|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 786 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., reported in 248 ITR 723 has held that while computing the annual value under Section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the notional interest on the security deposit/advance rent cannot be included in the income from house property under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The SLP filed by the Revenue being S.L.P. (Civil) No.5480 of 2001 against the decision of this Court in the case of J.K. Investors (supra) has been dismissed by the Apex Court on 1st November, 2002. 4. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain these Appeals. Accordingly, all the three Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 785 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Offence under NI Act - Held that:- After perusing the contents of the complaint as also verification statement of the complainant the trial Magistrate ought to have postponed the issuance of process in the facts and circumstances of the case when accused were resident of a place beyond the jurisdiction of the learned trial Magistrate concerned. For this reason and considering the rulings cited before me, the impugned order must be held as unsustainable and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The same is therefore, quashed and set aside. JMFC, Nagpur and Special Court under section 138 of the N.I. Act shall exercise discretion in accordance with amended provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and in the light of the rulings referred above. The complainant shall appear before the learned JMFC and Special Court u/s 138, on 5th December, 2011. The petition is allowed accordingly.
-
2011 (11) TMI 784 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue of which the petitioner was communicated that his representation has been rejected and the notification dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure-10). The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The opposite party no.2 is directed to treat the period of service rendered by the petitioner in the Fast Track Court for the purpose of his seniority from the date of his appointment i.e. 26.4.2002 and re-fix his seniority in terms of the observation made in this judgment. Since the future of the officers to a great extent depends on seniority and many may be on the verge of superannuation, the High Court would do well in finalizing the seniority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A fresh seniority list shall be prepared in the light of our direction by following the judgments of the apex Court referred to above along with consequential benefits under law. 29. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.
-
2011 (11) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT
Offense under NI Act - whether Criminal case filed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 referred to by the Magistrate Court to Lok Adalat is settled by the parties and an award is passed recording the settlement, can it be considered as a decree of a civil court and thus executable?
Held that:- 1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court.
2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.
3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.
4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.
In view of the above discussion and ultimate conclusion, we set aside the order dated 23.09.2009 passed by the Principal Munsiff Judge in an unnumbered execution petition and the order of the High Court dated 24.11.2009.
-
2011 (11) TMI 782 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... erely existing on papers and its identity was not proved. The law is well-settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum found to have been received by an assessee is on him. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Export P. Ltd. (2008) (216 CTR 195) speaks about proving the identity then the addition can be made by reopening the individual assessment of alleged bogus shareholders. In the case of M/s. Hindustan Continental Ltd., the identity was not proved as the same was found nonexistent, therefore, we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn in the impugned order on this issue. Therefore, the stand of the ld. CIT(A) is reversed so far as the loan from M/s. Hindustan Continental Ltd. is concerned, therefore, this ground of the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed. This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (11) TMI 781 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Whether the decision taken by a listed investment company to dispose of a part of its investment is “price sensitive information” requiring mandatory disclosure to the stock exchange(s) under clause 2.1 of the Code of Corporate Disclosure Practices as specified in Schedule II to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992?
Held that:- We are in agreement with the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the non-disclosure in the press release was only in regard to the source of funds through which FCGL was to acquire the coal mines and the decision meant only switching of investments which is a part of normal business activity of an investment company.
Interestingly, the adjudicating officer in para 34 of the impugned order has himself observed that the method of funding a project is not per se price sensitive information but nevertheless goes on to hold that since the price of the scrip of FCGL had gone up, the decision of FCGL to dispose of the investment in the Coke company was price sensitive. The adjudicating officer has missed the real point. The price of the scrip of FCGL had gone up not because it decided to dispose of its investment in the Coke company but because of the fact that it acquired coal mines in Australia which information was price sensitive and had been disclosed to the market. We cannot, therefore, uphold the findings of the adjudicating officer.
-
2011 (11) TMI 780 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... However, in so far as the Tribunal's reasoning to adopt the market value of the goods at ₹ 5.40 ps. per unit is concerned, we find no error. Undisputedly, GEB supplied the electricity to its consumers at the same rate. This, therefore, was a market value of the electricity supplied by the CPP Unit to the general unit. The fact that this amount of ₹ 5.40 ps. comprises of a component of 8 paise, which was electricity duty, to our mind, would make no difference in so far as the market value is concerned. To a consumer, the price being paid remains 5.40 ps. per unit. The fact that the seller retains only ₹ 5.32 ps. out of the said collection and passes on 8 paise per unit to the Government in the form of electricity duty, to our mind, would make no difference. This question is, therefore, not required to be considered.” 5. In the result, Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of Questions A and B only. 6. To be heard with Tax Appeal No.1829 of 2009.
