|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 828
... ...
... ... ..... rsons and with the aid of the evidence of the person, who had been granted pardon, the offence committed may be proved. The basis of exercise of this power is not to judge the extent of culpability of the persons to whom the pardon is tendered. The main purpose is to prevent failure of justice by allowing the offender to escape from a lack of evidence. 46. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the contention urged on behalf of the Appellant. However, this Court makes it clear that in the course of holding trial, the Special Judge will not be in any way influenced by the observations in the order granting pardon but will act independently of the same. In this case, the Special Judge who granted pardon is not holding the trial. Therefore, at the time of holding trial, it is directed that the Special Judge will independently apply his mind to the facts of the case in arriving at his conclusions. 47. With this direction the appeals, being without merit, are dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... id vehicle HR-56-7290. It has been stated by learned APP that Virender also filed the application for release of vehicle before the Excise Commissioner, but the same was not allowed since it was not by the registered owner and the address was also found not correct. I have heard the learned APP and the IO who is present and nothing could be pointed out to show that though the liquor was confiscated, the vehicle in question was also confiscated. The vehicle in question was seized by the Police and not confiscated and if that was so, Section 58, Delhi Excise Act would not apply with regard to the vehicle in question and the procedure that was to be followed regarding the vehicle was to be found in Chapter VI of Delhi Excise Act and also Section 451, Cr.P.C. The vehicle is stated to be no more required by the Police. The same is directed to be released to the registered owner on superdari on the usual terms and to the satisfaction of the learned MM. The petition is disposed of.
-
2011 (11) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... ate Tribunal relying upon its decision in the case of Star India Private Limited, held that the assessee was in the business of acting as advertising sales agent in India and as the assessee was to receive a percentage of advertising revenue received in India as its commission, it was in the business interests of the assessee to incur advertisement and sales promotion expenditure so that there is increased advertisement revenue which in turn would entitle the assessee to receive increased commission. Accordingly, the expenditure claimed by the assessee was allowed as business expenditure. It is brought to our notice that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Star India Private Limited being Income Tax Appeal No.165 of 2009 has been dismissed by this Court on 24th March 2009. 5. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 825
... ...
... ... ..... and of tax has been found to be wholly illegal and without any sanction of law. The Nagar Palika Parishads/Nagar Panchayats do not have any authority to impose such tax nor there is any rules or bye-laws, which authorise the imposition and collection of the advertisement tax. Further apart from oral arguments there is nothing on record, nor any objection has been taken in the counter affidavit that in case the writ petition is allowed, the amount deposited in terms of the interim order, should not be refunded as the burden has been passed on to the consumers. Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact also, the burden was never passed on to the consumers along with the price of the SIM cards. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that the principle of unjust enrichment are not attracted. Any amount deposited by the petitioners in terms of the orders of the Court shall be refunded to the petitioners, within a month of the demand.
-
2011 (11) TMI 824
... ...
... ... ..... .a. Therefore, an unreasonable benefit has been passed on to the sister concern. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the ld. counsel that the advances have been made in the course of business, a fact not displaced by the ld. DR. Once it is held that the advances have been made in the course of business, the disallowance cannot be made by going into rates of interest paid and charged. 3.3 We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. It is seen that the ld. DR has not been able to displace the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) that the advances were made to Haldiram Snacks (P) Ltd., a sister concern, in the course of business of manufacture and sale of sweets and snacks. In such a situation, the decision in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. (supra) is directly applicable. Therefore, we are of the view that he was right in deleting the disallowance. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 822
... ...
... ... ..... Act for any delay in deduction and subsequent deposit of tax is concerned, in this case the tax is deemed to have been paid on the date when the relevant assessments have been finalised. Considering this aspect, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the chargeability of interest, if any, in terms of section 201(1A) of the Act. On this limited aspect, the matter is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to be dealt with afresh in accordance with law after allowing assessee an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 21. We may clarify here that since the aforesaid issue goes to the root of the matter, the other aspect of the dispute as to whether at all assessee is liable to deduct tax at source on such payment within the meaning of section 194A of the Act is not being adjudicated and the said issue is left open at the present. 22. In the result, all the captioned appeals are allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on this 30th Day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 821
... ...
