|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1581
... ...
... ... ..... that no expenditure would be required for earning interest on tax free bonds and deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by this the revenue is before us. 27. The learned DR strongly submitted that in pursuance to section 14A of the Act, reasonable disallowance has to be made for earning exempt income. The learned senior counsel relied upon the findings of the CIT(A). 28. We have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and the rival submissions. We agree with the submissions of the learned DR that reasonable disallowance needs to be made for earning this exempt income. In our considerate view a disallowance of 2% would meet the ends of justice. We accordingly restrict the disallowance to 2% instead of 5%. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly. Ground no.17 is partly allowed. 29. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 8th October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1580
... ...
... ... ..... under sub-section (2), to grant relief even in respect of anticipated proceedings, cannot be taken to mean that the power vested in sub-section (1) is taken away. Therefore, with great respect to the learned Judges of several High Courts, I am of the considered view that Section 633(2) does not limit the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court only to apprehended proceedings . This is an additional power available to the High Court in view of the larger jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in respect of several matters prescribed under the Companies Act. In view of the above, I am unable to sustain the preliminary objection raised by the applicant herein with regard to the maintainability of the main proceedings. Therefore, this application is dismissed. However, it will be open to the applicant herein to file a counter to the main petition on merits and show that the petitioners in the main petition are not entitled on merits, to be relieved of the criminal liability.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1579
... ...
... ... ..... Mr. T. Sinha, Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv. (Not present) For the Respondent None ORDER Delay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1578
... ...
... ... ..... as the primary authority and there is provision for further appeal or revision or review it cannot be said that the said order suffers from any illegality. In the case at hand, there is no denial of the fact that the UPSEB has passed the order for deduction of 10% pension from the delinquent employee. Under the Regulations which we have reproduced hereinbefore there is a stipulation that an appeal or representation, as the case may be, from the order of the Chairman shall lie to the UPSEB. The Regulation clearly provides that in case of an Assistant Engineer the Chairman is the competent authority to pass the order of punishment and, therefore, by virtue of the order passed by the UPSEB remedy of appeal was denied to the delinquent employee. Under these circumstances, the view expressed by the High Court has to be regarded as flawless and, accordingly, we concur with the same. 22. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1577
... ...
... ... ..... d be pointed out on behalf of the Revenue. The issue is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench in ITO Vs. Shri Manubhai Narayanbhai Patel (supra), wherein held that the entire amount of deposit could not be taxed as income in the hands of the assessee, and the assessment of the amount representing the peak of cash credit, as the assessee s income, is wholly justified. In these facts of the case, and in view of the fact that there is no defect in the working of the peak amount, and in the absence of any evidence brought on record that the withdrawals made from the bank were utilised elsewhere, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, in assessing peak amount of credit in the bank account of the assessee, which is confirmed, and the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1576
... ...
... ... ..... unaccounted income from Finance business, on one hand and on the other hand, the AO is directed to determine the incremental peak credit on the basis of the cash flow statement and then the unexplained investment in the finance business should be set off against the unaccounted income if found invested in the finance business. Only the balance, on netting, is required to be assessed on substantive basis in the hands of the firm. Since, we have already given these directions; therefore, on the same lines these two appeals are hereby decided. Hence, the grounds taken by the Revenue has no legal force therefore dismissed. 26. In the result, these two appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed. Overall result is as under - (a). ITA No. 2691 2692(Revenue s Appeal) Allowed for statistical purpose. (b). ITA No.236, 237 238 (Assessee s Appeal) Dismissed. (c) ITA No. 586, 587 588 (Assessee s Appeal) Allowed for statistical purpose. (d) ITA No. 2689, 2690 (Revenue s Appeal) Dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1575
... ...
