|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1299 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1242
... ...
... ... ..... U.C. Jain that after rejection of the books of account the rate applied in the immediately past year is relevant. We are also in agreement with the argument of ld. AR. We have taken umpteen of decisions in this regard by holding that after rejection of books of account, only its past history is most relevant. The assessee has a past history, accordingly to which a net profit rate of 8% has been confirmed. The ld. DR submitted that there was no scrutiny in A.Y. 2007-08 and thus the rate of that year cannot operate as a guiding factor u/s 145 of the Act. 2.2 After considering rival stands we have found it for a fact that after rejection of books, assessee’s past history is very much relevant. It does not matter if the profit rate was accepted in a scrutiny assessment or in the regular assessment. Accordingly, we apply n.p. rate of the past year and allow this appeal. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/09/2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1241
... ...
... ... ..... in dispute between the parties that the same is not capable of improvement at an ascertainable cost in terms of money and therefore in the absence of any possibility to determine the 'cost of any improvement' referred to in Section 48(ii) of the Act, the computation of capital gains fail and accordingly it is outside the scope and ambit of the charge envisaged under Section 45(1) of the Act. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we therefore, conclude by holding that there was no capital gain exigible to tax under Section 45(1) of the Act on transfer of the impugned trademark by the assessee and that the lower authorities have erred in taxing the same while computing the total income of the assessee. 14. In the above manner, the assessee succeeds on this plea and accordingly the order of the CIT(A) is set-aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to allow appropriate relief to the assessee, as above. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1240
... ...
... ... ..... ned single Judge while dealing with second application under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure was not at all warranted under any circumstance as it was neither in consonance with the language employed in Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure nor in accord with the established principles of law relating to grant of anticipatory bail. We may reiterate that the said order has been interpreted by this Court as an order only issuing a direction to the accused to surrender, but as we find, it has really created colossal dilemma in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We are pained to say that passing of these kind of orders has become quite frequent and the sagacious saying, "A stitch in time saves nine" may be an apposite reminder now. We painfully part with the case by saying so. 30. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the modification in the order passed by the learned single Judge in M.Cr.C. No. 701 of 2013 and the observations made hereinabove.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1239
... ...
... ... ..... side the orders of authorities below on this issue and restore the matter back on the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to re-decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. It is expected that assessee will furnish all the details and documents before the Assessing Officer to justify the claim of allowance. 3. Ground No.4 is general in nature which comments no adjudication. 4. As a result, appeal of the assessee gets partly accepted for statistical purpose. 4.1 As regards for appeal for assessment year 2009-10, department has raised two grounds. First ground is relatable to payment of advance excise duty and second relatable for provision of leave encashment. Since both the issues are same as in the assessment year 2008-09, therefore, our decision on these issues taken for that year will apply here to this appeal. 5. As a result, appeal of the department is accepted partly for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 30.09.2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1238
... ...
... ... ..... sel has received any objection pursuant to citations published in the newspapers. 14. In view of the approval accorded by the shareholders and creditors of the Petitioner company, affidavit filed by the RD to the proposed Scheme and the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, there appears to be no impediment to the grant of sanction to the Scheme. Consequently, sanction is hereby granted to the Scheme under Sections 391 of the Act. The Petitioner company will comply with the statutory requirements in accordance with law. 15. The certified copy of the order shall be filed with the ROC within 30 days from the date of receipt of the same. 16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner company would voluntarily deposit a sum of ₹ 50,000/- in the Common Pool Fund of the Official Liquidator within three weeks from today. The statement is taken on record. 17. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. Order be given dasti.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1237
... ...
... ... ..... is concerned. In this regard reference may be made to Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 253. 17. Viewed from this perspective, as the petitioner No. 1 company, who had valid licence to deal with Vanaspati Dalda, continued to be the owner of the Vanaspati Dalda, no contravention can be held to have occasioned by the time of seizure and the consequent order of confiscation is not sustainable in the eye of law. 18. Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has raised some more contentions, discussion of which may become academic only in view of the findings (supra). In the result, the impugned order vide Annexure-9 is set aside. The bank guarantee furnished by petitioner No. 1-company to the tune of ₹ 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) while taking interim release of the seized truck and Vanaspati Dalda be cancelled and the interim Zima of the truck bearing Registration No. OSU-3915 is made absolute. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1236
... ...
... ... ..... the orders of the authorities below and found from record that a notice u/s 133(6) was sent to said Smt. Rachna Chouhan who vide letter dated 09.03.2012 has informed that DD/PO had been purchased in favour of the assessee at the instance of Shri G. S. Sharma out of a cheque credit provided by him just before the date of purchase of the DD/PO. 14. Thus, it is clear that DD was purchased by Smt. Rachna Chouhan at the instance of Shri G. S. Sharma. The source of fund was out of credit balance in the bank account of Rachna Chouhan. Since Rachna Chouhan has confirmed the purchase of DD in favour of the assessee, merely not filing of a confirmation by Shri G. S. Sharma cannot be made the basis for addition. In the interest of justice, this issue is also restored back to the file of A.O. for deciding afresh after making detailed inquiry. We direct accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1235
... ...
