|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1179 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1143
... ...
... ... ..... pray that the order dated 24th January, 2013 be modified in terms of aforesaid terms and conditions handed over today in Court. Learned counsel for both the parties undertake to abide by the terms and conditions handed over today in Court as well as para 5(ii) of order dated 24th January, 2013. The promoters of petitioner company will file affidavits/undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions handed over today within a period of two weeks. Learned counsel for parties have also agreed that the date of confirmation/approval referred to in the terms and conditions shall be taken to be today. Learned counsel for parties further agree to co-operate for reconciling interest and execution of documents. The statements made by learned counsel for parties are accepted by this Court and parties are held bound by the same. Consequently, present application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid statements as well as revised terms and conditions handed over in Court. Order dasti.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... during the intervening period she was gainfully employed elsewhere. 36. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the learned Single Judge of the High Court committed grave error by interfering with the order passed by the Tribunal for payment of back wages, ignoring that the charges levelled against the Appellant were frivolous and the inquiry was held in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. 37. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order passed by the Tribunal is restored. The management shall pay full back wages to the Appellant within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall have to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the Appellant's suspension till the date of actual reinstatement. 38. It is also made clear that in the event of non-compliance of this order, the management shall make itself liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1141
... ...
... ... ..... e ambit of Section 504 Indian Penal Code. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings Under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. 15. We have already extracted the relevant portions of the complaint. If they are so read in the above legal settings, in our view, a prima facie case has been made out for initiating proceedings for the offence alleged Under Section 504 Indian Penal Code. 16. In such circumstances, we find no reason to take a different view from that of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... sessment is therefore liable to be annulled and the same is hereby annulled. 15. In view of the decision on the validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings, the other issues raised by the assessee on merits do not require any consideration. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 17. The above reasoning adopted by the Tribunal will apply to the present case. In the reasons recorded, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the relevant assessment year has been alleged. In such circumstances, we are of the view that initiation of reassessment proceeding is not valid. Accordingly, the order of reassessment is annulled and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 18. In the result, ITA No.1281/Bang/2012 is allowed, while all the other three appeals are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 14th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... learned Tribunal are quoted hereunder “Thus in our opinion the reopening is merely change of opinion of the Assessing Officer and he should have tangible material for forming an opinion that there has been an escapement of income.” In view of the aforesaid fact finding, it is difficult for us to admit this appeal, as there is no element of law involved. Further, the learned Tribunal had taken a correct view that an audit opinion in regard to the application or interpretation of law cannot be treated as information for reopening the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act. This proposition of law has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. Commissioner of Income Tax 119 ITR 996 (SC) and also in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lkucas TVS Ltd. 249 ITR 306 (SC) Therefore, nothing remains to be decided by us in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1138
... ...
... ... ..... (A). All the above creditors have accepted that they had advanced their respective credits to the assessee. They have also explained towards genuineness of their transaction and have also detailed their sources of these deposits. Sanctioning here and there being not explained to the hilt cannot be taken as a proof of ingenuinity of the transaction. In any case these amounts can be considered in the hands of the depositors as per the law. It would not be justify to dub them as ingenuine on account of required ingredients stretched too far on both sides. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned deletion and cannot allow this issue in the favour of the revenue. It was conveyed to the Bench that the assessee has not filed his appeal against sustained part of cash creditors. 7. In the result, this appeal of the revenue in ITA No. 78/Jodh/2013 A.Y. 2006-07 is dismissed. 8. To sum up both the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1137
... ...
... ... ..... ) held that the variation made by the Assessing Officer on this issue should be deleted and accordingly deleted the addition of ₹ 39,18,508/-. 22. The ld.D.R fairly conceded that the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by various Benches of the Tribunal. 23. The ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee are at Sl No.7 to 9 of the index of paper book on case laws wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by various Benches of the Tribunal. They are - Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd vs ACIT 2012 26 Taxmann.com 96 (Chennai) Aurionpro Solutions Ltd vs Addl. CIT in I.T.A.No. 7872/Mum/2011 Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT in I.T.A No.5855/Del/2012. 24. In view of the above submission of the ld.D.R, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the Revenue. 25. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 30th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... t a case of lack of enquiry by Assessing Officer in ‘scrutiny’ to be a fit instance to invoke revision proceedings. As stated hereinabove, since the instant is also a case of no enquiry qua the nature of the land sold before finalization of the ‘regular’ assessment, we hold that the CIT has rightly invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revising the impugned assessment. 10. So, far as the assessee’s argument that the land sold is ‘agriculture’ in view of the case law M.S. Srinivasa Naicker and Sherit Dyan (supra) is concerned, we find that the assessees therein had not obtained approval for conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Therefore, they are distinguishable on facts and hardly help the cause of the assessee. So, we hold that CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 11. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 13th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Incometax( Appeals) has rejected the contention of the assessee regarding the reopening of the assessments, on the ground of merit the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has allowed the appeals of the assessee stating that there is no case of double deduction in the matter of depreciation, as held by the assessing authority. In fact, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has allowed the appeals filed by the assessee on merits of the issue. 8. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the ground raised by the assessee against the reopening of the assessments under section 148 of the Act is just academic. It does not call for any independent adjudication. Therefore, we find that the appeals of the assessee are also liable to be dismissed. 9. In result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 6th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... CIT(Appeals) and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides and have perused the orders of the authorities below. The only issue raised in appeal relates to provision of wage arrears amounting to ₹ 5.80 Crores allowed by the CIT(Appeals). We are of the considered opinion that the provision has been made in view of the Wage Settlement Agreement between the assessee and the trade unions before the Joint Labour Commissioner (Re-conciliation), Chennai on 31-08-2005. The provision has been created against the ascertained liability. The CIT(Appeals) has remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to allow the same after verification. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the CIT(Appeals). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 7th August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... e stay on refund and in case the assessee succeeds in the appeal, it would be entitled to interest which would be imposed on the State at the final hearing of the matter. In view of the above, we dispose of the instant writ petition finally in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of 2008 NTN (Vol. 38) 296 M/s. SAF Yeast Company Private Limited. Vs. State of U.P. and another, read with interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.3.2010 (supra). The benefit of the present order shall be subject to final outcome of pending appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of the special appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court, we provide that the respondents shall not realise tax on molasses but shall keep an account of molasses purchased/sold during the pendency of appeal so that in any case, the appeal fails by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner shall be held liable to pay tax in accordance with law.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1132
... ...
