|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1580 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 1541
... ...
... ... ..... it the business as such, like wise depreciation would also have some element of commonality of the HO and R&D unit and eligible unit at Baddi. We are also aware, consistently the coordinate Benches have been allowing the claim of the assessee, but to iron out the doubts in the mind of the AO, it is necessary that the AO must factually get satisfied that the assessee has allocated expenses wherever necessary and not allocated wherever it was not found to be not necessary. Both the parties have no objection if the matter is restored to the AO for verification. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the AO, who shall examine the allocability of expenses of R&D and depreciation if at all, relying on the books as maintained by the various units. 17. Ground no. 2 is therefore, allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is treated as allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1540
... ...
... ... ..... ion of providing personal guarantee by the Director or collateral securities of personal property of Director and a Board’s resolution is passed for making the Director agreeing to provide his personal guarantee etc. and in consideration of it the Director who is also shareholder of company is allowed to withdraw fund form the company, to that extent, the advance given by the Company cannot be treated as deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e), in terms of judicial pronouncements discussed above.” 29. Respectfully following the decision of coordinate bench, we do not find any merit for the additions made in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 under Section 2(24)(iv) and 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 30. In the result, the appeals of assessee for assessment year 2003-04 and 2004-05 are dismissed, whereas appeals for assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 are allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 28th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1539
... ...
... ... ..... of synchronized trading which was widely prevalent in the market was also found in the above transactions. SEBI has since confirmed that synchronized deals are ipso facto not illegal. SEBI has also confirmed that in the screen based trading that is prevalent in the stock exchanges, now, the buyer or the broker will not be aware of the identity of the seller or the broker.” This fact is not denied by the Respondent. …………” 10. We reiterate once again that when it comes to synchronized trading, it is an accepted and by now well settled position that such trading in itself would not tantamount to any wrongdoing. It is objectionable only if it is illegitimate and is the outcome of a mischievous meeting of minds among certain parties which may with or without an element of mens rea as such. In view of the above said discussion of law and fact, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1538
... ...
... ... ..... , held that the Project Completion Certificate under the said Section is not required with regard to the benefit given under the said section after completion of the project. The benefit of the said section can be given on completion of year-to year basis and this has been clarified in the said circular in the manner as follows “(a) The deduction can be claimed on a year-to-year basis where the assessee is showing profit from partial completion of the project in every year. (b) In case it is late and it is found that the condition of completing the project within the specified time-limit of 4 years as stated in S.80IB(10) has not been satisfied, the deduction granted to the assessee in the earlier years should be withdrawn.” In view of the above clarification and having noted the factual position, the learned Tribunal held that Completion Certificate is not required. Therefore, we do not find any element of law in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1537
... ...
... ... ..... nupam Lal Das,Adv., Mr.Vaibhav Tomar,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra ,Adv, Mr.Avijit Roy, Adv., Ms.Vartika Sahay, Adv., M/S Corporate Law Group ,Advs ORDER Delay condoned in filing S.L.P. Leave granted.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1536
... ...
... ... ..... o call for meeting to verify total claims, if any, of all different creditors. 7. From the said submissions, it emerges that actually scheme for compromise is not framed by the Company and in that view of the matter, application does not deserve to be considered at this stage and that therefore, the application is disposed of. 8. At this stage, Mr.Shah, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that the applicants will approach the Court with appropriate Scheme for compromise, which may be taken into consideration by the Court and appropriate order may be granted. 9. In view of the said submission, present application is disposed of with liberty to the applicants to submit, if he so desires, appropriate scheme, which would be considered in accordance with law and provision under the Act and appropriate orders will be passed after hearing Official Liquidator, all creditors and shareholders. 10. With the aforesaid clarification, the application is disposed of at this stage.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1535
... ...
