|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 936 Records
-
2010 (9) TMI 1258 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... usiness income only and since there is no business income in the present year, no such set off can be allowed in the present year. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone though the material on record and the orders of authorities below. We find that wet off of brought forward business loss is allowable as per the provisions of Section 72. As per section 72(1), brought forward business loss can be set off against profit & gains from any business or profession carried out by the assessee and assessable in that Assessment Year. In the present year, there is no business income of the assessee assessable in the present year and hence, no set off can be allowed on account of brought forward business loss and, therefore, this ground of assessee deserves to be rejected and we do so. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. This decision was pronounced in the open court on ……….. Aug., 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1257 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rest, if any, paid shall be refunded, or if such amount is varied, the interest due shall be calculated accordingly. (4) Where the collection of any amount is stayed by the order of the Appellate Tribunal or any court or any other authority and the order is subsequently vacated, interest shall be payable for any period during which such order remained in operation. (5) The interest payable by a person under this Act may be collected as tax due under this Act and shall be due and payable once the obligation to pay interest has arisen.” On a perusal of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that an obligation is cast on the Value Added Tax Officer to calculate the interest and pay to the petitioner in terms of the provision enshrined in Section 42 of the Act. The said exercise be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order passed today. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1256 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... circumstances of the present case, if the decree be set aside passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, it would amount that this Court is exercising its jurisdiction to create injustice and it is against the basic concept of law. A bare perusal of the order passed by the trial court in Civil Suit No. 393-A/1980, shocks the conscience of the court. It is in naked violation of the provision of Civil Procedure Code. Hence, in my opinion, both the courts below have rightly set aside the main judgment and decree. Consequently, I held that civil suit filed by the plaintiffs was maintainable and the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A of CPC are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. I answer the substantial question of law accordingly. Hence, I do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed with cost. Appellants shall pay cost to the defendants No. 1 to 3 of all the courts. Counsel fee in the present case be certified as ₹ 2000/-.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1255 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated 27/11/2003 which decision has been reversed by the Apex Court in the appeal. In the circumstances, papers be consigned to record.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1254 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... g the precedent we uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 6. Last ground is against the deletion of addition u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is noted that the question of making disallowance u/s 14A is no more res integra in view of the recent judgment dated 12.08.2010 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Godrej& Boyce Limited Vs. ACIT holding that the provisions of section 14A are applicable in such circumstances and the disallowance has to be worked out by the AO on some reasonable basis and not rule 8D. Under such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the AO for deciding the quantum of disallowance as per the aforenoted judgment, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1253 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ank accounts were attached and vested in the hands of he Custodian appointed under the said Act. 25. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA No. 180/M/2000 dt. 26.6.2001 has held that CIT(A) is right in admitting the appeal of a notified person even though the tax on the returned income has snot been paid by him. In coming to this conclusion they had relied on the above passage of the Special Court. 26. In the circumstances, we direct that interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C should not be levied on the Assessee for the Assessment Year under appeal.” Respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the interest levied under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. This ground raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on the 30th day of September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1252 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... assessee are concerned, Assessing Officer did not find any defect. He disallowed the expenses on the ground that assessee’s income has to be computed on cash method of accountancy. In the earlier part of the order, we have held that assessee, in fact, is following mercantile system of accountancy and, therefore, the expenses are to be allowed. In other words, there is no dispute about the nature of expenses and their admissibility. The area of dispute is the method of accountancy only. Under the cash system of accountancy, expenses cannot be allowed unless they are actually paid during the accounting year whereas under mercantile system of accountancy if assessee made a provision and avail the services then expenses relatable to those services is to be allowed. In view of our finding on ground No.1, we allow these grounds of appeal and delete the disallowance. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 24 .09.