-
2011 (11) TMI 779 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of input tax credit - rejection on the ground that form W was filed belatedly - violation of section 19(18) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 read with rule 10(10)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Rules, 2007
-
2011 (11) TMI 778 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law deleting the addition of ₹ 4,92,27,360/- made by Assessing Officer on account of contribution to the Shelter Fund? 5. Whether Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the rent receipts form DLF Centre which also includes air conditioning charges as ?Income from House Property?? 4. Filing of printed paper book is dispensed with. Parties are however, given liberty to file documents/material which, were filed before the tribunal/authorities. The said documents will be filed within a period of 12 weeks. 5. To be shown in regular list as per its seniority. 6. We may note that the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that some of the questions may be covered by decisions in his favour. The respondent-assessee will be entitled to raise the said contention at the time of final hearing and it will be open to the Court not to answer the question, if it is covered.
-
2011 (11) TMI 777 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... lay condoned. We have gone through the review petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment dated 6th July, 2011 is made out. The review petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 776 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssing Factory (supra), allow the claim of the assessee. The decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Times Guarantee (supra), relied upon by the ld. DR was on a different issue. The Special Bench in the said case had held that carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation has to be dealt with in terms of provisions applicable to the year to which the unabsorbed depreciation related. Thus in terms of the decision of the Special Bench unabsorbed depreciation for assessment years 1997-98 to 2001-02 could be set off only against business income whereas unabsorbed depreciation for the prior years and subsequent years can be set off against any income. In the present case set off is being considered against business income and, therefore, there is no conflict with the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Times Guarantee (supra). 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 775 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s. 80IA(4)(iii) - assessee has received 'approval' and 'notification' from the Central Government and the same has not been withdrawn till date - Held that:- Since the assessee had developed the industrial park duly approved and notified by the Central Government and the same has not been withdrawn for any reasons, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iii).
-
2011 (11) TMI 774 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Unexplained cash credit - Held that:- We find that the assessee referred to cash withdrawals of ₹ 27 lacs. However, we find that no such plea was raised before either of the authorities below and the in the statement recorded during the assessment proceedings when confronted about the receipt of amounts from two purchasers, the assessee had replied vide question No.21 that negotiations were going on in respect of the said refund/forfeiture of the amount received from the said purchasers. In his written submissions the assessee claimed to have refunded the said amount in 2005 and the assessment order in the case was passed on 30.12.2008. Further the assessee has failed to furnish on record any evidence to prove its contention. In the absence of the same we find no merit in the stand of the assessee and rejecting the same we uphold the order of CIT (Appeals) and confirm the addition of ₹ 20 lacs. Similarly in respect of receipt of ₹ 21,53,000/- the assessee has failed to establish its claim of receipt of money. The said amount was deposited in cash in the account of the assessee on various dates. Though the assessee has referred to an agreement to sell but the clauses of the said agreement were found to be at variance with the facts of the case. In the absence of any evidence being filed by the assessee, we confirm the addition
Addition on deposits through account payee cheque in the bank - Held that:- No such evidence was referred to before the authorities below. Further the assessee has failed to file any confirmation or any bank account in order to prove the source of credit entries in his bank account. The onus not being discharged by the assessee we find no merit in the claim of the assessee and hence the same is rejected.
Addition from HDFC Bank and deposit of that amount with Centurion Bank in correct perspective - Held that:- The assessee before the authorities below had failed to file any confirmation from his son in respect of the loans received of ₹ 1,20,000/-. The assessee failed to furnish the bank account to establish the creditworthiness of son of the assessee. Merely because the amount has been received by way of cheque does not satisfy the provisions of the Statute in respect of the cash credits received by the assessee during the year. The onus not having been discharged by the assessee in respect of deposits in the bank account, the deeming provs sof section 68 are applicable. We find no merit in the ground of appeal raised by the assessee and hence the same is dismissed.
