at ₹ 4,25,860/- as against ₹ 59,974/- disallowed by the AO. 7. Aggrieved the assessee is on appeal. We find that the decision of Special Bench in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt Ltd has been set aside by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd v DCIT (2010 TIOL-564-HC-MUM-IT). In the circumstances, we set aside the order of AO and CIT(A) on this issue and remit the matter back to the files of AO to decide the issue afresh in line with the ratio of the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court. 8. In the result the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1262 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... re is no vast difference in the products handled by the company and the assessee firm and the some of the clients are found to be common. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at thetime of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. We have heard the rival submissions. At the very outset, it was brought to the notice of the Bench and as is evident from the grounds itself that the issue involved in this appeal stands squarely covered by the decision of this Bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in I.T.A.Nos.1169 & 1170/Mds/2009, order dated 4.12.2009. Hence, we are bound to follow the decision of Co-ordinate Bench and cannot deviate from the same. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal of the Revenue and the same stands dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8.9.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1261 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ar. Therefore, there is no material to indicate that the Assessee has sold the goods at a price below the market price. If the adjustment on account of quality is given then the rate at which the Assessee has sold the goods to AE will be at ALP. The assessing officer while giving the rebate on account of quality has not given any basis for applying an adjustment of only 28.73 per cent. Without ascertaining the quality and size of precious stones as sold to AE as compared to other enterprises, the assessing officer could not have made any adjustment on account of quality. We therefore, feel that the adjustment which the Assessee is seeking on account of quality is correct. Moreover, the sale proceeds from the AE are received well in time and this factor will also be weighing with the Assessee to fix the sale price. We therefore, feel that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the trading addition. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1260 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ar. Therefore, there is no material to indicate that the Assessee has sold the goods at a price below the market price. If the adjustment on account of quality is given then the rate at which the Assessee has sold the goods to AE will be at ALP. The assessing officer while giving the rebate on account of quality has not given any basis for applying an adjustment of only 28.73 per cent. Without ascertaining the quality and size of precious stones as sold to AE as compared to other enterprises, the assessing officer could not have made any adjustment on account of quality. We therefore, feel that the adjustment which the Assessee is seeking on account of quality is correct. Moreover, the sale proceeds from the AE are received well in time and this factor will also be weighing with the Assessee to fix the sale price. We therefore, feel that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the trading addition. 4. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1259 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... see and the set off against the current income of the eligible business. Once the set off is taken place in earlier year against the other income of the assessee, the revenue cannot rework the set off amount and bring it notionally. Fiction created in sub-sec. does not contemplate to bring set off amount notionally. Fiction is created only for the limited purpose and the same cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is created.” The above decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Velayudhaswamy Spg. Mill’s case had also reversed the decision of this Tribunal in ACIT vs.Sudan Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (ITA Nos.1505 and 1507/Mds/08) strongly relied on by the Revenue. Assessees were therefore well eligible for claim of deduction under sec. 80IA and the ld. CIT(A) had rightly allowed it. Thus we find no merit in these appeals of the Revenue. 7. In the result, all the appeals stand dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Open Court on 30 -09-2010
........
|