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1251 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s being permitted to make such applications and direct that on such applications being made the Collector shall make a reference to the civil Court for determination of the compensation payable to the owners. That is, in our opinion, a reasonable offer which would ensure that the applicants do not suffer on account of the pending litigation, or their failure to make applications within the time available to them. 47. In the result while we answer question No. 3 in the negative and consequently dismiss these appeals, we direct that if the appellants make applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference of their claims for higher compensation before the concerned Collector Land Acquisition within a period of six weeks from today the Collector shall make a reference to the competent civil Court for determination of the compensation payable to the appellants. The Reference Court shall on receipt of the reference expedite the disposal of the same. No costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1250 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 0IB cannot be reduced with respect to the disallowance of any admissible expenses. Section 29 of the Act clearly provides that profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 to 43D of the Act. The profits and gains of business as computed by the AO under the head “profits and gains of business” should be taken as profit of the business for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80IB. Thus, any disallowance of expenses while computing admissible profit of business for the purpose of computation of deduction u/s 80IB, will lead to automatically increase the business profits on which assessee is eligible for claim of deduction u/s 80IB. The detailed finding given by the CIT(A) at page 8, 9 & 10 has not been controverted by the learned DR, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21st September, 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1249 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tatement is sought to be relied upon. This is the bare minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice which needs to be complied with in all quasi judicial proceedings that are conducted by the Board. Our experience tells us that the Board does not adhere to this basic principle of natural justice and we are yet to come across a case where it has allowed cross examination to the delinquent in similar circumstances. We hope that while holding enquiries whether it be by the whole time member or by an enquiry officer or by the adjudicating officer, these elementary principles of natural justice leading to a fair trial shall be borne in mind. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the enquiry officer declining the right of cross examination to the appellant set aside. He is directed to allow the Appellant to cross examine the six persons named in the earlier part of our order on whose statements reliance is being placed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1248 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ts agreement with the assessee. Under these circumstances, we uphold the order of the CIT(Appeals) wherein the disallowance is restricted to ₹ 10 lakhs 12. Coming to the issue of computation of relief u/s 80IA(4)(iv)(b) of the Act, in our considered opinion the Revenue should not have any grievance as the CIT(Appeals) has simply set aside the issue for fresh examination. The only aspect that comes to our mind is that, the first appellate authority has no power to set aside the issue in view of the amended clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act with effect from 01-06-2001 by the Finance Act, 2001. As legally the first appellate authority was not in error in setting aside the issue, we exercise our discretion and restore the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 13. In the result, this ground of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed in part. Order pronounced on this 24th day of Sept., 2010.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1247 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime. The natural justice is that which appeals to the human conscience, common sense and prudence and is also immune to the imaginations, surmises and conjectures. 26. Nevertheless, the allegations levelled by the accused against Sh.Jatinder Kumar Jain, the-then Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda were found to be false during departmental enquiry, yet keeping in view that the prosecution has still to prove its case and stand on its own legs, this Court is convinced that it has failed to do so. It may further be made clear that since the accused are acquitted while extending benefit of doubt to them, as such the order of acquittal would not affect the order of dismissal of the accused. 27. Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Fine, if any deposited by them, be refunded.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1246 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n contractor” 7. Nothing has been brought on record by the revenue to show that the said order of CIT(A) dated 19.1.2005 was either stayed or set aside or reversed. Even otherwise when the assessment was completed prior to the search took place then the addition made in the original assessment cannot be repeated in the assessment u/s 153A(1). As per second proviso to sect ion 153A(1), the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment falling within the six assessment pending on the date of initiation of search or making of requisition u/s 132A as the case may be shall abate. Therefore, the assessment completed before the date of search in which any addition is made the same cannot be repeated while making the assessment under sect ion 153A. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the CIT(A), the same is to be upheld. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 9.9.2010
-
2010 (9) TMI 1245 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se the Respondents had not done so. I have already demonstrated this contention to be erroneous. The Respondents had pleaded as well as established in the evidence loss of profit to the extent of 15% of the value of the work. Considering the nature of the contracts the arbitral tribunal accepted the oral evidence of the Respondents witness. Mr. Khandeparkar did not suggest that there was any evidence which belied the evidence of the Respondents' witness. Nor did he invite my attention to any evidence that the arbitral tribunal had failed to consider while determining this aspect of the matter. The award therefore cannot be set aside in respect of this claim either. 39. In the circumstances the judgment of the District Court and the award are upheld. The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at ₹ 10, 000. The costs shall be paid on or before 31st October 2010. This judgment is stayed up to and including 31st October 2010 to enable the Appellant to challenge the same.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be excluded from extending the benefits of the scheme which was rightly done by the bank. In any event, without exhausting the alternative remedy, the relief sought for by the Petitioner by invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted. 14. For all the above reasons, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is therefore dismissed No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 15. After dictating the order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks liberty to enable the Petitioner to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal for condoning the delay. In view of the long delay in filing this writ petition after issuance of the possession notice dated 16.09.2004, we are not inclined to make any comments and we are not giving any liberty as prayed for by the Petitioner. But it is always open to the Petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal, if he is so advised.