|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 545 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 734
... ...
... ... ..... ing order, in accordance with law, and after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As the matter is being remitted to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as such, and in the interest of fairness and justice, we make it clear that the assessee will be at liberty to take any such legal and factual plea, other than the plea dealt with us in this order, as he may deem appropriate and the CIT(A) will deal with the same as directed above. 4. We see no reasons to take any other view of the matter than the view so taken by us in the immediately preceding assessment year. Respectfully following the same, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions as above. Our observations for the assessment year 2006-07, vide order of even date, will equally apply here as well. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on 17 th day of February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 733
Computation of capital gains on the sale of a capital asset - description of the previous owner and the period of holding of the asset by the assessee - Benefit of indexed cost of inflation - determination of indexed cost of acquisition - HELD THAT:- As decided by ARUN SHUNGLOO TRUST VERSUS CIT [2012 (2) TMI 259 - DELHI HIGH COURT] expression “held by the assessee” used in Explanation (iii) to Section 48 has to be understood in the context and harmoniously with other Sections. The cost of acquisition stipulated in Section 49 means the cost for which the previous owner had acquired the property. The term “held by the assessee” should be interpreted to include the period during which the property was held by the previous owner. CIT v. Manjula J.Shah [2011 (10) TMI 406 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] – Decided against the Revenue.
-
2012 (2) TMI 732
... ...
... ... ..... idence to back its claim, we are of the considered view that the CIT (A) was justified in his stand which doesn t warrant our intervention at this stage. It is ordered accordingly. 9.9 Considering the smallness of the claim of Rs.3898/- being unpaid bonus, we delete the addition. 9.10 Before parting with, we would like to reiterate that the case law relied on in the case of Power Drugs Ltd v. CIT reported in (2011) 13 Taxmann.com 56(P H) has duly been perused while dealing with the relevant issue. 10. In the result, the assessee s appeals for the A.Ys 1993-94 and 1996-97 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeal for the assessment year 1994-95 is allowed for statistical purpose. इस आदेश की घोषणा दिनांक 28/02/2012 को न्यायालय में की गई I
-
2012 (2) TMI 731
... ...
... ... ..... in nature and once determined, has to be allowed and in this case, on facts the claim had actually been made in the original return and was omitted to be made in the revised return. The omission will not disentitle the appellant to the claim of set off of business loss/depreciation as determined and allowed to be carried forward . Therefore, set of brought forward losses is consequential in nature, once claimed in the original return of income has to be allowed even if the same is omitted the revised return of income. Thus, we do not find reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow the set off of brought forward loss as determined against the income of the assessee in the year under consideration and the same is hereby upheld. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 39. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced on this 08th day of February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 730
... ...
... ... ..... directed that on the Commission's request for assistance both the Central Government and the State Governments shall render all possible assistance to the Commission to enable it to discharge its functions, as directed by this Court in its order. The Commission shall at the discretion of its Chairman be free to co-opt purposes of the enquiry to be undertaken by it. Such legal technical, experts as may be considered necessary by it for an effective and early completion of the assignment hereby made. d) The Commission is requested to submit its report within six months from the date of this order. e) Such recommendations be sent to the Registrar General of this Court in sealed covers. 62. The matter may appear before the appropriate Bench after being nominated by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the 7th August, 2012 for further consideration by this Court of the recommendations by the Law Commission and if necessary for further directions to be passed in these appeals.
-
2012 (2) TMI 729
... ...
... ... ..... and within Section 10(f) prohibiting the member of the Village Panchayat from having such an interest. 23. While considering Section 15(l) of the CP Municipalities Act which provided for the disqualifications to the elections of the Municipal Committees, this Court in Gulam Yasin Khan held that the purpose and the object of prescribing several disqualifications in that provision is to ensure the purity of the administration of the Municipal Committees and in that sense the different clauses of disqualifications should not receive unduly narrow or restricted construction. We also hold the view that the prohibition in Section 10 (f) should not receive unduly narrow or restricted construction. In what we have considered above, the answer to the first question must be in the affirmative and it must consequently be held that the Appellant has incurred disqualification under Section 10(f) of the 1994 Act. We hold accordingly. 24. Civil Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 728
... ...
