|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1229 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Prasad, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1228 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income accrued to the assessee in India in respect of supply of equipment - business connection of the assessee in India - Duty is cast on the payer to pay tax at source, on failure on the part of the payee, no interest u/s. 234B - income of the assessee arising on account of “Royalty and Fees for Technical Services” is taxable on receipt basis and not on accrual basis
-
2012 (11) TMI 1227 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ene, as in a corporate democracy, it is the will of the shareholders which has to prevail, the exception being that the shareholders are not misled with ulterior motive". In the present case the third respondent was validly appointed as managing director on August 10, 2010 and the same was confirmed in the annual general meeting held on February 28, 2011. Further, he was again appointed as managing director on August 16, 2011 and was confirmed on September 28, 2011, at the annual general meeting. In this regard article 118 empowers the board to appoint any director as managing director. As held supra, the third respondent was validly appointed as managing director and the same was ratified by the board. In view of the reasons and facts as stated above, the petitioners have not made out any case either on oppression or mismanagement and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. All the interim orders stand vacated. o p /o p
-
2012 (11) TMI 1226 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the previous year relevant to the assessment year under appeal, even when the relevant receipted challans evidencing such payments were duly produced before the learned CIT(Appeals) in the course of the hearing of the appeal before him". 24. Learned representatives fairly agree that these issues can also be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving yet another opportunity of hearing to the assesese to produce the requisite challan. In case, the assessee is able to produce the challan evidencing payment of taxes, needless to say, the disallowance will stand deleted. 25. Ground Nos. 8 & 9 are thus also allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. 27. To sum up, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m the record that the plaintiff company had already paid dividend to the defendant No.1/appellant for the year 2009-10 and 2010-11 amounting to ₹ 6,63,690/- (Rupees Six lacs sixty three thousand six hundred ninety) only. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the respondents/plaintiffs are directed to release the dividend for the financial year of 2011-12 without prejudice to the plaintiffs' rights to claim temporary injunction for the dividend in future. The payment shall be deposited in the court by way of draft in the name of appellant, Sharmila Vijay Shetty and draft shall be released to the appellant on execution of an indemnity bond. The remaining issues shall also be examined by the trial court on the next date. It is made clear that on or before the next date, the defendant shall be at liberty to file written statement against the injunction and temporary injunction. With the above direction the appeal as well as Misc. case stands disposed of.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1224 - SUPREME COURT
Application for bail - entitled to the benefit of statutory bail in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure - Police Encounter - Petitioner was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police - FIR registered against unidentified persons Under Sections 307, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code), Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 - HELD THAT:- It is obvious that the Petitioner was fully aware of the situation while making the application for grant of bail, knowing that he was under arrest in connection with the first F.I.R. and not under the second F.I.R. lodged by the C.B.I. In the event the second investigation is treated to be a fresh investigation and the Petitioner had been arrested in connection therewith, the submissions made by Mr. Sushil Kumar would have been relevant. However, since the prayer for default bail was made in connection with F.I.R. No. 115 of 2006, in which charge-sheet had been filed within the stipulated period of 90 days, the argument with regard to the default bail was not available to the Petitioner and such argument has, therefore, to be rejected. The other submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar that since a fresh investigation was directed to be conducted by this Court, the earlier charge-sheet must be deemed to have been quashed, has to be rejected also on the same ground.
Even on the question of delay in concluding the trial, such delay has not been caused by the prosecuting authorities, but by a co-accused and advantage thereof cannot be taken by the Petitioner.
Since no argument had been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner on the merits of the case, we also refrain from looking into the same and on the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are not convinced that the Special Leave Petition, along with the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 11364 of 2012, warrants any interference by this Court. The Special Leave Petition and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition are, therefore, dismissed.
Order - Jasti Chelameswar, J. - In my opinion, the mere undertaking of a further investigation either by the Investigating Officer on his own or upon the directions of the superior police officer or pursuant to a direction by the concerned Magistrate to whom the report is forwarded does not mean that the report submitted u/s 173(2) is abandoned or rejected. It is only that either the Investigating Agency or the concerned Court is not completely satisfied with the material collected by the investigating agency and is of the opinion that possibly some more material is required to be collected in order to sustain the allegations of the commission of the offence indicated in the report.
Therefore, the submission of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner, that the directions given by this Court earlier in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2007 would necessarily mean that the charge-sheet submitted by the police stood implicitly rejected is without any basis in law and misconceived. Even the fact that the CBI purported to have registered a "fresh FIR", in my opinion, does not lead to conclusion in law that the earlier report or the material collected by the Gujarat Police (CID) on the basis of which they filed the charge-sheet ceased to exist. It only demonstrates the administrative practice of the CBI.
