|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 943
... ...
... ... ..... and thus could not be assigned of the debt, is again not tenable. The petitioner and also that group companies of the petitioner have approached the respondent Bank for assisting it in raising funds. The assistance of respondent No.1 was sought to liquidate the funds raised by the petitioner. There is no embargo in the documents produced that the respondent Bank cannot act in any other capacity. Since there was no restriction of respondent No.1 to seek assignment of the debt, we do no find that assignment of debt by secured creditors in favour of the respondent bank, suffers from any patent illegality. In fact at the very first instance, in the communication dated 19.10.2007, the petitioner submitted settlement to respondent No. 1. It is too late in the date, almost after 6 years to say that respondent No.1 is not competent to take the possession from the petitioner in exercise of the powers confers under Section 13 of the Act. The present petition is consequently dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... rmitted. Connect with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5547 of 2013 titled ‘Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja’.
-
2013 (4) TMI 941
... ...
... ... ..... return, u/s 234B for deficiency/default in payment of advance tax and under section 234C for deferment of advance tax is mandatory in nature. 11. In the case of Ranchi Club Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the absence of specific mention of the assessing authority in the assessment order charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B no interest could be recoverable from the assessee merely by way of demand notice. 12. In the present case in the assessment order itself the Assessing Officer has charged interest u/s 234B and 234C. The case law relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee has therefore no application to the facts of the present case. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anjugam M.H. Ghaswala (supra), this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 10th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 940
Correct head of income - Income from sale of shares - capital gain or business income - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal being a fact finding body, it was not the case of the AO to form an opinion as to how to conduct the share business when the assessee is dealing in shares and held as investment in shares which holding is not disputed by the AO, in so far as, the shares were held for more than one year was acceptable to it. This was considered in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit by ITAT Mumbai [2010 (1) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]
Even the shares purchased in the same year and sold cannot be considered for taxation as business in so far as the assessee had complied with various govt. regulations to hold the shares as per the guidelines of the SEBI cannot be thrust upon the assessee on the sole opinion of the AO to be rendered as business income.
The crux of the finding that the assets which have been held as investments have been sold on account of capital and not for business. We are inclined to hold the issue as covered in favour of the assessee, in so far as, the Revenue has not been able to bring out any controverting material which the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the case laws cited fairly cover the facts which the ld. CIT(A) accepted and allowed the assessee’s appeal who confirmed the returned income on sale of shares as for capital gains. The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - HELD THAT:- Revenue has not been able to controvert this fact in so far as the ld. CIT(A) in his order computed the exempted income for taxation u/s 14A of the Act by disallowing the expenditure thereto as per Rule 8D was on the basis of not claiming the expenditure but on the earning of income was misconstrued by him when he chose to consider half percentage of interest paid by the assessee to be considered for participating in the earning of exempted income. In this view of the matter enhancement by the ld. CIT(A) is restricted to ₹ 34,944/- in accordance with the said section. This ground raised by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Expenditure disallowed as the earning of sale of investment - whether such expenditure has been incurred for the business of the assessee? - HELD THAT:- assessee for this proposition submitted the balance sheet for impugned assessment years when the claim of the expenditure on dealing of the shares has been allowed and are part and parcel of the assessee’s business when it was nobodys finding that these expenses are not for the business of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that it is a settled principle in so far as computing the capital gains is not to be considered in a confused manner no expenditure is claimed to reduce the capital gains for reducing the consideration. We do find the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee justifiable in so far as the Revenue has not controverted that the expenditure of the claim for the business of the assessee are only for the business of the assessee and has not been claimed as increase in the cost of shares sold as investment. In this view of the matter this ground of the assessee is allowed and the AO is directed to delete the addition
-
2013 (4) TMI 939
... ...
... ... ..... dingly the same is dismissed as infructuous. 13. Ground No. 2 - Though not many arguments were made by both the parties and this issue does not pertain to any particular action of the Assessing Officer under a particular provision of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal normally speaking can not adjudicate this issue. However, at the same time, it is to be noted that the revenue has no right to withhold the refund of the assessee simply because the revenue has not accepted the decision of the Tribunal. The revenue is required to give effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal and if same are reversed by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court then appeal effect can be given again, therefore, the revenue should not hold back the refund because the same is not permissible under law. 14 Cross-objections of the assessee is partly allowed. 15 In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 16.4.2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 937
... ...
... ... ..... r the petitioner stated that upon representation of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Income Tax is in the process of granting installments for payment of tax dues. At this stage, he therefore, under instructions, does not press this petition. Disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharged.