... ... ..... bad debt incurred by the assessee was liable to be allowed in the revenue field or it was a capital loss. The assessee claimed it as a revenue loss and the Assessing Officer held the same to be a capital loss. This by itself cannot lead to the conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income or concealed any particulars of its income. The facts and figures are very much available and there is no dispute on the facts or the figures. It is clearly an interpretation of the law which had led to the addition being sustained. In the circumstances, it cannot be held that the assessee has done any contumacious act which leads to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT(A) on the issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. In the circumstances, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 7. The order was pronounced in the court on 29/11/2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 820
... ...
... ... ..... wing the appellant to pay the amount deposited by the third respondent. 57. The learned counsel for the appellant while concluding his arguments submitted that the appellant is prepared to settle the entire matter in case concession is given by the Corporation in the matter of interest. It is for the appellant to approach the Corporation with a concrete offer, so as to enable the Corporation to consider it on merits and as per their guidelines. DISPOSITION 58. The Corporation is directed to take possession of the property from the third respondent on payment of amount deposited by him and to take steps to auction the property by resorting to a transparent procedure and more particularly by fixing the reserve price and after taking a fresh valuation certificate and in the light of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Vineet Paul 2011 (4) SCC 171 . 59. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 819
... ...
... ... ..... rtment of Revenue (Central Board of Excise & Customs), New Delhi. In view of the said Circular, nothing survives in these appeals for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of as having become infructuos.
-
2011 (11) TMI 818
... ...
... ... ..... s expenditure voluntarily incurred for commercial expediency, and it is immaterial if a third party also benefits thereby.” 6. The Tribunal also sought to rely upon the decision of other High Courts to substantiate this point and concurred with the findings of CIT(Appeals) on this issue. 7. No infirmity could be pointed out in the reasonings given by the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion on the basis of the factual matrix that was presented before it, applying aptly the law on the issue to the facts, which was before it when it arrived at the conclusion. 8. Therefore, no interference is required as the Tribunal has rightly observed that the huge amount was available for making investment in shares and as the same was done out of the funds of the respondent assessee, the appeals of the Revenue are rightly set aside. No other question of law much less any substantial question of law is before this Court for the appeal to be entertained. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... med that it had the consent of the Appellant and hence was covered by the provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 30. Regarding the question as to whether the Award of the learned Arbitrator tantamounts to a decree or not, the language used in Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, makes it very clear that such an Award has to be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as it were a decree of the Court. The said language leaves no room for doubt as to the manner in which the Award of the learned Arbitrator was to be accepted. 31. Hence, the submissions made by the learned ASG on behalf of HUDCO cannot be accepted and are, therefore, rejected. Consequently, the Appeal succeeds and the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge is restored. 32. Having regard to the nature of the issues involved in this case, the parties will bear their own costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 816
... ...
... ... ..... t was invested in shares of these companies rather sufficient interest free funds were available with the assessee (paper book page 21), therefore, under these facts, the burden is on the Revenue to prove that interest bearing funds were invested in shares which has not been discharged by the department. MPFC is engaged in providing long term finance and investment in shares of these companies was made to make sure equity participation to have control over utilisation of funds/loans and also to ensure higher returns, in case of profit. Thus, the investment in shares was for business operation/commercial expediency, therefore, this appeal of the assessee also deserves to be allowed as the necessary documents are very much available before the Revenue Authorities. Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. representatives of both sides at the conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (11) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... found in judgment in case of Indian Planetary Society vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others (supra) that the order cannot be passed by anybody else but Central Government. There also the order impugned was passed by CBDT. 10 In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by directing the respondent no.1 to pass fresh orders on application moved by the petitioner at the earliest and in any case within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order to respondent no.1. The order shall be passed by the Central Government or its competent officer as authorised under Section 35(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 11 The impugned order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Director (ITAII) is quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that all other contentions and questions are left open. The petition is thus partly allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
2011 (11) TMI 814
... ...
... ... ..... question (C), which read thus A. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ITAT was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the inclusion of write off of Dadri asset of ₹ 4 lakhs and loss on sale/write off of fixed assets as profits of business for computing the allowable deduction u/ s. 32AB of the Act despite the fact that these items are not covered under the adjustments to be made u/s. 32AB(3) of the Act ? C. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law, the ITAT is right in directing to delete the addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure on temporary construction of site office and building despite the fact that it is capital expenditure.?