... ... ..... erpreted by the Hon’ble ITAT Special Bench in the case of Lalsons Enterprises. The Hon’ble Special Bench of ITAT has held that in case the computation of profit under sub-section 3 is negative then the application of proviso would have to be independent and that the deduction under section 8OHHC would be the amount worked out under proviso to sub-section 3 of section 8OHHC. Accordingly this ground of appeal is allowed”. 91. We do not find any reason to deviate from the decision taken by the CTI(A), which we sustain, we, therefore, reject the ground taken by the department. 92. In the result, the appeal filed by the department is partly allowed. To sum up Assessee’s appeal in ITA 5421/Mum/2005 is partly allowed Revenue’s appeal in ITA 5561/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Assessee’s appeal in ITA 5422/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Revenue’s appeal in ITA 5530/Mum/2005 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1534
... ...
... ... ..... ion 226 (3) of the said Act does not suggest that the account like the Cash Credit or the Overdraft is capable of being attached as the bank does not become a debtor. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order of attachment passed by the authorities is clearly beyond the powers conferred under Section 226 (3) of the said Act and is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 3 before whom the appeal is pending is directed to take utmost care to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournment and preferably within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. Since the petitioner has shown his eagerness to pay the amount so assessed by the Assessing Authority in instalments, it would be open to the petitioner to pay the same in instalments, which shall be without prejudice and subject to the result of the said appeal. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1533
... ...
... ... ..... ing that an amount of ₹ 18.87 lakhs has been actually spent in the succeeding year and therefore the provision for warranty liability at ₹ 12,70,996/- provided by the assessee in the books is justified. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any material to deviate from the findings given by the Ld.CIT(A). Since the Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue has given a finding that the amount of ₹ 12,70,996/- provided on account of warranty liability during the year was reversed back in next year and actual expenses were shown at ₹ 18.87 lakhs, therefore, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd., (Supra) we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition. Accordingly, the same is upheld. The grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1532
... ...
... ... ..... the group repeatedly and for several days. These facts on record clearly demonstrate that there were synchronized circular trades within the group and there being a pattern of circular trading, penalty imposed against appellant needs no interference by this Tribunal. 17. Argument that turnover in SIL scrip was miniscule compared to large turnover of appellant and hence penalty need not be imposed against appellant cannot be accepted, because imposition of penalty for violating provisions of SEBI Act and regulations made thereunder are not dependent upon total turnover of person violating the provisions of SEBI Act/regulations made thereunder. One who has violated provisions of SEBI Act and regulations made thereunder must suffer even if turnover in the scrip in which violations are found is miniscule compared to the total turnover of that person. 18. For reasons set out hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal. 19. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1531
... ...
... ... ..... it cannot be treated as a charitable institution as provided in section 2(15) of the Act. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the taxpayer is not eligible for registration u/s 12AA of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the lower authority is confirmed.' 5. In this case, admittedly, the predominant object of the trust is to promote the Christian religious faith and no educational activity within the meaning of section 2(15) was carried out. The matter would have been entirely different had the assessee claimed recognition u/s 12AA of the Act as a religious trust. However, the assessee has not applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Act as religious trust. Hence, this Tribunal is not in a position to endorse the activity of the assessee as educational trust. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the order of the Administrative Commissioner is confirmed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1530
... ...
... ... ..... ion in Star Flexi Pack Industries therefore applies with equal measure to the appellant's case. Following the decision in Star Fexi Pack Industries, it is held that the provisions of sec.2(22)(e) are not attracted in the case of the appellant, as the essential condition of the appellant being a registered share holder of Ghodawat Industries P. Ltd. is not 2(22)(e) was deleted by the CIT(A) following the decision of the 4 satisfied. Thus, addition on account of deemed dividend u/s Special Bench of ITAT in CIT vs Bhaumik Color 313 ITR(AT)146 Mum. Now Hon.Bombay High Court has also approved this decision in CIT vs Universal Medicare Pvt Ltd (2010) 324 ITR 263 (Bom). In view of above, the CIT(A) has rightly deleted addition made on account of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of Act and the same is upheld. 7. In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court on the day of 30th October 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1529
... ...