-
2013 (4) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... ration to the appellant w.e.f 23/7/2009 vide certificate dated 29/1/2010. The appellant again applied for registration vide application dated 15/3/2010 seeking registration with effect from 1/4/2003 which was rejected by the CIT vide order dated 20/9/2010 on the basis that after 1/6/2007. CIT is not empowered to condone the delay. The appellant thereafter moved application for condonation of delay u/s 119(2) of the Act to the C.B. D.T on 4/3/2011, which is pending. We thus, respectfully following the order of the co-ordinate bench in the case of assessee for A. Ys 2007-08 and 2008-09 (Supra) set aside the matter to be filed of the AO to decide the issue afresh, keeping in mind, the outcome of the application for condonation of delay dated 4/3/2011 u/s 119(2) of the Act pending disposal before the C.B.D.T. The grounds are thus allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 2 April/ 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 935
... ...
... ... ..... ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 63 ITR 232. Further, the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional Court of Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 199 ITR 351 has taken a similar view. 9 Having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue of TP adjustment is remanded to the record of the Assessing Officer/TPO to decide the same afresh after considering the objections of the assessee against the comparables selected by the TPO. 9.1 It is clarified that since the TPO has not specifically rejected the comparables selected by the assessee; therefore, in any case the comparables as selected by the assessee shall be considered apart from any other comparables, if found proper for determination of the ALP. 10 In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 12th April 2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 934
... ...
... ... ..... et. In our opinion, CIT(Appeals) fell in error in considering a declaration of impugned property as heritage property based on a calendar issued by Government of Puducherry in 2007 which was obviously much later to 1.4.1981. An assessee cannot change his stand according to his needs. Once assessee had declared the fair market value as on 1.4.81 at a particular sum for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act, it cannot deviate from such amount while computing capital gains for the purpose of Income-tax Act, when the asset was sold. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) fell in error in directing adoption of the value shown by the assessee while computing the capital gains. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) sofar as it relates to fair market value as on 1.4.1981 and reinstate the order of Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 4th of April, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 933
... ...
... ... ..... passed, we hold that the order passed under section 263 is barred by limitation.” 9. In the instant case, the impugned order alleged to have been passed on 26.3.2012 i.e. within the prescribed period of limitation, was never communicated to the assessee. The factum of non-communication of the order has not been rebutted by the Revenue. On the other hand, the AR for the assessee has placed on record letter dated 29.11.2012 to say that the order was for the first time communicated to the assessee after more than seven months of the passing of the order. In view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of considered opinion that the order of CIT was beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 4th day of April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 932
... ...
... ... ..... e assessee.” On perusing the arguments of the AR and reading the same alongside the decision of Godrej & Boyce (supra), we are of the considered opinion, that the revenue authorities have erred in not recording a specific dissatisfaction, on the working of the assessee and for this reason, we feel necessary that the order of the CIT(A) be set aside on this issue and the AO must compute the disallowance, not only by applying the prescribed Rule 8D but also following the spirit of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Godrej & Boyce (supra). 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 29/11/2012.” Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 931
... ...
... ... ..... hich was conducted on 06.06.2007. Thereafter, he finds that the assessee signed cash book every day before taking out the cash. That being so, there is hardly any justification to hold that the amount in question is unexplained money as the assessee has been able to explain the source thereof. Further, there is no material produced by the Revenue to rebut the above said findings under challenge. Accordingly, we affirm the findings of the CIT(A) and hold that once the assessee has been able to explain the cash amount in question with cash book entries of her departmental store, there is no reason to restore the addition in question made by the Assessing Officer. 30. To sum up, I.T.A. No. 1313 and 1314/Mds/2012 are partly allowed qua the issue of interest under section 234D. Rest of the appeals filed by the Revenue i.e. I.T.A. Nos. 1315, 1316, 1316, 1317, 1318 and 1319/Mds/2012 are dismissed being devoid of merits. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 9th of April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 930
... ...
... ... ..... ot be said that the Assessing Officer could be presumed to have formed his opinion without even his reflection of such aspect in the final assessment made by him. 19.2 Moreover, at the stage of notice, when the relevant material brought on the record is indicative that any reasonable man on the basis of such material could have formed an opinion that the taxable income had escaped the assessment, sufficiency of such reason is duly established. It is not for the Court to see as to whether such reason could lead to a positive conclusion at such stage of initiation of proceedings. In the instant case, of course, such notice has led to the positive conclusion tilting the balance in favour of the Revenue as what is impugned in this Tax Appeal is the order of Tribunal upholding the re-assessment proceedings. No error giving rise to question of law, much less substantial question of law arises. 20. Resultantly, Tax Appeal merits no further consideration and is dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 929
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal relating to the assessee’s claim for netting of interest expenditure against interest income, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the temporary deposits having been made by the assessee out of surplus amount available from the funds borrowed for the project, interest expenditure incurred in respect of the borrowed funds should be netted against interest income. In our opinion, if the interest expenditure so incurred is wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest income which constituted business income of the assessee, deduction for the same has to be allowed while computing such business income of the assessee. We therefore direct the A.O. to consider and allow the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of interest expenditure after verifying the relevant facts in accordance with law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 30-04-2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 928
... ...
