|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1223 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1127 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Hero Exports Versus Commissioner of Income Tax”, Civil Appeal Nos.5315 & 5317 to 5319 of 2007, decided on 20.11.2007. Counsel for the revenue despite his attempt to distinguish the aforementioned judgments, has been unable to persuade us that the substantial questions of law framed are, in any manner different from the questions of law already decided in the aforementioned appeals. In this view of the matter and after considering arguments addressed by counsel for the parties as the first substantial question of law has been answered against the revenue by the High Court in ITA No.52 of 2012 “Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana Versus M/s Vardhman Holdings Ltd. Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, and the second substantial question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Hero Exports Versus Commissioner of Income Tax”, the present appeal is dismissed in terms thereof.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1126 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... umar, Adv. Ms. Sunaina Kumar, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Tag with Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2007.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1125 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... impugned assessment year same facts had been considered by the AO were considered by the ld. CIT(A) and relying on the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Yr. 2004-05, rendered the decision. The Cross Objection preferred by the assessee respondent for A.Yr. 2004-05 was similarly dismissed in so far as for the reasons deliberated for upholding the taxation at 10% had been considered in its entirety. The ld. CIT(A) declined to adhere to the submissions of the assessee appellant before it as the facts and circumstances could only lead to the finding that such income was to be taxed at 10%. In this view of the matter we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is upheld resulting in dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the Cross Objection filed by the assessee respondent. 5. In the result the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1124 - ITAT RAJKOT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal on 05.10.2012 in ITA No. 44 & 45/Rjt/2012 is recalled and both the appeals are restored for fresh hearing and disposal. ITA Nos.44 & 45/Rjt/2012 AY 2004-05/2005-06 Appeal by Mukeshbhai G Rachchh 12. Facts and circumstances in both the appeals filed by Shri Mukeshbhai G. Rachchh are identical with those in the appeals filed by Smt Alkaben Mukeshbhai Rachchh. It was stated at the time of hearing by the ld Authorized Representative for the assessee that there was no difference in the factual matrix of both the cases and therefore the order passed in one case may be followed in the other case. We have already taken a view in the case of Smt Alkaben Mukeshbhai Rachchh that the claim of the assessee regarding gift is not genuine. We have confirmed the order passed by ld CIT(A) in that case. Following the same, we confirm the order passed by the ld CIT(A) in the present case also. Both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 10.07.2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1123 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... High Court would prevail upon the decision of the Tribunal which is a lower forum than the High Court. 15.6 Therefore, in view of the above discussions we hold that the assessee in the instant case is entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s.80IB(10) on its housing projects. Accordingly, the first ground of the assessee is allowed. Since the assessee succeeds on the first ground the alternate contention for proportionate deduction become academic in nature and therefore is not required to be adjudicated. ITA No.179/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06) ITA No.913/PN/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) 16. The grounds by the assessee in the above 2 appeals are identical to the grounds of appeal in ITA No.883/PN/2010. We have already decided the issue and the ground raised by the assessee has been allowed. Following the same reasoning the grounds by the assessee are allowed. 17. In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of July 2013
-
2013 (7) TMI 1122 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Utilisation of Cenvat credit of Basic Excise Duty for discharge of Education Cess - Held that:- The issue is decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Madura Industries Textiles [2013 (1) TMI 352 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that the benefit of utilization of credit of basic excise duty for payment of education cess is to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1121 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . 10. Mr. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant has not contended that the Government Orders mentioned above are ultra vires the Disabilities Act or that they are devoid of being functional. This is also the dialectic favoured by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the impugned judgment, which we affirm. 11. In this analysis we cannot but conclude that the Appellant has failed to disclose any Legislation or Rules or Orders that would facilitate, support or legitimise his claim for being conferred with the advantage of age relaxation, which is presently available only to SC/ST/OBC candidates. It is for these reasons that regretfully we are unable to locate any merit in the present appeal. Interim orders are accordingly recalled and the appeal is dismissed. Keeping in view the fact that the Appellant has not succeeded before the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench, as also before us, he shall be liable to pay costs to Respondent No. 1.