|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 1042 Records
-
2013 (1) TMI 854
... ...
... ... ..... uantity of psychotropic substances seized from the accused even when is not mentioned in ScheduleI it would still become an offence under Section 8(C) read with Section 22 and he cannot be enlarged on regular bail for not having fallen under any of the exceptions carved out in the provision itself. Interpretation otherwise than this would render not only the Schedule to the Act otiose but would frustrate the very objective of the Act, particularly keeping in mind huge quantity of psychotropic substance seized from the applicant. 36. Petitioner has in the past indulged into such similar offences and has changed the very legal entity of firm/business. His release will invite, in its all probabilities, recurrence and also send wrong signal in the society. With no reasonings available in the order of release of his coaccused and role of the applicant being very grave, his application on none of these counts deserve any favourable consideration. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 853
Criminal proceedings launched by respondent no. 1 under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Held that:- The facts on record make it evident that the land on which both parties claim title/interest had initially been allotted to one Anant Ram, a member of the Schedule Caste community, under the 20 Point Programme of the Government of India (Poverty Elevation Programme) and he sold it to one Ram Lal Aggarwal in the year 1989, who further transferred it to his son Anil Kumar Aggarwal in the year 1990. Anil Kumar Aggarwal sold the same to appellant Ravinder Singh in the year 2005.
Respondent No. 1, who at the relevant time was holding a very high position in the Central Government, claimed that initial transfer by Anant Ram, the original allottee, in favour of Ram Lal Aggarwal was illegal and he could not transfer the land allotted to him by the Government under Poverty Elevation Programme and further that as the said land had been encroached upon by his father, he had a right to get his name entered in the revenue record. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no. 1, became the law unto himself and assumed the jurisdiction to decide the legal dispute himself to which he himself had been a party being the son of a rank trespasser. Transfer by the original allottee at initial stage, even if illegal, would not confer any right in favour of the respondent no.1. Thus, he adopted intimidatory tactics by resorting to revenue as well as criminal proceedings against the appellant without realising that even if the initial transfer by the original allottee Anant Ram was illegal, the land may revert back to the Government, and not to him merely because his father had encroached upon the same.
The High Court has dealt with the issue involved herein and the matter stood closed at the instance of respondent no.1 himself. Therefore, there can be no justification whatsoever to launch criminal prosecution on that basis afresh. The inherent power of the court in dealing with an extraordinary situation is in the larger interest of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. It is a judicial obligation on the court to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice and to prevent continuation of unnecessary judicial process. It may be so necessary to curb the menace of criminal prosecution as an instrument of operation of needless harassment. A person cannot be permitted to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. Ex debito justitiae is inbuilt in the inherent power of the court and the whole idea is to do real, complete and substantial justice for which the courts exist. Thus, it becomes the paramount duty of the court to protect an apparently innocent person, not to be subjected to prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable complaint.
In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court impugned herein dated 14.12.2011 as well as of the Revisional Court is set aside. Order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 13.8.2009 is restored. The complaint filed by respondent no.1 under the provisions of Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989 is hereby quashed. The appeal is thus allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 852
Disallowance of interest paid on borrowed money for the purpose of acquiring shares - Held that:- The main purpose of making investment was to purchase shares to earn dividend - Acquisition of shares may carry the acquisition of controlling interest, which is purely a commercial - since dividend income is taxable during the year Therefore the interest paid is allowable as deduction u/s57(iii) - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2013 (1) TMI 851
... ...
... ... ..... pectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench as narrated above, we do not find any substance in action of Assessing Officer for levy of penalty in respect of addition for which substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court. Even on merits, there is no justification for imposition of penalty where the assessee has discharged the burden casted on it, notwithstanding the fact of confirmation of such addition by appellate authorities. 9. However, in respect of addition in business income, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 31st March, 2008 to the extent of ₹ 3.90 lakhs, we confirm the action of Assessing Officer for levy of penalty with respect to this addition, in so far as no substantial question of law has been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court against this addition. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 29th January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... s debatable. Accordingly, no penalty was imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hosiery, Civil Appeal No. 1117 of 20001 in its order dated 3rd February, 2001, ob served that “To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable.” Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding as to what is substantial question of law has held that same must be debatable. 5. In view of the above, respectfully following the decision of Coordinate Bench as well as Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court, as narrated above, we direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty in respect of addition confirmed on account of cash credit. However, with respect to addition on account of sale of scrap, we confirm the action of Assessing Officer for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 849
... ...
