|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 696 Records
-
2011 (11) TMI 807
... ...
... ... ..... ilway did not issue the tax invoice at that time. Prayer has also been made on behalf of the South Eastern Railway to treat the SROs as tax invoice. It is also noted that all the VAT/taxes have been collected from the purchaser and further deposited to the sales tax authority as per purchaser's and seller's VAT registration number. Viewed from the aspect that bona fide purchase was made by the petitioners on auction from the South Eastern Railway, as borne out by the sale release order and order of confirmation made on behalf of the South Eastern Railway, coupled with the fact that all the informations as required under the tax invoice have been furnished, the petitioner is entitled to input-tax credit. In the result, the present application is allowed. The assessing authority shall allow the input-tax credit on verification of the documents, treating the sale release order as tax invoice. There will be no order as to cost. SABYASACHI ROY (Technical Member).-I agree.
-
2011 (11) TMI 806
... ...
... ... ..... . and the same was continuing as such as on the date of valuation i.e. 31st March, 2002. The only possibility of considering such FDR within the definition of “assets” can be under clause (vi) which refers to cash in hand, in excess of fifty thousand rupees, of individuals. Obviously Fixed deposit receipt cannot be considered as cash in hand. If the intention of the legislature had been to include bank deposits also within the ambit of “assets”, it would have specifically provided so. As the definition of “assets” u/s 2(ea) is exclusive and does not provide for inclusion of FDR or any other bank deposit within its purview, in our considered opinion, the FDR could not have been directed to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this issue and order for the deletion of addition. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 805
... ...
... ... ..... or the purpose of evidence, many certificates are enclosed with the application. On going through the entire application and the reasons stated therein, we are of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for condonation of delay of 927 days in filing the appeal before us. 4. In view of this, application for condonation of delay is dismissed as de-void of merits and consequently the Stay Petition, appeal and miscellaneous application for out of turn hearing stand dismissed. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (11) TMI 804
... ...
... ... ..... rule on question no. 1 in the application by MA and on the question in the application by GIMD, that the transactions of sale of shares by them in ShanH to Sanofi are taxable in India in terms of paragraph 5 of Article 14 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Convention between India and France. 38. This ruling is obviously without prejudice to the right, if any, of the applicants to the benefits, if any, available to them under Article 25.2 of the DTAA. 39. Since we have ruled on question no.1 that the transaction is liable to be taxed in India in terms of Article 14.5 of the DTAA, the second question posed in application No. 847 of 2009 filed by MA does not arise. Article 14.6 has application only if Article 14.5 has no application. Hence, we are not inclined to consider the question whether controlling interest is an asset that would be taxable in France under Article 14.6 of the Treaty. 40. Accordingly, the ruling is pronounced on this 28th day of November, 2011. 1263 ITR 706
-
2011 (11) TMI 803
... ...
... ... ..... e claim made on 1.9.09 was in time, is acceptable. Nevertheless, in view of the decision in the case of Hindustan Motor s case, cited by me above, it can be said that the only on 1.7.09, the appellant could come to the conclusion that they cannot utilize the CENVAT Credit since the Peanut Butter manufactured by the DTA unit was totally exempted. 7. Another ground taken by the Revenue for rejecting the refund is that the goods have not been exported under bond. A 100 EOU has to export the goods under bond only, since if it is cleared to DTA unit, Peanut Butter attracted duty. Therefore, in respect of all the 3 refund claims, the condition that the goods should have been exported under bond is fulfilled. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appellant is eligible for refund for which the claims have been made in 3 refund claims which are the subject matter of this dispute. 9. Hence, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court on )
-
2011 (11) TMI 802
CENVAT Credit of Basic Excise Duty or of Education Cess - Held that:- The prayer is not at all specific inasmuch as it does not refer to CENVAT Credit of Basic Excise Duty or CENVAT Credit of Education Cess - the writ petition is required to be heard independently and the question that requires to be considered is whether CENVAT Credit of Basic Excise Duty can be utilised for payment of Education Cess - review application allowed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 801
... ...