Addition to the total income without appreciating the facts and written-submissions made during the assessment proceedings - Held that:- Even before us the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence/confirmation in respect of its claim of having received earnest money. In the absence of the same, we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss ground raised by the assessee.
Deposit in bank unexplained - Held that:- We are in agreement with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in the absence of the assessee having furnished any evidence and having failed to discharge its onus of establishing the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction.
-
2011 (11) TMI 773 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ns would, at the most, be relevant in the assessment of the person who claims a deduction in respect of the said expenditure. Since the assessee before us is not the person to have claimed any deduction in respect of this expenditure, obviously no disallowance can be made in the hands of this assessee. Whether the expenditure is warranted on the grounds of commercial expediency or not is thus wholly irrelevant in the present context and the Assessing Officer was clearly in error in addressing himself to this aspect of the matter. The grievances raised by the Assessing Officer are thus devoid of any legally sustainable merits, and the CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the impugned addition. 6. In view of these discussions, as also bearing in mind entirety of the case, we approve the conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on 2nd day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 772 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the zip fasteners of ₹ 59.48 per meter. The assessee’s contention was that this figure was on the higher side and not substantiated by any material or evidence. After examining the factual and aspects and evidence the CIT(A) valued the zip fasteners at ₹ 37.96 per meter. The said order has been upheld by ITAT. The reasons and grounds mentioned by the two appellate authorities are not perverse. It is a reasonable view on the facts, material and evidence. The reasoning does not require interference in an appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 771 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ll the documents were furnished before the ld. CIT(A) who has passed reasonable order, after obtaining a remand report from the A.O, therefore, it was prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 7. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused the materials produced before us. After perusing the paper book, it is evident that the assessee is running educational institutions such as schools, etc. imparting formal education, as prescribed under the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had elaborately dealt with the matter after perusing various documents submitted by the assessee and after obtaining remand report had come to the above-mentioned conclusion cited (supra). The Revenue did not come out with any convincing argument or evidence against the documents produced by the assessee before us. In these circumstances, we have no other option but to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 770 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he right title and interest in that asset can be dealt with by the bank as if it is the owner of the asset and the asset would vest in the bank free of all encumbrances. In paragraph 25 it has been observed, having regard to the provisions of Section 35, that if Section 13(4) comes in conflict with, say the provisions of state land revenue law, then notwithstanding such conflict, the provisions of Section 13(4) shall override the local law. Transcore does not deal with a situation where a statutory first charge is created by state legislation such as under Section 38C of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959. That situation has specifically been dealt with in the subsequent judgment of three Learned Judges in the Central Bank of India (supra). The action which has been taken by the First Respondent of realising the dues of the Sales tax department by putting the immovable property to sale cannot be faulted. No case for interference is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 769 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... T(A) held that the assessee is not an investor in shares and on the other hand, the CIT(A) held that the assessee is trading in shares. The CIT(A) has taken the holding period of 30 days for the purpose of bifurcation in between income from business and income from capital gain, In this regard, we are of the view that the finding should be clear and based on facts whether the assessee is an investor and accordingly income is assessable under the head ‘capital gains’ and in case, the assessee is a trader, the income is liable as business income. In the light of the contradictory finding of the ld. CIT(A), we find it appropriate to send back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to give the clear finding and decide the issue, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard to both the sides. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in the Open Court on 04/11/2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 768 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. 8. It was submitted that the decision of the Special Bench was not accepted by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd. Mfg. Co. Ltd 328 ITR 81 (Bombay) and the issue is to be re-determined in estimating the ‘reasonable amount’ for disallowance under section 14A, without invoking Rule 8D which is not applicable for the year under consideration. Accordingly, issue in Ground No.2 pertaining to disallowance under section 14A is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to determine the necessary amount as per the guidelines prescribed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Supra) or any other judgments of the higher forum on the issue. Ground No.2 is also accordingly restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. 9. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th November 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 767 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the service provider on behalf of the appellant to their customers of the appellant. It is undisputed that appellant is contractually obligated to their customers for providing repairs and services during the warranty period which he has out sourced to another organization. The said organization was raising the bill on the appellant for the services provided. In our considered view, the services provided by out sourced person would not be falling within the purview of additional consideration for sale. Prima facie, the stay order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may cover the situation. In view of the foregoing, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
............
|