... ... ..... ther grounds of appeal as discussed in earlier paras are allowed.” 3. On the date of hearing, no one has appeared from the side of the respondent-assessee. From the side of the Revenue, ld.Sr.DR Mr.T.Sankar appeared and placed reliance on the penalty order. After hearing the submissions, we are of the considered view that there was no fallacy in the view taken by ld.CIT(A). The issue of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of the transporters as it had emerged from the present case was a contentious issue subject to diversified opinion. We have also noted that the ld.CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) for the legal proposition that merely on account of disallowance of an expenditure the penalty should not be attracted. Thus, under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no force in this ground of the Revenue, hence hereby dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... able with the assessee earlier, as the assessee obtained the same only on 30.6.2011 i.e. after passing of the impugned order of learned CIT(A) on 24.6.2011. Keeping in view this submission made by the assessee as well as relevance of the valuation report of the property filed as an additional evidence to decide the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 48(ii), we are of the view that the same should be admitted in the substantial interest of justice. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence and restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s. 48(ii) on merit in the light of the said additional evidence in accordance with law after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. o p /o p 13. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed while cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. o p /o p Order pronounced in the open court on 30.1.2013. o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 847
Whether share transactions were bogus and fictitious - Held that:- The assessee filed copy of the balance sheet of earlier year, copy of bank account, allotment letter, quotation of shares and copies of shares sold along with the sale bills and contract notes issued by the share broker - Hence the sales are not sham transactions - Assessee has received entire sale consideration of shares through known sources - Decided against the revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 846
Granting of exemption u/s 11 and then depreciation u/s 32 does not amount to granting double deduction because exemption u/s 11 is not a deduction but exemption of an income from the liability of tax on fulfillment of certain conditions.
-
2013 (1) TMI 845
... ...
... ... ..... x appeal has been filed for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The Tribunal has decided against the department and has allowed the depreciation and deductions which has been challenged in this tax appeal. The same dispute was raised by the department in Tax Appeal No.933 of 2010 with Tax Appeal No.934 of 2010 to Tax Appeal No.936 of 2010 decided on 26.09.2011 wherein view taken by the Tribunal has been upheld and the questions raised by the Revenue were answered against the department. The same controversy is also involved in this tax appeal which is covered by decision dated 26.09.2011 passed in Tax Appeal No.933 of 2010 along with cognate matters. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant Revenue could not dispute that all the three questions raised in this tax appeal are covered and do not raise any substantial question of law. o p /o p 4. Respectfully following the above, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. o p /o p Order pronounced in open Court on 24.01.2013 o p /o p
-
2013 (1) TMI 844
... ...
... ... ..... ollowed by the assessee. In this view of the situation and after hearing both the parties and considering their rival submissions, we decline to interfere in the relief granted by the learned CIT(A). We find no merit in the Revenue’s appeal. Consequently, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.” 13. It is also observed that the Assessing Officer himself in the assessment completed for assessment year 2006-2007 has accepted the rebate claimed by the assessee under section 88E on similar basis as adopted by the assessee in assessment year 2007-2008. Keeping in view of these facts of the case, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to compute the rebate allowable to the assessee under section 88E on the same basis as adopted by the assessee and dismiss ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st January, 2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 843
Addition on account of long-term capital gains on sale of shares - bogus accommodation entry - Held that:- Assessee sold shares through two brokers and their copies of sale bills and contract notes are filed and sale consideration of share is given to the assessee through banking channel and the rates at which the shares are transferred are similar as approved by M.P. Stock Exchange. The ld. CIT(A) asked the Income-tax Authorities to produce all relevant evidences and material before him to prove that the assessee has accepted bogus accommodation entry, but no material was produced before him in this regard. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. Further, whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee was not forwarded to the assessee. Therefore, same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. - Decided against revenue
-
2013 (1) TMI 842
Application for speaking to minutes - interim order - interim order in terms of paragraph 8 (C) is granted - the present application for speaking to minutes is allowed.
-
2013 (1) TMI 841
... ...