... ... ..... ending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, we consider it fit to restore all the appeals as well as Cross Objections to the file of the A.O. to decide the same after the decision of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay which is concerned with the impugned assessment years before us. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT (A) in both the assessment years and restore the matters to the file of the A.O. with the direction to decide the same after the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay on the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, challenging the orders of the Ld. CCIT. The assessee is also directed to file the copy of the decisions/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court after the Writ Petition is decided at the earliest before the A.O. 4. In the result, all the appeals as well as Cross Objections are allowed for the statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 29th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 727
... ...
... ... ..... s Court has observed thus 12. ... In the present-day system, reliance is required to be placed on the opinion of the higher officer who had the opportunity to watch the performance of the officer concerned from close quarters and formation of his opinion with regard to the overall reputation enjoyed by the officer concerned would be the basis. 34. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in sustaining the orders passed by the Full Court of the same High Court. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the orders passed by the High Court. Since the Appellant has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, he is entitled to all the monetary benefits from the date of his notional posting as C.J.M. till his notional retirement from service on attaining the age of superannuation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (2) TMI 726
... ...
... ... ..... y like the plaintiff was not justified in demanding interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendant and that too without any detail as to the nature of the business. Wherefore, it is just and proper to award only 18% per annum from the date of pr-note till the date of suit and pendente lite, the interest could be at 12% per annum and post decreetal interest could be at 6% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and accordingly, the suit shall stand decreed as under The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three lakhs) with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of promissory-note till the date of suit and at 12% interest per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and at 6% from the date of decree date till realization with proportionate costs throughout. 48. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgement and decree of the trial Court is set aside. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 725
Royalty - Income taxable in India u/s 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2, Clause (vi) - Reversal of Directions of Dispute Resolution Panel u/s 144C(5) - Submission of assessee was that issue involved in the appeal is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case M/S INTELSAT CORPORATION, C/O S.R. BATLIBOI & CO. VERSUS ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1 (2), NEW DELHI [2011 (3) TMI 1707 - ITAT DELHI]
HELD THAT:- We have rejected the application of the learned CIT-DR requesting for adjournment and proceeded to decide the appeal of the assessee exparte qua the Department. Respectfully following the decisions of tribunal in assessee's own case and the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court [2011 (8) TMI 1248 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that Learned Counsel for the Revenue could not dispute the position that issues raised in this appeal are directly covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. VERSUS DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [2011 (1) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In that judgment, a categorical view is taken that the income received from the activities undertaken by the respondent/assessee would not be exigible to tax in India, we reverse the directions under Section 144C(5) passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel - Decision in favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 724
... ...
... ... ..... wanted to furnish, we deem it proper to restore the entire issue back to the stage of Ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh as per law. There is one more reason for restoring to this issue back to the stage because, as per the impugned assessment order, there was an addition of Rs. 45,46,500/- which was taken in the hands of the assessee as unexplained credit and this amount has been sustained in the 2nd appeal as stated by Ld. A.R., therefore, whether it is to be held as loan or deposit in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271D, has to be examined afresh. With these directions on merit, the issue is being restored back for fresh adjudication by Ld. CIT (A), needless to say after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both the sides, we hereby allow the respective grounds only for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 12. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned
-
2012 (2) TMI 723
... ...
... ... ..... on Shri Sanjeev Kumar and daughter in law Smt. Renu have been initiated vide DD No. 43/D dated 21.3.2011. A copy of the enquiry has been provided to the appellant's Advocate Shri R.N. Jain, but not to the appellant. The appellant also alleges that the Police have not properly enquired into his complaints. 4. Having heard the parties and perused the relevant documents on file, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant within seven days of receipt of this order. In so far as the appellant's allegations that proper enquiry has not been conducted by the Police into his complaints is concerned, there is no provision for redressal of grievances under the RTI Act. In case the appellant is not satisfied with the enquiry conducted in the matter by the Police, he may, if he so desires, take up the matter with the competent authority. With these directions/observations, the matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
-
2012 (2) TMI 722
... ...
