|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 918 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 908
... ...
... ... ..... r, in such case, such advance or loan cannot be said to be a deemed dividend within the meaning of the Act. Thus, gratuitous loan or advance given by a company to those classes of shareholders would come within the purview of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. But the cases, where the loan or advance is given in return to an advantage conferred upon the company by such shareholder, then do not fall within the clutches of the said provision. In the light of this discussion, we therefore hold that since the Director has obtained the advance towards business purpose towards traveling, etc. and that advance was subject to adjustment, therefore it was not a loan or advance in the nature of gratuitous character, hence out of ambits of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. We therefore direct not to add the impugned amount in the taxable income of the assessee. Resultantly, the addition is hereby deleted. Ground is allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 907
... ...
... ... ..... s authority under Article 12 of the Constitution merely because Notification under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act covering NBT under this Act has not been issued., which has been issued in the case of NCERT. Section 14 of the Act enables the Government to issue Notification covering such authorities within the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal. Reverse, however, would not be true. A particular authority is not to be adjudged as authority under Article 12 of the Constitution on the basis as to whether there is such notification or not. 29. We, thus, conclude that the National Book Trust is "other authority" and thus, "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and remit the case back to decide the same on merit. Before we part with, we would like to put on record our appreciation for the useful assistance rendered by Mr. Ashish Mohan as an Amicus.
-
2012 (6) TMI 906
... ...
... ... ..... arge is one which is covered within explanation(baa) to section 80HHC of the Act as a residuary item and when once it is held so, in the manner of computation of that, the principle of law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of M/S ACGASSOCIATED CAPSULS PVT LTD supra is automatically attracted and has to be applied. 11. It is for this reason, while we allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the tribunal by answering the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue, nevertheless, issue direction to the assessing officer to recompute the amount which qualifies for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act in respect of the assessee for the assessment years in question by applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Courtin the case of M/S ACG ASSOCIATED CAPSULS PVTLTD supra in so far as the profits attributable to conversion charges are concerned or arriving at the conversion charges received by the assessee for the purpose of computation of the profits.
-
2012 (6) TMI 905
Double murder - offence(s) Under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code - Seeking further investigation - Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing process u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure - whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing the process to the Petitioner and her husband by her order dated 09.02.2011 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the High Court has not examined whether there were materials before the Magistrate to take a view that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner and her husband, but while hearing the Review Petition, we have perused the relevant materials collected in the course of the investigation and we cannot hold that the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure was not a plausible view on the materials collected in course of investigation and placed before her along with the closure report.
As we have seen, Sub-section (1) of Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. provides that the Magistrate shall issue the process (summons or warrant) if in his opinion there was sufficient ground for proceeding and therefore so long as there are materials to support the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the persons to whom the processes have been issued, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power will not interfere with the same only because it forms a different opinion on the same materials.
The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order dated 09.02.2011 of the Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure. and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the Revision filed by the Petitioner. Moreover, once the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband was sustained, there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone other than the Petitioner and her husband had committed the offences in respect of the deceased persons Aarushi and/or Hemraj. As has been held by this Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) [1996 (12) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT], once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure., he cannot order of his own further investigation in the case u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. but if subsequently the Sessions Court passes an order discharging the accused persons, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which may also result in submission of fresh charge-sheet.
Thus, I agree with my learned brother Khehar, J. that this Review Petition has no merit and should be dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 904
... ...
... ... ..... claimed loss from business at ₹ 50,020,948/- and has set off the other income of ₹ 11,139,164/- under the head income from other sources and claimed a loss of ₹ 38,881,784/-. The Assessing Officer in his order of assessment has disallowed claim of depreciation 3,68,93,017/- and determined loss of ₹ 2788761/-. This loss of ₹ 27,88,761/- has been arrived at after taking into account income of interest from deposits being 1,11,39,164/-. It is to be noted that the assessee itself in the computation of income has claimed 1,11,39,164/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and, hence, the applicability of the apex court judgement in 227 ITR 172 in the case of Tuticorin alkalis chemicals has been rightly applied by the CIT in his order u/s 263. Hence, we confirm the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 and dismiss the assessee’s appeal. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... made in the plaint and if from the allegations so made, an obligation arises in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, there can be no doubt that the part of the cause of action for the reliefs claimed has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court in West Bengal. Furthermore, the presumption arises only where the registered post has been properly addressed. 30. The right and its infringement constitute the cause of action and it can be concluded on the basis of the averments made in the plaint that the Civil Court at Calcutta is having territorial jurisdiction since a part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. 31. In view thereof the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court is unsustainable. This Court finds no infirmity in the order. 32. The revisional application fails. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
-
2012 (6) TMI 902
... ...
