|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 770 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 831 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 22 would come into operation immediately once the defendant brings to the notice of the Court that an inquiry under Section 16 is pending before the Board or an appeal is pending relating to the said inquiry before the Appellate Authority. Having failed to place any such material on record, this Court is of the clear view that the bar or embargo envisaged under Section 22 of the Act will not apply to the facts of the present case as the appellant cannot take the advantage of the said provision merely because an inquiry under Section 16 was pending before the BIFR or an Appeal under Section 25 against the order of BIFR was pending before the AAIFR. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The decretal amount along with interest accrued thereon deposited by the appellant pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 21.11.05 is directed to be released in favour of the respondent.
-
2012 (4) TMI 830 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cate issued by Dr. V.K. Goel. The only thing which happened is that nobody on behalf of the assessee company informed the AO about the inability of Shri Keshav Aggarwal to represent the case on the ground of illness. According to us, this is only a technical omission as the fact of illness of Shri Keshav Aggarwal has not been disputed. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) also obtained remand report on the additional evidence. Having done so, we are of the view that the additional evidence should have been admitted. In any case we now admit the evidence in the interest of justice. Since no opinion has been given by any of the lower authorities on the impact of this evidence on assessment, the matter is restored to the file of AO for making fresh assessment as per law. He shall take into account the additional evidence filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), hear the assessee and thereafter frame fresh assessment. In the result the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2012 (4) TMI 829 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y under Section 8 of the Act and to project her innocence and the authority, after considering the cause as shall be projected, has to pass appropriate orders in-keeping with the cannons of justice and in case of any dissatisfaction with the order, party aggrieved has a right of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and then again a right of appeal before the High Court against the order of Appellate Tribunal. When such efficacious remedy is available, petitioner has been ill advised to file the instant petition. 11. It is also to be made clear that in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act the person interested cannot be prevented from enjoyment of immovable property attached under sub-section (1), therefore, there is no imminent threat as against the right of the petitioner to enjoy immovable property provisionally attached. 12. The writ petition, for the afore-stated reasons, is dismissed along with connected CMP. Interim direction dated 05.11.2011 shall cease to be in operation.
-
2012 (4) TMI 828 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... serious one as the sentence of 7 years can be imposed. In the case under Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a legal presumption that the cheque had been issued for discharging the antecedent liability and that presumption can be rebutted only by the person who draws the cheque. Such a requirement is not there in the offences under Indian Penal Code. In the case under Negotiable Instruments Act, if a fine is imposed, it is to be adjusted to meet the legally enforceable liability. There cannot be such a requirement in the offences under Indian Penal Code. The case under Negotiable Instruments Act can only be initiated by filing a complaint. However, in a case under the Indian Penal Code such a condition is not necessary. 28. There may be some overlapping of facts in both the cases but ingredients of offences are entirely different. Thus, the subsequent case is not barred by any of the aforesaid statutory provisions. The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 827 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rporation of India and others 5. 46 of 2012 M/s R.V. Co. and another v. Food Corporation of India and others 6. 47 of 2012 M/s Walia Goods Carrier and another v. Food Corporation of India and others 7. 131 of 2012 Vinod Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 8. 183 of 2012 Akash Mahajan v. Food Corporation of India and others 9. 215 of 2012 V.K. Transport Company, Gurdaspur v. Food Corporation of India and others 10. 328 of 2012 M/s Suresh Kumar Mahesh Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 11. 354 of 2012 M/s Suresh Kumar Mahesh Kumar v. Food Corporation of India and others 12. 355 of 2012 Punjab Himachal Goods Transport Co. v. Food Corporation of India and others 13. 361 of 2012 Punjab Himachal Goods Transport Co. v. Food Corporation of India and others 14. 642 of 2012 M/s Garcha Goods Transport Union and others v. Food Corporation of India and another 15. 2586 of 2012 M/s R.S. Labour and Transport Contractor and others v. Food Corporation of India and others
-
2012 (4) TMI 826 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... .2 of the appeal reads as under - 2. That assessment order is against law and facts on the file in as much as Ld. JCIT / Addl. CIT did not provide an opportunity to assessee to be heard before giving directions u/s 144A to Ld. ITO, Ward-2, which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. 10. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal. In our view, the CIT(A) has correctly observed that the plea of the assessee that additions were made as per the directions of the Addl. CIT issued u/s 144A of the Act is not tenable. The CIT(A) has observed that no specific directions were issued by the Addl. CIT, Kurukshetra, Range Kurukshetra to Assessing Officer to frame the assessment in a particular manner. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this ground of appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed partly as indicated above. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 18th day of April, 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 825 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t case, that is not the position and in fact that is not even alleged. Furthermore, the Tribunal has also found that the assessee had been able to establish existence of a reasonable cause, even if the finding of the Tribunal that there was no violation is not accepted. In the circumstances, there is no reason to take a different view of the matter. The Tribunal has found that on the facts and in the light of the evidence on record there was no violation of either the provisions of section 269SS or section 269T of the Act. The Tribunal has further found that there was a reasonable cause, assuming that there was any violation by the assessee. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalties levied under sections 271D and 271E of the Act. In view of the above, we are of the view that penalty u/s. 271E of the Act cannot be levied in this case and accordingly, we delete the same. 5. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed 6. Order pronounced in open court on 20.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 824 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... lopers vs. ITO bearing ITA No.3165/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 order dated 07/06/2011 and in that order also, it was held that the amendment in section 40(a)(ia) by the Finance Act, 2001 is remedial in nature and should not cause undue hardship to the taxpayers. It was concluded that in respect of payment for which TDS was deposited before the due date of filing of return, then no disallowance was to be made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the I.T.Act. Following these decisions, we are of the view that the issue is directly covered in favour of the assessee. Resultantly, this ground of the assessee is hereby allowed. 4. Before we part with, it is worth to mention that there was a delay in filing of this appeal and through an Affidavit now it is explained the reason for short delay and the same was condoned by us ad the appeal was admitted for adjudication. Rest of the grounds being trifle in nature not contested, hence dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 823 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... doned. Admitted. Tag with C.A. Nos. 2558-2559 of 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 822 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ng, the learned AR submitted that in the similar circumstances in the case of Ms. Shirin Bagga in ITA No.2453/Del/2011 for Assessment Year 2002-03, the matter has been restored by the ITAT, Delhi Bench I to the file of Assessing Officer to be decided de novo. It was pleaded by the learned AR that the issue in the appeal may also be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. Ld. DR was also not having any objection to this proposal. 5. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and equity, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided de novo after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall approach the Assessing Officer within two months from the receipt of the order. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 4 th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 821 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the money has gone out of the public treasuries and reached the hands of any one of the persons involved. Hence, so far as the offences under Section 13(1)(c) and Section 13(1)(d) are concerned the place where the offences were committed could easily be identified as the place where the treasury concerned was situated. It is an undisputed fact that in all these cases the treasuries were situated within the territories of Jharkhand State. 7. It would be thus evident that in the present case, the misappropriation, embezzlement and the offence under Section 13 PC Act were committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The offence having been committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in terms of Section 4(2) of the PC Act, the Special Judge, Gaziabad at Uttar Pradesh is competent to try the same and the learned Special Judge, Delhi has committed no error in dismissing the application of the Petitioner for anticipatory bail for want of territorial jurisdiction. 8. Petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 820 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... um Rehabilitation Projects were not completed in A.Y. 2006-07 and the TDR in question has direct nexus with the two Slum Rehabilitation Projects undertaken by the assessee. The contention of the assessee is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Chembur Trade Corporation (supra). In this case the assessee has offered the TDR amount in the A.Y. 2008-09 when the projects were completed. We, accordingly, allow the contention of the assessee and restore the matter back to the file of the A.O. with a direction to verify whether the assessee has offered sale consideration of TDR in question in the A.Y. 2008-09. If the assessee has offered so, then the same should not be taxed in the A.Y. 2006-07. Needless to say the A.O. should give opportunity of being heard to the assessee as per the principles of natural justice. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 25th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 819 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ound of appeal No. 4 taken by the assessee. 4. An inadvertent mistake apparent from record, as such, has crept into our order(supra). 5. Accordingly, our order dated 31.08.2010(supra) is hereby recalled. The appeal shall now be heard on the merits of Ground No. 4, the submissions made by the assessee and the case law cited. To come up for hearing on 5.7.2012, a date announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties. Since the date has been announced in the open court in the presence of both the parties, no fresh notice shall issue. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 818 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... High Court in the case of CIT vs. GP International Ltd. (2010) 229 CTR (P&H) 86, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by observing that “the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the aforesaid liability of the assessee cannot be said to have ceased to exist and the provisions of section 41(1) and Explanation to this provision are not applicable, because the assessee is still showing it as a liability in its books and has not written off the same.” In the present case also, the facts are similar and therefore, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of GP International Ltd. (supra), we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. This ground raised by the Revenue stands dismissed. 