... ... ..... he plaint, by supplying advance copy of the amended plaint, limited to the said aspect, to the counsel for the appellant/defendant or to the appellant/defendant within four weeks of today. The amended plaint be filed before the Trial Court on the date of first appearance of the parties before the Trial Court. The appellant/defendant to, on the same day file written statement to the amended plaint, confining the response to the amended paragraphs. The Trial Court to thereafter proceed to record evidence and decide the said issue. 16. The parties to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 on 7th December, 2013. The Trial Court file be forthwith returned to the Trial Court. 17. The appellant/defendant to continue to deposit the amount subject to deposit of which the interim order was granted in this appeal, in this Court. 18. The appeal to be listed after the findings with reasons have been received back from the Trial Court. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 8, 2013 pp..
-
2013 (10) TMI 1528
... ...
... ... ..... rays that the petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the vires of Section 62 (5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 along with challenge to order impugned in the present writ petition. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1527
... ...
... ... ..... r. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5 (alleged contemnor), brought to our notice letter dated October 17, 2013 received from the Managing Director and CEO of the PNB Investment Services Limited. The same is taken on record and is marked as ’Annexure-A’. Mr. Sundaram, on the basis of the said letter and on instructions received from the Sahara Group of Companies, submitted that the alleged contemnors are willing to make available to SEBI the original title deeds of unencumbered properties, worth ‘20,000 crores, along with proper valuation reports, within a period of three weeks from today. SEBI, in turn, will examine the same and make their response, which shall be considered by this Court on the next date of hearing. Till the above direction is complied with to the satisfaction of SEBI, the alleged contemnors (respondents) shall not leave the country without the permission of this Court. Post on November 20, 2013 at 2.00 p.m.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1526
... ...
... ... ..... k, Mr. Piyush Jain, Ms. Ashly Cherian, Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1525
... ...
... ... ..... g the addition in respect of cash found and seized, the CIT(A) had also recorded categorical finding to the effect that cash disclosed in the cash book maintained by assessee and his family members were higher than cash found during course of search. Nothing was brought on record by Department to controvert the findings recorded by CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A). 11. We also found that tax effect in the appeal filed by the Department in I.T.A.No. 455/Ind/2013 is less than monetary limit fixed by C.B.D.T. Circular No. 3/2011 dated 9.2.2011 for filing appeal by the Department. Since the tax effect was less than ₹ 3 lakhs even as per C.B.D.T. Circular dated 9.2.2011, the Department should not have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 12. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, whereas the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 28 October, 2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1524
... ...
... ... ..... ns a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued. Therefore, the argument that prior to 1.4.2003 when there was no express provision for recession of the approval granted once, the Assessing Authority was vested with the power to deny the exemption without seeking for recession of the approval granted, is without any substance. 10. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Point No. 2 11. In view of the finding recorded on substantial question No.1, we decline to answer the second substantial question of law and leave it open to be decided in appropriate case. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1523
... ...
... ... ..... the shares as on 31.03.2008, only shares in India Cement Ltd. would continue to be classified as an investment, and carried over at cost. The balance would be valued at cost or market value, whichever is less, reckoned individually and not in aggregate, as done by the assessee (refer PB pg.44). The business income is to be computed accordingly. Further, the same value (of the closing stock) is to be taken into account in computing the income for the subsequent years, i.e., as and when actually the said shares are actually sold; (b) the assessee shall be entitled to claim the benefit of Security Transaction Tax (STT) to the extent it relates to business income, though the onus to establish its claim would only be on the assessee; and (c) the D-mat charges, to the extent the same relate to shares confirmed as capital asset (long term or short term) would have to be adjusted against the cost thereof. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee appeal is partly allowed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1522
... ...
... ... ..... ases together and; a) restrict the addition u/s 68 to only the peak unexplained credit in each case after elimination circular transaction. b) To eliminate taxation of the same amount multiple times, due to the chain transactions which resulted due to layering indulged by the assessee. c) Considere the material on record and the precedence available on the issue and determine the percentage of commission, which the assessees would have earned and bring the same to tax. 24. Before parting we make it clear that the burden of proof lay on the assessee. It is for the assessee to demonstrate the chain of transaction, the layering indulged by him, the calculation of peak unexplained credit etc. and to prove each credit in the books of each assessee. In the result all these appeals are set aside to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 25. In the result all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18/10/2013.
........
|