... ... ..... the Respondent submits that the Respondent be wound up. In view thereof, for the reasons set out in detail in the Order dated 10th February 2011 and further since the Respondent Company is not interested in opposing the Petition, the Petition is allowed in terms of Prayer Clauses (a) and (b). 2. The Company Petition is disposed of accordingly. 3. Company Application No.77 of 2010 also stands disposed of.
-
2012 (2) TMI 721
... ...
... ... ..... e next ground of the Revenue is with regard to provision made towards payment on royalty. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the claim of enhanced royalty payment itself is a subject matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and question of allowing the provision made towards interest on such enhanced royalty does not arise. 31. We heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee, the recent one being the order of the Tribunal dated 4.11.209 in ITA No.811/Hyd/2007 in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2002-03, a copy of which is filed at page 248 of the paper-book. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and reject the grounds of the Revenue on this issue. 32. In the result, appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.4.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 719
... ...
... ... ..... ity, mere issuance of it and its dishonour does not constitute the offence. 35. In this appeal, a request is made to remand the case to the trial court for fresh evidence. It is not acceptable because in the fact situation, Section 167 of the Evidence Act would come into play which mandates 167. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence-The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision. I am satisfied in view of this provision, even if there be any unjust admission or rejection of evidence, retrial is impermissible. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment.
-
2012 (2) TMI 718
... ...
... ... ..... r decision. Thus, we uphold the order the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein depreciation on membership card has been denied. Therefore, following the above order, we decide this issue against the assessee. 7. As far as issue regarding disallowance u/s.14A is concerned, since it has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT 328 ITR 81 that Rule 8D is not applicable retrospectively and only a reasonable disallowance can be made in the year where Rule 8D is not applicable. Therefore, following this decision we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the AO to decide the reasonable disallowance in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT supra . 8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 15/2/2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 717
... ...
... ... ..... relevant. In order to take advantage of this provision, the assessee is required to establish that a debt due has become a worthless debt. It is not necessary for the assessee to show that he has failed to recover the debt despite taking legal action. The assessee is also not expected to say that he had become pessimistic about the prospect of the recovery of the debt in question. At the same time, the Department cannot insist on demonstrative and infallible proof that the debt has become debt. The only requirement is amendment In the circumstances, we find that the assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act as there was an “actual write off” by the assessee, therefore, we affirm the stand of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the open in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 13.2.2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 716
... ...
... ... ..... supported by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Manoj Agarwal referred to supra, which is also approved by the Hon’ble Punjab and Harayana High Court in the case of Mridula Prop.Dhruv Fabrics referred to supra. The decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is also the only decision on the issue. No other decision to the contrary has been placed before us. In the circumstances, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mridula Prop.Dhruv Fabrics referred to supra, it is held that the notice issued u/s.158BD is barred by the limitation and consequently bad in law. Thus, even on this ground the assessment passed in consequence of notice u/s.158BD on 17.02.05 is liable to annulled and we do so. In the circumstances, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th February, 2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 715
... ...
... ... ..... on which interest had been paid. The interest has been paid on delayed payments of installments payable by the assessee to MCGM for office premises. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) reversed the order of Assessing Officer. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee had made the payment of interest on the delayed payment of installments payable by the assessee to MCGM for the office premises. The assessee had not raised any borrowings on which interest is payable. Therefore, there is no question of diversion of interest bearing funds to interest free advances. In the circumstances and facts of the case, we find no error in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee by reversing the order of Assessing Officer on the issue. Thus, ground No.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/02/2012.
-
2012 (2) TMI 714
... ...
... ... ..... pecific and there is no scope of implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. It appears to us that the delegated authority must act strictly within the parameters of the authority delegated to it under the Act and it will not be proper to bring the theory of implied intent or the concept of incidental and ancillary power in the matter of exercise of fiscal power....” We need not examine the said issue, as we have found that the levy of conversion fee is not claimed in exercise of the powers under Section 7, but is in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act read with Building Rules and 1960 Rules framed in exercise of the rule making power conferred under Section 22 of the Act. In view of the findings recorded above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petitions. Consequently, all the petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek conversion of the use of buildings in terms of the scheme framed under the Act.
........
|