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1119 - ITAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s is a timing issue i.e. the year of allowability of the expenses is in dispute. On the principle of consistency, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the First Appellate Authority has to be upheld as in the earlier Assessment Year the finding of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the year of allowability has not been challenged by the Revenue. In the result this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 9. Ground no.2 is on the issue of allowability of interest on late deposit of excise duty and interest on late deposit of trade tax. We hold that the First Appellate Authority was right in relying on the decision of Hon’ble P&H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hoshiarilal Kewal Krishan, 202 taxmann 441 (P&H) and holding that the payments in question are compensatory in nature and hence allowable. We find no infirmity in the same. 10. In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1118 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 22.05.2009. Viewed from any angle, the ITAT appears to have acted just and proper in modifying its earlier order standing at contradiction to the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The order dated 12.10.2012 being squarely in consonance with the requirements of justice, and on the admitted fact situation that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was not given in this case within prescribed time, no case for interference is made out. The appeal filed by the revenue (Appeal No.347/2011) is, therefore, required to be dismissed. When the appeal against the order dated 12.10.2012 is dismissed and this order is confirmed, as a necessary corollary, the proceedings undertaken by virtue of the earlier order dated 28.04.2006 could only be considered non est. Therefore, the order passed by the ITAT on 10.03.2011 in ITSSA No.20/JP/2009 cannot be faulted with either. Accordingly and in view of the above, both these appeals (Nos.347/2011 and 576/2011) stand dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1117 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Maintainability of application for winding up the company on default of paying debts - applicability of limitation act - the petition is for winding up the Company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts. The agreement was signed by the lenders, the Company as well as two personal guarantors, a Director of the Company, was one. The loan was for a period of three months. By orders of this Court Sarla Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., one of the present petitioners. On 28.11.2011, the petition for winding up the company was filed in this Court.
HELD THAT:- The Company Petition is held maintainable. As, the orders of this Court under which the amalgamation was sanctioned were filed by the petitioners, accompanied by an affidavit of the authorised signatory of petitioner no. 1. The Registrar of Companies was also duly intimated about the amalgamation in the prescribed form which was acknowledged and the merger was approved by him. The present petition was filed on 28.11.2011 after the amalgamation. the amount borrowed from Surabhi Sindhu, the Company had repaid and the balance of was transferred to the "share application money account". The shares, however, have not been allotted. The balance sheet was signed by the Directors as well as the Chartered Accountants on 1.9.2010 and if this date is taken as the date of acknowledgment of the debt, as it ought to be in the light of the settled legal position in this behalf, the period of limitation gets extended up to 31.08.2013.
Petitioners are entitled to costs of ₹ 25,000/- from the respondent-company.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he master plan under Section 13 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the land of the petitioner continues to be classified as agricultural land, liable to land revenue. 3. In that view of the matter, the respondent fell in error in concluding that since the petitioner-assessee is not barred from converting land and constructing building thereto, the land falls within the definition of the term 'urban land' for the purpose of wealth-tax. This finding, in my opinion, is perverse and calls for interference with the assessment order. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. The order of assessment dated 28.03.2013 Annexure 'G' of the respondent - in so far as it relates to inclusion of the agricultural land belonging to the petitioner as 'urban land' for the purpose of wealth-tax is quashed. The proceeding is remitted to the respondent for consideration afresh over the return filed by the petitioner other than on the agricultural land.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1115 - SUPREME COURT
Termination of service - temporary government servant - removed without holding any inquiry - advertisement published for the 250 posts of Constables - appointment by misrepresentation - involved in a criminal case - concealment of fact while giving information in regard to clause 4 and clause 7 of Proforma of Affidavit - HELD THAT:- We do not find any force in the submission made by Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that the clause 4 and 7 have to be read together and such information was required to be furnished only and only if the person faced the trial and not otherwise.
It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.”
In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order, relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority.
The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case.
The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav [1996 (3) TMI 472 - SUPREME COURT] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.,[2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT].
The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case.