... ... ..... iture and genuineness of the services so rendered. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of CIT(A) on this ground and the matter is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms of our above discussion. We direct accordingly. In the aforesaid order, an elaborate discussion has been made by the Tribunal, therefore, following the reasoning contained therein, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to follow the directions of the Tribunal and decide the issue accordingly. 4. So far as cross objection raised by the assessee is concerned, the same is in support of the order of CIT(A). In view of the above, the cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous. Finally, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 28.10.2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1574
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Leave Petitions are dismissed. However, the time to deposit the amount by way of pre-deposit, shall stand extended upto 31st October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1573
... ...
... ... ..... eof has not occasioned any failure of justice. The other issue that the witness examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. did not fall among those enumerated in the petition of complaint, in my view, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to examine such witness produced by the complainant in support of his case. It is not the requirement of law that names of all witnesses are to be exhaustively stated in the petition of complaint. Examination of a witness produced by the complainant, though not named in the petition of complainant, cannot be said illegal in law. The petitioners would get an opportunity to cross-examine such witness in the course of enquiry under section 244 Cr.P.C. and accordingly I am of the view that examination of such witness though not in named in the petition of complaint does not cause any prejudice to them in any manner whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant application. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1572
... ...
... ... ..... le. Moreover, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (Supra) had been rendered when the provisions of section 14A were not on the statute. Similarly the decision of Delhi bench of Tribunal in case of Krishna Bai Vs. ITO (Supra) is also not applicable. The Tribunal in the said case following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajendra Prasad Moody (Supra) held that interest expenditure incurred on borrowed money invested in shares had to be allowed even if there was no income earned from investments in shares. The judgment is relevant only to the period prior to insertion of section 14A as per which no expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income can be allowed. Therefore, in our view the disallowance of expenditure by the authorities below on the facts of the case is justified. We accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A). In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 30 -10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1571
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is merely in support of the order of CIT(A). Since, we have dismissed the Revenue s appeal and confirmed the Order of the CIT(A), the cross-objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. 9. In the result, ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O.No.28/Hyd/2013 in ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the assessee is dismissed. 10. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue being ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013, the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal in ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 are academic in nature and hence, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the same. Consequently, assessee s appeal, being of academic nature, is also treated as dismissed. 11 In the result, ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 of the assessee is dismissed. 12. To sum-up, ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Revenue is dismissed and C.O.No.28/Hyd/2013 in ITA.No.465/Hyd/2013 of the Assessee is dismissed and ITA.No.530/Hyd/2013 of the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.10.2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1570
... ...
... ... ..... sis on which the computation had been made so that it could reconcile the accounts. We think it appropriate to direct that the computation sheets shall be provided to the Appellant within three weeks and it shall file its objection within two weeks there from and thereafter the Competent Authority shall fix a date for reconciliation of the accounts. However, regard being had to the fact that the Act is a piece of social welfare legislation, we direct the Appellant to deposit a further sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- within a period of four weeks from today. If the amount is not deposited within the time stipulated hereinabove, the entire amount would be leviable and the right to file objection shall stand extinguished. 30. Consequently, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench and that of the learned single Judge of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1569
... ...
... ... ..... ed, cannot be upheld. We are also unable to accede to the request of learned CIT(DR) to sent back the matter to AO considering that the matter is very old involving assessment year 2003-04 and no comparable has been placed on record even at this stage. We, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made by AO. 3. The appeal of the department in ITA no. 5348/Mum2007. The only dispute raised by the revenue in this appeal is regarding deletion of addition on account of lease rent by CIT(A) in respect of TATA company assets. 3.1 We have already dealt with this issue while dealing with the appeal of the assessee and in view of the decision taken vide para no 2.2.3 of this order, no addition is required to be made. The ground raised by the revenue is, therefore, dismissed. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed whereas that by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 04-10-2013
-
2013 (10) TMI 1568
... ...
... ... ..... ., but being a separate legal entity, it cannot be construed that the shareholding pattern has not changed as the holding remains within the group. We fully agree with the findings of the CIT(A) that the provisions of section 79 are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the findings of the CIT(A) are confirmed. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Before closing, the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench in ITA No.1184 & 2460/Del/2008. We find that the facts of that case are different from the facts of the present case, as much as in that case there was a merger of two companies, wherein the Tribunal has considered the first proviso to clause a to section 79 and has held that when existence of a company is legally finished it is akin to death of a share holder. As the facts are clearly distinguishable the decision relied upon by the assessee is misplaced. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1567
... ...