... ... ..... fully relevant to the facts of the case in hand, the action of A.O. in treating the expenditure made by the assessee on replacement of machineries as capital expenditure is upheld. However the assessee will be entitled to proportionate depreciation on the quantum of expenditure capitalized. This ground appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 19. On going through the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), we do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that expenditure on replacement of autoconer machine is capital expenditure. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are rejected. 20. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 21. To sum up, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.606/Mds/2013 is dismissed and that the assessee in ITA No.617/Mds/2013 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday, the 30th day of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... sed and its substitution by a new order. What is mistake apparent on the face of the record or where does a mistake cease to be mere mistake, and become mistake apparent on the face of the record is rather difficult to define precisely, scientifically and with certainty. An element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature and it must be discernible from the facts of each case by judiciously trained mind. Mere existence of a mistake or error would not per se render the order amenable for rectification, but such a mistake must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.” 8. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the discussion held above and ratio of the decisions as cited above, we do not find any merit in the miscellaneous petition of the assessee and the same stands dismissed. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 20th of August, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1130
... ...
... ... ..... NDPS Act was not essential. The contention of the learned counsel that different seal No.10 was used in both the proceedings by different officials and the seal was handed back at 1.30 PM is incorrect. PW2 in his cross-examination clarified that there was only one seal of DRI No.10 and he handed over the same after 1.30 PM but could not say whether it was at 2.30, 5.30 or 8.30 PM . Thus only one seal of DRI No.10 was used. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the Appellant are minor in nature. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the case property and the samples were properly secured with the seals and they were found intact when they reached the Court and the CFSL. 8. In view of the evidence on record in my opinion the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant and no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1129
... ...
... ... ..... me to interfere with the conviction and sentence of all the accused in the case. 32. In the result, I am inclined to pass the following order - i.The Crl.R.C.Nos. 8 and 9 of 2009 are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.10403 of 1995, dated 18.08.2003 and confirmed in Crl.A.No.289 of 2003, dated 06.02.2008, are set aside. ii.The order of enhancement of sentence of fine imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, in Crl.R.C.No.34 of 2005 is also set aside. iii.The petitioners in Criminal Revision cases as well as the other accused, who have not preferred appeal or revision, are also hereby acquitted. iv.The fine amount, if any, paid by the revision petitioners and the other accused shall be refunded to them. v.In view of the above conclusion, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.O.P.No. 8025 of 2008 deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... and computation.” 5.2 In view of the above discussions, we do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Therefore, this ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 9. Considering the above discussions and in view of the fact that the learned DR could not controvert the submission of the learned AR by any cogent material evidence, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation on good will amounting to ₹ 90,21,444/- and his order requires no interference by us. Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the revenue in this appeal.” Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of our co-ordinate Bench, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1127
... ...
... ... ..... ty imposed in that case u/s 271B was deleted by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court on this basis that when a person commits an offence by not maintaining the books of account as contemplated by section 44AA, the offence is complete and after that, there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by section 44AB. It was held that on this reasoning, penalty imposed u/s 271B is erroneous and the same was deleted. In the present case also, it is admitted factual position that the assessee did not maintain the books as contemplated u/s 44AA. Hence, the facts are identical in the present case and we find no reason to take a contrary view in the present case. Hence, by respectfully following this judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, we delete the penalty. 9. In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed. 10. In the combined result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1126
Insuring attendance of the appellant before the Court - Issue of Bailable Warrant & summons before issuance of Non-bailable Warrant - Power of the Court – HELD THAT - The power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided.
Article 21 of our Constitution proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The issuance of non-bailable warrant involves interference with personal liberty. Orders passed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court modified, and direct that summons be issued against the appellant for his appearance instead of non- bailable warrants which were ordered to be issued against him.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1125
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd., reported in 204 Taxman 82 fortify the view taken by CIT(A). Further, the Hon’ble Tribunal while deciding the appeals in the case of Sri G. Sai Babu and Smt. G. Sailaja made a clear observation that the amounts were paid to the sister concerns in a scheme of developing about 300 acres of land in a phased manner. Therefore, the amount paid by the assessee company to the sister concerns also is a business transaction and not a loan or advance. Hence, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Sri G. Sai Babu and Smt. G. Sailaja also the amount paid cannot be termed as deemed dividend. 11. The appeals filed by the department are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. 12. In the result, ITA.No.1360/Hyd/2011 to 1363/Hyd/2011 of the assessee are allowed and ITA.No.1344/Hyd/2011 to 1347/Hyd/2011 of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28.08.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1124
Accepting loans in cash - Section 269SS - Repayment of loans through Journal Entries - Penalty u/s 271D & 271E - Concept of Reasonability - Assessee had taken 3 loans exceeding the limits specified in section 269SS - HELD THAT:- "Reasonable cause" differs from case to case. A.O. need to reconsider the matter to check whether "reasonable cause" was there for such act of assessee.
Since there is no material on record to indicate the reasonable cause in respect of these loan transactions - In the converse situation, the Assessing Officer has every right to decide the fate of the assessee as per law.
........
|