-
2011 (11) TMI 813
... ...
... ... ..... ring rival contentions, we find from the statement of computation of income from other sources that certain expenditures are claimed. To mention a few, 29,45,567, is incurred against receipts for returfing and restoration charges from sports club. Similarly, expenditures on sale of tickets are 11,57,666. Similarly, certain other expenses are accounted in the statement no.2. Thus, the statement of learned Counsel that no expenditure whatsoever was claimed against income which is offered to tax, is factually incorrect. As the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court laid down that reasonable expenditures should be disallowed against exempt income, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on the date of hearing i.e., 29th November 2011
-
2011 (11) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... ddress was available in the return filed by the petitioner, can be treated to be valid service? (B) Whether the proceedings in pursuance to the notice under Section 148 can be initiated without affecting service, which in accordance with Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, even if it is presumed can be made on an address, which is collected by the department from the bank, whereas known address was available with the department on Saral Form-5 of the petitioner? " Until further orders, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.6.2011 passed by ITAT, Agra Bench, Agra in ITA No.467/Agra/2009 shall remain stayed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... for the financial year 2006-07. 73. Question No.(iv) is with regard to validity of the order passed under Annexure-1/H. The petitioner made an application under Section 154 of the I.T. Act to revise the order passed under Section 10(23-C)(vi) of the I.T. Act for the year 2006-07. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned CCIT without hearing it held that the issue raised in the application is not a matter covered under Section 154 and there is no mistake apparent from the record. 74. On perusal of the petition filed under Section 154 of the I.T. Act, we don’t find any substance in the argument of Mr. Mahanti to interfere with the order of the CCIT passed under Annexure-1/H holding that the application for rectification under Section 154 is not entertainable as the issue raised in the application is not a matter covered under Section 154 of the I.T. Act and mistakes apparent from the records. 75. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... etc. Collecting jewellery of 906.900 grams by a woman in a married life of 25-30 years is not abnormal. Furthermore, there was no valid and/or proper yardstick adopted by the Assessing Officer to treat only 400 grams as "reasonable allowance" and treat the other as "unexplained". Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial." Taking a guidance from this decision, (Applied) it would be reasonable to hold that jewellery of 1000 (one thousand) grams could have been accumulated by the assessee as received from late Shri Dharampal Bansal which came inpossession and ownership of the assessee on his death, and on other occasions. The remaining jewellery is taken to be unaccounted jewellery. Its fair market value has to be included in the total income of the assessee as per the rates mentioned in sale bills. The AO is directed to modify his order accordingly. 4. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 809
... ...
... ... ..... her income 64,400 3,54,500 3,614 33,400 4,69,036 Undisclosed income from township 2,88,568 5,67,060 11,27,386 3,06,208 2,91,205 Scheme-wise and year wise break up of undisclosed income Scheme 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 Govind Vatika 2,88,568 1,32,628 2,01,509 0 0 Gokul Vihar 0 3,99,256 0 0 0 Subham Vihar 0 0 5,18,075 99,914 2,91,205 Brij Vihar 0 12,128 1,97,458 0 0 Manglam Vihar 0 23,048 2,10,344 2,06,294 0 2,88,568 5,67,060 11,27,386 3,06,208 2,91,205 22.5 The assessee sells the plots to bulk purchaser and retail seller and has to give the rate of land as per sq. yard. Hence, the profit margin has been estimated on the basis of profit per sq. yard and not on the basis of percentage of turn over. 23. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed while appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are partly allowed while appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 16-11-2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 808
... ...
... ... ..... sallowable. We, therefore, delete the disallowance of assessee’s claim made under sec. 80-IB of the Act as the assessee has satisfied the condition of filing audit report during assessment proceedings initiated under sec. 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall modify the assessment order accordingly. 9. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the assessee has also challenged the validity of proceedings under sec. 147 of the Act as well as the assessment made under sec. 147 of the Act on various grounds. Since the main issue of disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction under sec. 80-IB has been decided in favour of the assessee as above, other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee have become redundant and need no adjudication at this stage. 10. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the manner as indicated above. 11. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 25th November, 2011 immediately after the hearing was over.
........
|