... ... ..... ies, time factor etc. while taking any decision. The Ld Counsel submitted that the assessee could not furnish the details for want of time. Hence, we are of the view that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to furnish the necessary details. Accordingly, this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the assessing officer. Accordingly, we set the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the assessing officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with the law. 15. We have already dealt with the other two issues while disposing the appeal of the assessee. We may state here that the assessing officer should provide necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced accordingly on 22-01-2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... eligible for the claimed depreciation. The phrase “put to use” is treated equivalent to the term “ready for use” for depreciation purposes under the Section 32 of the Act. The catena of decisions relied on by ld. AR support our above conclusion. Some of the decisions relied are as under - 1. Hindustan Platinum P. Ltd ITA No. 3352/Mum/2010 dated 15.6.2011 2. Omkar Textiles P. Ltd 115 TTJ 716 Ahd 3. CIT Vs.Vidhyanchal Distilleries Pvt. Ltd 272 ITR 583 MP 4. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. 88 ITR 192 SC 5. Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 111 ITD 1 Mum SB 6. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned discussions and drawing support from the above decisions, we hold that the assesseefirm is eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act qua these Wind-Mills. 7. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned finding we allow the appeal of the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd January, 2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 839
... ...
... ... ..... reproduced herein above it is clear that the Trust’s object is for imparting education and development of skill to Government staff for the benefit of public in general. Thus, it is well established that the society though registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trust Act is an extended limb of the State Government created for the purpose of imparting education and therefore, it is covered by section 10(23C) (iiiab) of the Act. We must also add here that we have taken note of all the relevant case laws furnished by the learned DR and we are of the opinion that those decisions will not support the arguments advanced by the learned DR considering the facts discussed hereinabove. Thus from our above discussions we hold this issue also in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, both the grounds raised by the assessee are held in its favour. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04-01-2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 838
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee to raise the same issues over again in the guise of rectification will amount to recalling the appeal order in its entirety and re-hearing it afresh, which is not within the scope and ambit of S.254(2) of the Act. The contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessees that the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sanjeeda Begum (supra) should have been followed instead of following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohd. Ibrahim (supra) clearly shows that the assessees through these applications are merely disputing the course adopted and the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, which is not a mistake apparent from record. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present application of the assessee, which is accordingly rejected. In the result, all these Miscellaneous Applications of the assessees are rejected. Order pronounced in the court on 11.1.2013.
-
2013 (1) TMI 837
Held that the appellant has withdrawing his appeal. ... ... ... ... ..... considering the matter afresh, the Tribunal will take into consideration all decisions including the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. ABG Heavy Industries Ltd reported in 322 ITR page 323. All contentions are kept open. 3 The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
2013 (1) TMI 836
... ...
... ... ..... f all expenses/allowances/deductions under Chapter IV-D of the I-T Act) of gross receipts as computed by the AO. We order accordingly. The aforesaid direction shall be followed by the AO in both the assessment years under appeal. 13. Before parting with the matter, it may be clarified that our direction to the AO to apply NP rate of 3.5 is specific to the assessment years under appeal and will therefore not operate as precedent for other years. Both the parties shall be free to make out their cases in other assessment years. 14. The decisions referred to by the parties are distinguishable on facts and hence do not help them. Besides, rejection of books results and estimation of profit are essentially issues of fact. Our decision is based essentially on facts. However, the principles emerging from decisions cited by the parties have duly been kept in view. 15. In view of the foregoing, both the appeals filed by the Department are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 24.01-2013
-
2013 (1) TMI 835
... ...
... ... ..... bstantive sentence of less than one year can be awarded. Appellate Court has not quoted any provision which provides for imposition of minimum sentence of one year and has not taken into consideration that at the time of incident, appellant was twenty three years of age and was married and was having a daughter. Not only that petitioner has faced these proceedings since the year 1989, but now petitioner has suffered heart ailment and is stated to be under treatment from G.B.Pant Hospital as an outdoor patient. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has produced one OPD card of G.B.Pant Hospital showing that petitioner is under medication. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that special and adequate reasons exist to award substantive sentence lesser than one year. Resultantly, the substantive sentence imposed upon petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 10. This petition is partly allowed in aforesaid terms.
............
|