... ... ..... ements made by a senior officer of ONGC. Therefore, we are constrained to observe that the respondents had miserably failed to explain more than three years and four months’ delay and the High Court committed serous error by entertaining and allowing the application for condonation of delay. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the respondents before the High Court for condonation of three years and more than four months’ delay is dismissed. As a sequel to this, the appeal filed by the respondents under Section 54 of the Act is dismissed as barred by time. With a view to ensure that the appellant is not fleeced by middlemen, we issue the following directions i) The appellant shall furnish his bank account number to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within a period of six weeks. ii) Within next 2-1/2 months, the concerned authority shall deposit the amount of compensation etc. in the bank account of the appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1566
... ...
... ... ..... rprint and handwriting experts or forensic questioned documents examiners, who are qualified and skilled to practice this profession on full time basis. The State Governments should check their qualifications and credentials and confirm their credibility in this field. A register of such practitioners should be drawn and rules be framed. A Code of ethics and conduct for their working should also be framed. Besides this, regulatory authority comprising of qualified concerned registered professionals and others related to field be also established to deal with the situations where there are conflicting opinions of experts and the consensus opinion of the Board of experts under the supervision of expert regulatory authority should be binding on the contesting parties. Copy of this order be sent to the Administrative Secretaries of the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for compliance. To come up on 28.02.2014.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1565
... ...
... ... ..... artners. Therefore, the additions of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.9,900/- are deleted.” Aggrieved by this order, the revenue filed an appeal which was dismissed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). A due consideration of the impugned orders would reveal that the firm furnished explanation that it had received funds from its partners. The firm, having disclosed the source of funds, it was absolved of its liability, if any, to explain the source of funds. The onus to explain receipts of the money, lay upon the partners who should have been asked to disclose the source of funds. The findings recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), affirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that as the firm has explained the source of funds, the revenue is required to proceed against the partner, do not suffer from any error of law. The questions of law are, therefore, answered against the revenue and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1564
... ...
... ... ..... compensation as awarded in this judgment in favour of the claimant after deducting the amount fastened upon the doctors in this judgment with interest @ 6% per annum. 153. The Civil Appeal No. 2866/2012 filed by the claimant-Dr. Kunal Saha is also partly allowed and the finding on contributory negligence by the National Commission on the part of the claimant is set aside. The direction of the National Commission to deduct 10% of the awarded amount of compensation on account of contributory negligence is also set aside by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,34,66,000/- to Rs. 6,08,00,550/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the complaint to the date of the payment to the claimant. 154. The AMRI Hospital is directed to comply with this judgment by sending demand draft of the compensation awarded in this appeal to the extent of liability imposed on it after deducting the amount, if any, already paid to the claimant, within eight weeks and submit the compliance report.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1563
... ...
... ... ..... ssee has not intimated change of address, if any, to the Registry of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursing its appeal. Therefore, following the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD 320, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1562
... ...
... ... ..... an individual liable to make a public offer in case the individual shareholding increases during the course of the acquisition even while acting in concert with other persons, is conspicuously missing in the SAST Regulations, 1997. Further, the limit of 15% has since been increased to 25% by regulation 3(1) in SAST Regulations, 2003. In other words, when regulation 3(3) of SAST Regulations 2011 has come in to force with effect from October 6, 2011 (thirteenth day from publishing SAST Regulations, 2011) SEBI could not have invoked that regulation in respect of acquisition that took place during 2006 and 2007 especially when, no such regulation was existing in SAST Regulations, 1997. The appeal, thus, stands allowed and the Appellants are permitted to continue with their offer excluding Respondent's impugned directions as spelt out above in para 6 of this order mainly relating to the acquisitions by Appellant No. 3 in the years 2006 and 2007. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
........
|