Thus, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1114 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in his cross-examination five years earlier. The question of, therefore, any fresh cause of action arising at the time of pronouncement of the judgment does not arise. The limitation for the present suit should be held to have begun on the date when the statement was made during cross-examination, particularly since there was no other witness examined on behalf of the Ministry of Railways. The suit is therefore barred by limitation as it has been filed more than five years after the alleged defamatory statements were made. 24. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court concludes that the plaint fails to disclose any cause of action to support the present suit for libel and defamation against the Defendant. The plaint is accordingly rejected. The Defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is allowed with costs of ₹ 5,000 which will be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant within four weeks. Consequently, the suit and all pending applications are dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as in charge of the business of the Company, as every Director need not be and is not in charge of the business of the Company. 36. In the instant case on hand also, the respondent, who is the complainant in the above said cases has not stated as to how the complaints have been filed against the petitioners. In the absence of appropriate answer on the part of the respondent, this Court, without any hesitation, can exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and quash the criminal proceedings of the case in S.T.C.Nos.1290, 1292 and 1293 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, in respect of the petitioners alone. 37. In the result, these criminal original petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.1290, 1292 and 1293 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai are quashed in respect of the petitioners alone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... oadly, in our view the service tax Rules do not prescribe the method of doing any business or maintaining account. The approach of the authorities should facilitate smooth conduct of business by reducing manual work for every assesse if they arrange to do so. 12. Thus, we are in agreement with Final Order No.6767,668/12, dated 12.06.2012 passed by Tribunal in Appeal Nos.ST/413/2010 and ST/13/2012. We follow the same order and remit this matter also to the adjudicating authority, after setting aside the impugned order, for de-novo adjudication considering the observations of the Tribunal in that order and this order. We make it clear that this order is not a bar to passing any appropriate order in accordance with law if any revenue loss is demonstrable. Needless to say that such evidence should be disclosed to the appellant and they should be given an opportunity to present their defense. 12. Stay application and appeal are disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1111 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Ajay Vohra,Adv. And Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv. ORDER Heard counsel for both the parties. Delay condoned. Issue notice on the prayer for interim relief. Leave granted. Tag with C.A.No. 724/2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1110 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... of the iron ore and coal and RG 23 Part-I was not relatable, she has disallowed the credit. 4. The learned counsel submitted that now they have got all the copies of invoices and documents to show the receipt of raw materials purchased on their own account as well as from the Agarwal Foundries Pvt. Ltd. for whom they do job work and he draws our attention to papers filed by him in four volumes. 5. We consider it appropriate that these voluminous documents can be verified by the original adjudicating authority rather than our undertaking this job. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority who shall undertake fresh adjudication. Needless to say that evidences produced shall be examined and appellants be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, thereafter a well-reasoned order is passed according to law. It is made clear that all the issues are kept open. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2013 (7) TMI 1109 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... afore noted cases has consistently taken a view that in such a situation income or loss from such transactions is to be considered as capital gain or capital loss. No contrary precedent has been brought to our notice by the learned D.R. Respectfully following the above orders, we uphold the impugned order by holding that income arising from forward exchange contract is assessable as capital gain and resultantly there can be no change to tax under the DTAA”. 8. Since the facts of the instant case are exactly the same as that in the preceding years, respectfully, following the order of the coordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case, as mentioned above, we do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the CIT(A). 9. We therefore reject ground no. 1, in the appeal filed by the department. Grounds no. 2 and 3, being general, are rejected as well. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th July, 2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1108 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ometimes it is estimated at 3%. It depends upon the appreciation of each and every fact of every individual case. When the Tribunal has exercised discretion while estimating the profit at 3%, this Court should not interfere with such discretion, as it is not the ground that the exercise of discretion is absolutely arbitrary. It is true that the Tribunal has relied on its earlier decision, in case of M/s. Kanaka Durga Wines in I.T.A.No.591/Hyd/2011, dated 28-07-2011. But the decision itself does not appear to be absurd. Therefore, we do not find any element of law involved in these matters. 4. The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1107 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... fficer should consider the following 1. The registered valuer report as submitted by the assessee. 2. Reference to the DVO has to be made by the Assessing Officer and the report of the DVO on the cost of acquisition as on 01/04/1981 of the property has to be considered. 3. Inherent quality of the property namely size, location, road frontage, corner plot, if any, etc. to be examined. 4. Any comparable property in the same locality should be taken for consideration. 22. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer shall after examining thoroughly the nature of the property and the peculiar circumstances as well as the values given by the different persons namely DVO and the Registered Valuer shall decide the issue denovo. It is needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee. 23. In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as the appeal of the department are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.07.2013.
............
|