In my view, notwithstanding the practice of the CBI to register a "fresh FIR", the investigation undertaken by the CBI is in the nature of further investigation u/s 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pursuant to the direction of this Court.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1223 - ITAT PUNE
Entitled for deduction u/s. 80P - Held that:- It is well settled principle in the interpretation of the ‘taxing provisions’ that the same are to be strictly construed and there is n room for any intendment. There is no presumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied. One has to fairly look into language used by the Parliament. The Parliament has adopted the definition of the Co-operative Bank by refering the same as given in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. It is called Legislation by reference and we have to give the strict interpretation while interpreting the effect of Sub-sec. (4) to Sec. 80 P. In our opinion, Cooperative Credit Society is distinct and separate from the Co-operative Bank nor it can be said as a Primary Co-operative Bank within the meaning of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Hence, the assessee being a Co-operative Credit Society is entitled for deduction u/s. 80 P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1222 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... recourse to the remedy by way of appeal. I am inclined to think that petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P3, order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the contentions respondents have raised in the suit and the application for injunction. I also make it clear that I am concerned in this proceeding only with Ext.P3, order insofar as it affected the interest of the petitioner who is not a party to the suit or the applications. Resultantly, this original petition is allowed as under 1.Ext.P3 order dated 26.03.2013 on I.A No. 925 of 2013 in O.S. No. 329 of 2012 of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery is set aside. 2.I.A. No. 925 of 2013 will stand dismissed. 3.It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the 1st respondent impleading petitioner as a party to the suit or other pending applications as the case may be and seeking appropriate relief, temporary or otherwise in the matter.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1221 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... However, considering the fact that the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, dated 17th February, 2012 was not available at the relevant point of time and however, the CIT (A) followed the said decisions in the assessee’s own case, which considered the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.3286-3287/2010) while giving relief to the assessee as evident from para 6 of the impugned order. The judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank (supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd (supra) which is relied upon by the Ld Counsel before us. Considering the settled nature of the issue at the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that order of CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1220 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Re-import of the goods earlier exported - N/N. 58/1995-Cusw dated 14.11.1995 - Held that: - To remove the hardship when the goods have gone on 23.3.2006 it is left open to the appellant to make appropriate application to the authority concerned to consider the aspect of condonation of delay and examine whether re-export made on 23.3.2006 was within permissible time stipulated under the discretionary power of the learned authority - matter remanded to the learned Adjudicating Authority to grant an opportunity to the appellant for personal hearing and take decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1219 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... i, Adv., Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv., Mrs Anil Katiyar,Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. The appeal will be heard on the SLP paper book. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1218 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Short term capital loss disallowed - Held that:- Such share transactions were not quoted and consequently, were not traded through stock exchange. When all the facts and circumstances of the case are viewed, in totality, it is evident that the assessee appellants failed to discharge the onus, to prove the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sales of such shares. The impugned transactions of shares are preordained one, not for legitimate commercial purpose in view but for the purpose of creating non-genuine and artificial short term capital loss, with a view to reducing valid taxliability.
These transactions of shares were not governed by market factors prevalent at that relevant time, in such trade, but the same are product of the design and mutual understanding on the part of the appellants and the said Hissar based unlisted company. CIT(Appeals) has failed to bring any cogent and credible evidence, to dislodge such finding. Having regard to the peculiar fact-situation of the present case, it is evident that such share transactions were close circuit transactions and clearly structured one. No merit in the findings of the CIT(Appeals).