... ... ..... st on “any amount” of refund due irrespective of whether tax due or interest due, relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd, 280 ITR 643. However, the CIT(A), held that the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wheels India Ltd (supra) has held that where refund had been granted without any delay, the question of granting interest on interest will not arise. The CIT(A), therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wheels India Ltd (supra). 6. Before us also the A.R has fairly conceded that the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Wheels India Ltd(supra). We, therefore, dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 29th of June, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (6) TMI 901
... ...
... ... ..... g to him even with the addition of ₹ 48,000/-, the household expenses are on a very lower side, which meant that the assessee was meeting his household expenses out of undisclosed income. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions in this regard. In our considered opinion, no addition for low household expenses is required. The house-hold withdrawals shown by the assessee have been rejected without any reasonable basis and no further addition on this account is called for. We therefore set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 48,000/- made on this score. The assessee thus succeeds on this Ground. 10. The last Ground relates to charge of interest under section 2234B of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not call for any adjudication. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on this 13th Day of June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 900
... ...
... ... ..... to make a new case. 16. We have already decided similar case in case of M/s. Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 962/JP/2011 by order dated 22.6.2012 in which the identical facts are involved. The addition was made on the basis of column no. 4 of page 37 of Annexure A-57. The addition was deleted by Ld. CIT (A) and the order of Ld. CIT (A) has been confirmed by us. Since the facts are identical in the present case, therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances discussed above and in view of the reasoning given by us in that case i.e. M/s. Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., we confirm the order of Ld. CIT (A) in this case also. 17. The cross objection filed by assessee in support of the order of Ld. CIT (A) which does not require any separate adjudication upon, therefore, the same is treated as infructuous in nature. 18. In the result, appeal of the department as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. 19. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.6.2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 899
... ...
... ... ..... CIT (supra) in which case exemption under section 54 and 54F both were found allowable in respect of investment in the same residential house. We therefore set aside the order of CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.” 5.2 The decision in case of Dr P S Pasricha (supra) as relied upon by the ld DR is not applicable in the facts of the present case when all the 4 flats were used by the assessee and his family as one residential house. Further, the said case is on the point of purchase of more than one residential house and therefore, the facts and issue in the said case are entirely different. 6 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and following the order of coordinate bench of this Tribunal (supra), we find no error or illegality in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the claim of exemption under section 54 of the I T Act. 7 In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed Order pronounced on this 29th, day of June 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 898
... ...
... ... ..... d or inclusive method profit remains the same.” 4. We have heard the Ld. D.R. We find that the assessee is following the exclusive method for valuation of purchases, sales and closing stock consistently. As rightly held by the Ld CIT(A), even if inclusive method is followed, the profits remain the same. If the A.O was desiring to make adjustment of the closing stock, then the consequential effect should have been given to the opening stock also. We find no reason to interfere with the order of Ld CIT(A) as the same is in accordance with the law. Also, in the case of CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Pvt. Ltd., 318 ITR 116 (Bom), it is held that wherein the closing stock un-utilised modvat credit is adjusted, similar adjustment should be made to the opening stock also and adjustment cannot only be made to closing stock. Relevant grounds taken by the revenue are thus dismissed. 5. In result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 897
... ...
... ... ..... persons from whom the share application money was received. The assessee had also produced in respect of each of them the copies of revenue record in form of 7/12 extracts showing that they were holders of agricultural land. In Lovely Exports (supra), the Supreme Court considered the issue of share application money regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act and observed that if share application money was received by Assessee-company from the alleged bogus share holders, whose names were given to the Assessing Officer, then the Department was free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments in accordance with law. In that light, the impugned order of the Tribunal was proper and justified, and it could not be said that it committed any error in passing the order. 5. In the above view, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court in the present tax appeal. The appeal, therefore, cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 896
... ...