7 In the result, ITA No.2920/Ahd/2011 is allowed for statistical purpose and ITA No.2921/Ahd/2011 is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the court today on 20-04-2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 817 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ore him are cancelled. 13. So far as ITA No.147/M/2012 and 48/M/2012, there are one more strong reason to cancel all the assessments u/s.143 r.w.s.147. In both these assessment orders the A.O. initiated the proceedings u/s.147 beyond the period of the four years from the end of the respective assessment orders. In both these cases the additions made by the A.O. are ₹ 80,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively. As per the provisions of sec.149(1)(b,) the A.O. has jurisdiction to issue notice u/s.148 beyond the period of four years only if the alleged escapement income is more than ₹ 1 lakh. Hence, otherwise also, in the above two cases, the notices were issued by the A.O. are bad in law and accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. I do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of all these cases. 14. In the result, all the appeals are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 27th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 816 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of the order passed by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ADIT(IT) vs. Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.99/Mum/2009. Vide this order dated 09-11- 2011, the Tribunal has held that consideration for live broadcasting does not fall u/s.9(1)(vi) of the Act and hence there is no question of deduction of tax at source. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are mutatis mutandis similar to those considered and decided by the Tribunal in the aforenoted case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The impugned order, being in conformity with the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid case of Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. (supra), does not require any interference. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 17th day of April, 2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 815 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... annexed any evidence indicating true state of affairs of his business, along with the return of income. The assessee is showing cash in hand, in the vicinity of 6-7 lakhs, as carry forward from Assessment Year 2002-03 to 2004-05, which was neither used by the assessee nor it was deposited, in the saving bank account. In view of this, explanation filed by the assessee, in respect of such cash in hand, cannot be accepted. Therefore, the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which are founded merely on the acceptance of the assessee’s self-created version of availability of cash, is not factually and legally tenable. Therefore, the findings given by the Assessing Officer, in the matter are upheld. 28. Ground Nos. 5 & 6 raised by the Revenue are general, in nature, and, hence, need no separate adjudication. Hence, the same are dismissed. 29. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 1355/Chd/2010 is adjudicated, in the terms indicated above. Order Pronounced on 17 .04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 814 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r was to remain unaffected by the failure of borrower. It further provides that borrower and guarantor are jointly and severally liable under Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act. 10. Where the guarantee is a continuous one, acknowledgment of debt made by the principal debtor is binding on the guarantor. Therefore, considering the terms in the agreement of guarantee (Ex. P.9) in the light of Section 128 of the Act of 1872, in my considered opinion, the acknowledgment of debt by the borrowers will be binding upon the guarantor, as such, the suit is also not barred by limitation against respondent No. 6. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree impugned is set aside. Instead, the appellant/plaintiff-Bank is granted a decree of Rs. 27,086.14 ps. along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit on the principal sum adjudged till its recovery. Cost of the suit as well as the appeal shall be borne by the respondents. A decree be drawn accordingly.
-
2012 (4) TMI 813 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... interest income in return as taxable on fixed deposit with bank however, it was admitted that no outsider had provided the services of the company but the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee whether any outsider is getting services or not from non-members, has to be taxed accordingly after giving full opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the A.O. and give all the evidences as required by the A.O. for his satisfaction. The revenue appeal on allowance of depreciation by the CIT(A) has no bearing as the principle of mutuality has been accepted by this Court. The other grounds of appeal of the assessee like deduction u/s 80 IA, disallowance under head operating expenses and carry forward loss of earlier year has no meaning when principle of mutuality has been held in favour of the appellant. 20. In the result, the appeals are set aside and disposed of for statistical purpose. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 20/04/2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 812 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e quite clear in this regard. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd.’s case 1977 110 ITR 385 was not in the context of the applicability of section 43B of the Act. 6. In our opinion, since the assessee did not debit the amount to the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did the assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the assessee has sought to evade tax under the mercantile system of accounting. We are of the view that it is not for the Revenue authorities to tell the assessee how to maintain its accounts.” Therefore, following the above decisions, we decide the issue in favour of the assessee. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 4/4/2012.
........
|