... ... ..... rs, it can not move the application. The remedy under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 is quite exhaustive, but in the present case rights of the plaintiffs/appellants, who are the share holders of the Company, have been impaired because the meeting of the general body was not called and the resolution passed by the Board of Directors was not approved in the meeting of general body. In such circumstances, in our opinion, in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Cooper (supra), the civil suit is maintainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial court is hereby set aside. It is held that the civil suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is maintainable. The issue No. 5 is answered accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs. The observations made in this order be treated preliminary in nature. The trial court has liberty to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law.
-
2013 (4) TMI 927
... ...
... ... ..... eld by the Authorized Officer on behalf of the Creditor Bank is void and the right of the Official Receiver in the liquidation proceedings cannot be defeated and as the sale is void, it goes to the root of the obligations between the auction purchaser and the Authorized Officer and when once the sale is set aside as void, it is needless to say that the Creditor Bank cannot take advantage of the void sale and the auction purchaser shall be restored to the same position prior to the sale and any amount realized by the Creditor Bank cannot be retained by it. Accordingly, W.P. No. 19297 of 2012 is allowed granting the reliefs claimed thereunder. W.P. No. 33655 of 2011 and Company Application No. 1972 of 2011 are dismissed. Consequent on the orders holding that the sale as void as it comes within the purview of this Court, Company Application No. 421 of 2013 is also allowed as a consequence of the sale being held as void under Section 531 and 531(A) of the Companies Act. No costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... 1961. 11. The penalty has been deleted on the ground that quantum addition stands deleted Sub Section III of section 271 (1)(C) provide the computation of penalty. It contemplate that in cases referred to clause (C) in addition to tax, if any payable by an assessee, a sum which shall not be less than but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of concealment of particular of his income. Thus, what an assessee has to pay by way of penalty is an amount equivalent to the tax sought to be evaded or 3 times of the tax sought to be evaded. Once additions are deleted, then there is no amount on which assessee can be said that to have evaded the tax and, therefore, there cannot be any penalty. Ld. CIT (A) has observed that additions are deleted, the penalty can not prevail. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT (A), In the result all the three appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30.04.2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 925
... ...
... ... ..... rial change in the facts of the case and thus the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on this count is upheld. 8. Ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relates to the disallowance made by the AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 80HHC and the direction given by the Ld.CIT(A) to exclude 90% of the net hire charges and not gross hire charges for the purpose of deduction u/s 80HHC. It is pertinent to mention that this issue has also been covered in favour of the assessee in its own case for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 in ITA Nos. 7926/Mum/2004 and 8794/Mum/2004 respectively. In view of the matter that there is no distinguishing facts brought on record by the Revenue during the year under consideration, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A) this count and the same is upheld. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 10th day of April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 924
... ...
... ... ..... Accordingly, Schedule 2 to the Scheme shall stand altered to reflect the assets and liabilities of the Investment Division of the petitioner No.1 as on October 1, 2011. The Accounting following the Scheme should be strictly in accordance with AS-14. In case the petitioners supply a computerized printout of the Scheme and the Schedule thereto, the Department will append such computerized printout to the certified copy of the order sanctioning the Scheme without insisting on a handwritten copy thereof. The final copy of the trust deed annexed to the said supplementary affidavit shall be appended to this order and form part of the Scheme sanctioned by this Court. C.P.No.206 of 2012 is allowed as above. The petitioner companies shall pay the costs of this application to the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs assessed at 2000 GM. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (4) TMI 923
... ...
... ... ..... ity as department has filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case, which has been admitted. Thus, to keep the issue alive this addition is being made.” 7. In our opinion, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court is binding on all the authorities working within the jurisdiction of such High Court. It is immaterial that the Department has filed a SLP against the above decision. Till such decision is modified or reversed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same would be binding on all the authorities working within the jurisdiction of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that learned CIT(A) rightly allowed the assessee’s claim following the above decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. We, therefore, uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 26th April, 2013.
........
|