... ... ..... has incurred only a sum of ₹ 32,66,579/- during the year on project expenses and the balance of amount was already incurred by Shah Group and, therefore, disallowance of ₹ 24,92,590/- is totally unjustified. 11. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly decided the issue. Firstly, Ld. CIT(A) has pointed out that projects are not in the similar vicinity. Further, assessee has taken over the project from Shah Group at the cost price which has been accepted in case of Shah Group and had incurred only a sum of ₹ 32,66,579/- on this project as project expenses. Without pointing out any defect in such expenses AO cannot make an adhoc addition. The cost would always depend upon the quality and so many other factors. Accordingly, we find nothing wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and confirm the same. 12. In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 30-11-2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 800
... ...
... ... ..... In their evidence, the plaintiffs have proved the facts stated in the plaint and have also exhibited the relevant documents in support of their case. The evidence filed by the plaintiffs has gone unrebutted as no cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witness was carried out. Therefore, the statements made by the plaintiffs are accepted as correct deposition. 19. Under these facts and circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for a permanent injunction. Hence, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in terms of paragraph-37(a) & (b) of the plaint. As far as the relief of damages and rendition of accounts are concerned, I am of the view that in view of the orders earlier passed in favour of the plaintiffs, they are entitled to the punitive damages to the tune of ₹ 2 lac in their favour. The plaintiffs are also entitled to the cost of the suit. Ordered accordingly. 20. Decree be drawn accordingly. The suit and the pending applications are disposed of.
-
2011 (11) TMI 799
... ...
... ... ..... OMP No.809 of 2011 under Section 9 of the Act also cannot be granted. This Court however reiterates that this order represents the prima facie view of this Court at this stage. The Arbitral Tribunal will, in passing the final Award form an independent view uninfluenced by what has been stated in this order or the impugned order of the Arbitral Tribunal on merits. 31. A prayer was made by Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, learned Senior counsel for the Appellant that in the event of this Court not holding in favour of the Appellant, the interim injunction which remained in force till 4th November 2011 should be continued for a further period to give time to the Appellant to challenge the order. However, for the reasons set out hereinbefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any such further relief. 32. Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2011 and OMP No. 809 of 2011 are dismissed with costs of ₹ 20,000/- which will be paid by the Appellant to the Respondent within a period of two weeks.
-
2011 (11) TMI 798
... ...
... ... ..... ring Co. (P) Ltd. would squarely apply. Consequently, the plea of the learned counsel for the Petitioner should succeed. 12. Accordingly, this Court appoints Mr. G.P. Thareja, retired Additional District & Sessions Judge as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The fees of the learned Arbitrator will be in terms of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules. 13. The interim orders passed by this Court on 21st April 2011 will continue till such time the application, to be filed by the Petitioner under Section 17 of the Act, is taken up for consideration and disposed of by the learned Arbitrator. This is further conditional upon the Petitioner filing such application under Section 17 of the Act within four weeks from today, failing which the interim order passed by this Court will stand vacated at the end of four weeks from today. 14. The petition and application are disposed of. S. MURALIDHAR, J NOVEMBER 17, 2011 ak
-
2011 (11) TMI 797
... ...
... ... ..... ready held by us while disposing of the Revenue’s appeals for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03, the ALV of the assessee’s property was correctly determined by the learned CIT(Appeals) by taking fair rent of ₹ 28,000/- per month on the basis of material gathered by the AO in the form of comparable instances of rent received for the similar property in the same locality. Following our decision rendered in assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03, we modify the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2005-06 and direct the AO to determine the ALV of the assessee’s property by taking the fair rent at ₹ 28,000/- per month. The appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06 is thus partly allowed. 6. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03 are dismissed whereas the appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2005-06 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of Nov., 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 796
Penalty u/s 271D for violation of provisions of section 269SS - Held that:- We are of the view that the transaction between son in law and father in law for giving a support and help as contended by Ld. Counsel and not denied by revenue, in law was not a loan or deposit in stricter sense of section 269SS of the Act and it was only a financial support. Even it is not the allegation that the father in law of assessee has charged any interest on the above loan and hence, this is merely a financial support to son in law by his father in law. Once this is the position, the transaction does not fall in the ambit of section 269SS of the Act. Accordingly, these appeals of the assessee are allowed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 795
... ...