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of tax from the limits prescribed in the eligibility certificate under Section 4A of the Trade Tax Act, subject to other conditions, namely, the maximum limit for particular year or period and maximum amount for which such exemption is provided. 17. All the writ petitions are partly allowed. The assessing authorities are required to modify the assessment orders accordingly and to allow set-off to the Petitioners, which was earlier denied to them on the rate of tax, without the benefit of reduced rate of tax on the inter-State transactions for which forms C/D were not produced. The required modification shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of production of this judgment. 18. A copy of the judgment will be given to Shri S.P. Kesarwani, additional chief standing counsel, for communication to all the assessing authorities. The Petitioners are also required to produce the judgment before the assessing authorities within a period of 30 days from today.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1242 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d why suppression of fact or mis-declaration can be invoked and extended period applied. Under these circumstances, in view of the fact that there are several factual aspects to be considered afresh in view of the decisions of the Tribunal as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court and also the discussions above, we consider it appropriate that the matter is required to be remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision. It is made clear that the matter which was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) against which Revenue is in appeal is also remanded to the Commissioner who had adjudicated the case of GSML so that all the issues are decided by one authority. In the result all the appeals considered in this order are remanded to Commissioner, Surat-I for fresh adjudication. Needless to say appellants shall be given an opportunity to present their case before the adjudication is over. It is also made clear that we are not expressing our opinion on any issue. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2010 (9) TMI 1240 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ingots was found at SSPL or KSPL. In the appeal filed, the revenue has not raised any valid challenge to the Commissioner dropping the charge of clandestine clearance of ingots to KSPL except that the charge was supported by clandestine production of 4250.30 MTs worked out from the private heat register for the said period. As found by the Tribunal in the remand order, it needs to be examined whether the records and evidence lead to a conclusion that SSPL cleared 4257.773 MTs of ingots clandestinely to KSPL in addition to 4250.243 MTs found to have been clandestinely produced. As the impugned order dropped proceedings proposed in the show cause notice granting benefit of doubt to the assessee, without examining certain relevant issues properly as indicated by us, we remand this matter to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication after following principles of natural justice. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in the court on 15/09/2010)
-
2010 (9) TMI 1239 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - acquittal of the accused - prove beyond reasonable doubt the debt or liability - preponderance of probablities - Section 138 of the N.I. Act - presumption u/s 139 - HELD THAT:- The Trial Court in this case turned a blind eye to the fact that every accused facing trial, whether u/s 138 of N.I. Act or under any penal law, when charged with the offence, pleads not guilty and takes a stand that he has not committed the offence. Even in the cases where loan is taken from a bank and the cheques issued to the bank stand dishonoured, the stand taken is same. Mere pleading not guilty and stating that the cheques were issued as security, would not give amount to rebutting the presumption raised u/s 139 of N.I. Act. If mere statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. or u/s 281 Cr. P.C. of accused of pleading not guilty was sufficient to rebut the entire evidence produced by the complainant/ prosecution, then every accused has to be acquitted. But, it is not the law. In order to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act, the accused, by cogent evidence, has to prove the circumstance under which cheques were issued. It was for the accused to prove if no loan was taken why he did not write a letter to the complainant for return of the cheque. Unless the accused had proved that he acted like a normal businessman/prudent person entering into a contract he could not have rebutted the presumption u/s 139 N.I. Act. If no loan was given, but cheques were retained, he immediately would have protested and asked the cheques to be returned and if still cheques were not returned, he would have served a notice as complainant. Nothing was proved in this case.
In this case no evidence, whatsoever, was produced by the accused and the Trial Court travelled extra steps, not permitted by law, to presume that the presumption has stood rebutted. I, therefore, set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The accused is convicted u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
-
2010 (9) TMI 1238 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... ned that the provisions of ss. 11 and 12 shall apply from a particular date. In other words, the provisions are silent about the date, rather the provisions are applicable from the assessment year. In the instant case, the assessment year from which the assessee is eligible for the benefit of ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, is 2010-11 and the relevant financial year is 2009-10, which has been commenced from 1st April, 2009. In the instant case, the assessee-society is constituted on 28th Aug., 2009, which falls in the financial year 2009-10, as such the provisions of ss. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961 shall apply in relation to the income of the assessee-society from the date of its constitution i.e., 28th Aug., 2009 and not from 26th March, 2010 as has been held by the learned CIT. We, therefore, modify the order of the learned CIT to above extent and registration to assessee society stands granted w.e.f. 28th Aug., 2009. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
........
|