Having regard all the findings of the CIT(Appeals) cannot be sustained and, hence, the same are reversed. Further, an offer to surrender the impugned loss, subject to no penal action, made by the appellants before the AO, in the course of assessment proceedings, is an important piece of evidence, hence, cannot be ignored lightly. Consequently, the findings of the AO, as recorded in the impugned assessment order, are restored.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1217 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... assessee which he refused to receive. He submitted that due to non-receipt of the notice of hearing by the Tribunal the assessee could not appear before the Tribunal either in person or through his Authorised Representative. He submitted that in the interest of justice the exparte order of the Tribunal should be recalled and the assessee should be given an opportunity to argue her case on merit. 3. After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for non-appearance on the date of hearing. We, therefore, recall the order of the Tribunal and direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on 01-01-2013 which was announced in the open court. It was also announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent to which both the parties agreed. Accordingly, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open court at the time of hearing itself on this the 23rd day of November 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1216 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... was redeposited in the bank after a gap of few months. We do not find any merit in the order of the authorities below in treating the said redeposit of cash in the bank account as income under section 68 of the Act. 10. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT-II Vs. Parneeta Goyal (supra) on similar facts where cash was withdrawn on earlier dates and was redeposited in the bank account of the assessee held that there was no merit in the addition in view of the explanation of the assessee in respect of the gap of entries between cash withdrawals and deposit in the bank account being operated by the assessee. Following the above said and in view of the facts of the present case, we find no merit in the aforesaid addition made in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we delete the same and allow the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29th day of November, 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1215 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nd gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find from the assessment order dated 09/12/2008 for AY 2006-07, a sum of ₹ 7,36,555/- was offered to tax by the assessee and assessed as such by the AO. The CIT passed the order u/s 263 directing the AO to bring to tax the said sum of ₹ 7,36,555/- for the AY 2005-06, which is the year under consideration. In this case, there is no dispute that the assessee is following mercantile accounting system and if the impugned amount of ₹ 7,36,555/- is accrued during the year under consideration, the same is to be offered to tax. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to examine whether this receipt of ₹ 7,36,555/- is accrued to the assessee or not in the year under consideration and decide the issue in accordance with law. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 20. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1214 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... facilities before the last date envisaged under the scheme and thereafter, there was no obligation on its part to ensure that industrial units on such plots must also come into existence and commence their production activities, impugned show cause notice for withdrawal of approval of assessee’s industrial park is liable to be quashed and CBDT is directed to notify the same.” 8. From the material available on record, we find that the facts involved in assessment year 2007-08 and the impugned assessment year are identical and no changed circumstances have been brought to our notice to deviate from the aforesaid decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, we hold that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80IA (4)(iii) of the Act. 9. In view of the above, we uphold the findings of the CIT (A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Order pronounced in the court on 27-11-2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1213 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... Act which means that this would not exceed the maximum amount provided under the Act.” 6. We follow the above judgment. The CIT(A) while confirming the addition solely relied upon the C.B.D.T. Circular No.739 holding that the assessee did not comply with the directions of section 40(b)(v) read with C.B.D.T. Circular. The CIT(A) without pointing out how the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh is distinguishable, it has been distinguished by simply stating that the said judgment is distinguishable. Whereas, we find that the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court has, after considering the C.B.D.T. Circular, held that in such circumstances, remuneration is allowable to the assessee under section 40(b)(v) of the Act. We follow the above judgement of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court and in the light of that, the claim of the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (11) TMI 1212 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s therefore directed to be deleted.” 6. Having heard the submission of both the sides and also considering the factual aspect of the case in the light of comparative chart placed on record, we have noted that the admitted factual position was that there was increase in the price of the Diesel by 7.04 and that was stated to be one of the reasons for the impugned increase in the Diesel expenditure. It has also been explained by ld.AR that considering the break-up of the “Transport Receipt” it was found that the Diesel expenditure incurred by the assessee for running the machinery was higher in comparison to the past years since the customers have contributed Diesel less than the past year. All these facts have, therefore, duly explained the reason for increase in Diesel expenses for the year under consideration, hence we hereby uphold the view taken by the ld.CIT(A) and dismiss this ground of the Revenue. 7. In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1211 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2011 331 ITR 458 in which almost in similar circumstances, the penalty was held to be imposed validly in accordance law. 16. In all the cases relied on by Sri Rahul Agarwal there was an explanation given by assessee. In the present case there is no explanation whatsoever, for submitting inaccurate particulars and of concealment of income. The circumstances, in which the income was surrendered on the pretext of buying peace have not been explained. The findings of the CIT (A), that the penalty could not be imposed, was thus not sustainable. 17. We find that the Tribunal has given sufficient reasons, and has considered the entire facts and circumstances in arriving at a finding that unless the explanation is found to be satisfactory, and by which the assessee may prove his bonafides, the penalty can be imposed, invoking Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. 18. The question of law is decided against the assessee, and in favour of the revenue. 19. The Income Tax Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1210 - ITAT NAGPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ords “reason to believe” but also inserted the word “opinion” in section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words “reason to believe”, Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word “opinion” on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.” 11. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, we are of the view that the reasons recorded in this case are not bonafide and it is merely change of opinion. On this basis itself the initiation of the proceedings u/s 147 are invalid and in consequence thereof the assessment framed is also invalid and accordingly we quash the same. 12. In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2001-2002 and 2002- 2003 are partly allowed while the appeal for the assessment year 2003-2004 is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 23/11/2012)
............
|