... ... ..... investigation period where the modus operandi adopted by the delinquents for the alleged manipulation of the scrips was the same. Having debarred the appellants by the earlier orders, the same whole time member by his subsequent orders dated November 11, 2010 and February 24, 2011 gave them warning. It is obvious that he was not consistent in his approach. He did not take notice of his previous orders in the order now impugned before us. Even assuming that the appellants were guilty of alleged manipulation, all that was required was another warning to the appellants as was done previously. Consequently, we do not think it necessary to go into the merits of the charge pertaining to manipulation. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the appellants before us are given a warning to be careful and cautious in future. The impugned order stands modified accordingly. 4. These appeals stand disposed of as above. No costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 794
... ...
... ... ..... n for bail filed before the Sessions Court. The learned link Sessions Court has also ignored the medical opinion available on record regarding the injuries on the head of the petitioner being dangerous to life & has wrongly observed the same not to be dangerous to life. 19. Thus, this Court feels that imperative in the interest of justice, the registry be directed to place a copy of this order before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for information. 20. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present application for cancellation of bail is allowed. The bail bounds of the respondents are directed to be cancelled and the learned Trial Judge is directed to take the respondent No. 2 into custody and proceed with trial of the case. It is made clear that the cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent by this order shall not be construed to be a rider against the remedy available to the respondent for seeking bail in accordance with the procedure established by law.
-
2011 (11) TMI 793
... ...
... ... ..... relinquished the unused land. After such relinquishment of the land, the land had to be notified for sale in public auction. If at the time of sale of such land, the original owner made a claim, sale could be stopped and his claim could be investigated and thereafter the land was to be disposed of in the manner specified under the said paragraph. Added to this, by virtue of the amendment to para 32 brought about by G.O. Ms. No. 783 dated 9.10.1998, the land for the public purpose shall be utilized for the same purpose for which it was acquired as far as possible and in case the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired due to any reason, the land shall be utilized for any other public purpose as deemed fit. 22. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the Appellants have failed to make out a case for issue of a mandamus to the Respondents to release the acquired land in their favour. 23. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2011 (11) TMI 792
... ...
... ... ..... F.A. Ayyubi, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. O R D E R The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2011 (11) TMI 791
... ...
... ... ..... where the tax effect is less than ₹ 10,00,000/- and in view of the decision of this Court in ITA No. 3191/2005 in the case of the Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Ranka & Rank, wherein it was held that Instruction No. 3/2011 issued on 09.02.2011 is applicable to pending proceeding also, this appeal preferred by the Revenue is not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (11) TMI 790
... ...
... ... ..... general. 10. Ground Nos. 9,10 and 11 are consequential. 11. For the above discussion, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2006-07, in ITA No. 4176(Del)2011 is allowed as indicated. ITA No. 4177(Del)2011 12. The subject matter of this appeal is identical as that in ITA No. 4176(Del)2011 for assessment year 2006-07(supra) but for the exception that in that case, the issue of reopening of the assessee’s assessment, u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, was involved. The grounds in that regard, being ground No.1 was, however, as noted, not pressed. In the present case, however, there is no such ground taken. 13. As such, the facts being identical for assessment year 2008-09 also, our observations in ITA No. 4176(Del)2011 (supra) are clearly applicable. 14. For the reasons recorded in ITA No. 4176(Del)2011 (supra), this appeal is also allowed. 15. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as indicated. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.11.2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 788
... ...
... ... ..... pra) and Wood Stock Broking P. Ltd. v. ACIT (ITA No.6657/Mum/2007 dated 5-1-2001), has held that the interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for IPO application is part of cost of acquisition and the same is to be allowed. 10. In the absence of any distinguishing feature or contrary decision brought on record by the Revenue and keeping in view that it is not the case of the Revenue that there is no nexus or the interest expenditure is personal expenses of the assessee, we, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal, hold that the interest paid by the assessee on the money borrowed for IPO application is part of the cost of acquisition and the same is to be allowed as the cost of acquisition in computing the short-term capital gain. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds taken by the assessee are, therefore, allowed. 11. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on the 25th day of November, 2011.
-
2011 (11) TMI 787
Deduction of tax at source on carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport - Assessee was liable to deduct tax on the payments made to various contractors u/s. 194C only, and that the provision contained in section 194-I is not applicable.
........
|