... ... ..... the depositors is established, till then share application money could not be treated to be income of the assessee. The Tribunal has affirmed the finding. We are of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. (251 ITR 263) and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (216 CTR 195), the Apex court has held that where the CIT established the identity of the persons who have invested in the shares, then such income could not be added in the income of the assessee. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is concluded finding of fact. Assuming that the share application money was taxed, even then the identity of the persons is identified by ration cards, election cards, etc. Therefore, the addition made by the assessing officer in the income of the assessee under Section 68 of the Act is wholly unjustified. We do not find any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. This Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... ital is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a finding against the department in CIT v.Lovely Exports Pvt.Ltd. reported in 216 CTR 195 in which it has been held that if the identity of shareholder is brought on record, then no addition can be made in the hands of the company who has received the share application money and the revenue is free to initiate proceedings against investors. Therefore, question no.1 does not raise any substantial question of law. 3. So far as the second proposed question no.2 is concerned, the Tribunal has affirmed the finding recorded by the CIT(Appeals) which has been extracted in para-7 of the order of the Tribunal. 4. In view of the finding of CIT(Appeals) which has been affirmed by the Tribunal, we find that this Appeal has concluded finding of fact. Both the questions proposed by the revenue are concluded by finding of fact. They do not raise any substantial question of law. This Tax Appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 894
... ...
... ... ..... demonstrate as to what is the failure on the part of the assessee. Merely putting in a line as aforesaid would not satisfy the requirements of the proviso to section 147 of the Act. 5. In the light of the above discussion, in the absence of any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment year under consideration, the assessment of jurisdiction on the part of the AO under section 147 of the Act after the expiry of a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned notice under section 148 seeking to reopen the assessment under s. 147 cannot be sustained. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds, and is, accordingly allowed. The impugned notice dated 29-1-2002 seeking to reopen the assessment of the petitioner for the assessment year 1995-96 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 893
... ...
... ... ..... he said decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, and their subsequent order dated 15.10.2009 passed for Asst. Years 2004-05 to 2006-07, while holding that the appellant is eligible for deduction U/s. 80IA in respect of such Undertakings for the Asst. Year 2007-08, the AO is directed to compute the profits of the said undertakings, as per the guidelines contained in said paras 24 to 26 of the said order dated 18.05.2007 and allow the deduction u/s. 80IA." 5. After hearing the contention of the learned CIT DR and going through the order passed by the CIT(A) as above, we find the issue is squarely covered by the ITAT Hyderabad Bench orders in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years. We, therefore, find no justification in interfering with the order passed by the CIT(A) and the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 892
... ...
... ... ..... o hundreds of factors and therefore, no addition is justified. In the present year also, apart from estimating production on the basis of excessive consumption of electricity in the present year as compared to the preceding year, no other adverse material has been brought out on record by the A.O. in support of the allegation regarding unaccounted production. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present year and, therefore, addition made by the A.O. in respect of GP on such alleged unaccounted production is not sustainable. Once the unaccounted production is not accepted, there is no case for making any addition in respect of initial investment for such unaccounted production. Hence, on both these issues, the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is not justified and, therefore, both additions are deleted. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (6) TMI 891
... ...
... ... ..... record.” Thereafter the learned Tribunal has recorded that on the identical fact the Coordinate Bench of the learned Tribunal decided the issue as to whether this can be called loans or deposits within the meaning of Section 269Ssof the Act. This was decided in the case of Tervinder Singh Sethi Vs. Income Tax officer in ITA No.1074/K/2011 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. Mr. Shroff, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is unable to say whether the aforesaid judgment in case of Tervinder Singh Sethi has been assailed or not. We find that the penalty amount is slightly over ₹ 10 lakhs. Under the circumstances and in view of the aforesaid judgment, we do not admit the appeal of the revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal itself the connection application has become infructuous and the same is also disposed of. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2012 (6) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... s. 3. The grounds raised by the assessee are self speaking. We do agree with those grounds. The amalgamated company is entitled for the credit available to the amalgamating company under sec.115JAA. 4. Moreover, this adjustment has been made by the Assessing Officer in proceedings concluded under sec.143(1). It is not permissible to make such pro active adjustments in proceedings under sec.143(1). On that ground also the action of the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law. 5. If the Assessing Officer wants to make scrutiny of the details regarding the MAT credit available to the amalgamating company, he may issue notice under sec.143(2) and proceed thereafter. 6. As far as the present appeal is concerned, it is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to give the MAT credit as requested by the assessee. 7. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 6th of June, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (6) TMI 889
... ...
... ... ..... r the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to record a finding and if the facts are not coming out of the assessment order, he may call for remand report, but the finding has to be recorded by him. Therefore, issue may be adjudicated after finding out whether interest was claimed as expenditure or not. As far as capital waiver addition is concerned, this issue should also go back to the file of ld. CIT(A) because it has not been clearly determined whether loan was taken as term loan or as cash credit loan. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) should re-examine the issue and decide the same in the light of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V Compaq Electric Ltd. (supra) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Solid Containers Ltd. (supra). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd June,2012.
........
|