... ... ..... ion in the income of the assessee. The impugned order passed by the learned ITAT is on facts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as such, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeals. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to satisfy the Court how the suggested question of law can be said to be question of law. 6.0. It is required to be noted that in similar set of facts and circumstances of the case but with respect to one another assessee American Steel Corporation Pvt. Ltd and purchases booked in the name of R.R. Patel Trading Corporation, we have confirmed order passed by the learned ITAT making the addition to the extent of 20% (Tax Appeal Appeals Nos. 504 of 2012 and 508 of 2013) 7.0. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that as no substantial question of law arises in the present appeals, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed
-
2013 (9) TMI 1234
... ...
... ... ..... have not filed the Statement of Case so far. By way of last opportunity, four weeks' further time is granted to the appellants for filing the Statement of Case. Within four weeks' thereafter, counsel for the respondents shall file their Statement of Case.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1233
... ...
... ... ..... umathy,Adv ORDER Released from part-heard. At the time of hearing of these appeals, our attention was drawn to an order dated 24th January, 2011 passed in Commissioner of Customs, Guntur Etc. Vs. M/s. Muneer Enterprises Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.1053-1057 of 2011 @ Civil Appeal D.No.40025 of 2010), whereby on a similar issue the appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs had been dismissed. We feel that the issue requires reconsideration and, therefore, the Registry is directed to place these matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India so that the matters may be referred to a three-Judge Bench.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1232
... ...
... ... ..... by the High Court. 8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt that the order passed by the High Court needs to be interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The order dated 21.04.2004 of the High Court is set aside and we now issue directions to the Respondent to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to the Appellants commencing from the date of filing of the Maintenance Petition (M.C. No. 1/1993) i.e. 4.2.1993 within a period of six months and current maintenance commencing from the month of September, 2013 payable on or before 7th of October, 2013 and thereafter continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive month. If the above order of this Court is not complied with by the Respondent, the learned Trial Court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of the Respondent and ensure that the same is executed and the Respondent taken into custody to suffer imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1231
... ...
... ... ..... ia that foreign investors consider it prudent to invest in issuer companies and thus, GDRs have been fully subscribed by foreign investors. Moreover, by indulging in brisk trading in the underlying shares of issuer companies in the securities market in India by entities controlled by Arun Panchariya, investors were made to believe that there is considerable demand in the securities market in respect of shares of issuer companies. In these circumstances, decision of SEBI that appellants in connivance with issuer companies have committed fraud upon the investors in India and therefore, as persons associated with the transactions in the securities market in India, appellants are liable for action under SEBI Act, 1992 and the Regulations made thereunder cannot be faulted. 36. For all aforesaid reasons, both questions raised in the appeal are answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of SEBI and against appellants. 37. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1230
... ...
... ... ..... ngs under section 148 of the Act. Therefore, all the resultant addition made by the A.O. would stand deleted. In view of the above, there is no need to consider the additions on merit. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.100/Agra/2013 (Shri Piyush Prasad, HUF) 11. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra dated 08.10.2012 for the A.Y. 2002-03 challenging initiation of the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act and the similar addition on merit. 12. The case is identical as considered in the case of Shri Ramesh Prasad, HUF. Therefore, by following the reasons for the decision in that case, I set aside and quash the reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Act and also delete the additions on merit as done in the case of Shri Ramesh Prasad, HUF. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1229
... ...
... ... ..... to carry forward and set off against the income of the current year the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. It may be noticed that the AO referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (supra) but the claim of the assessee was rejected on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has not reached its finality though the Department could not file SLP on technical reasons. The learned D.R. could not point out any direct contrary decision on this point and he impliedly admitted that against the view taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court Revenue has not taken in further appeal/SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Having regard to the circumstances of the case we are of the firm view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue and uphold the order of the learned CIT(A). Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1228
... ...
... ... ..... expenditure or some benefit in respect of any such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof" shall include the remission or cessation of any liability by a unilateral act by the first mentioned person under clause (a) or the successor in business under clause (b) of that sub-section by way of writing off such liability in his accounts. ” A careful reading of above Section would show that when it is applied to instant case before us, all the conditions mentioned therein have been satisfied. Once the assessee accepts that the creditors were not existing, it is for the assessee to show that the payments were not made during the relevant previous year. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the lower authorities were justified in making the addition of ₹ 43,29,009/-. No interference is called for. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 26th of September, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1227
... ...
... ... ..... ward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less” to arrive at the “profit of sick industrial company” under clause (vii) of Explanation 1 of 115JB(2) of the I.T. Act.” 38. In our opinion, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is reasonable and logical in the scheme of various clauses of Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 115JB. He has given cogent reasons for his decision. In our considered view, the amount of loss brought forward or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less as per books of account in terms of clause (iii) of explanation to sub-section (2), should 19 341 & 380-Rjt-2012 - Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited be excluded first from the adjusted book profits and the amount of profits of sick industrial company should be adjusted after adjustment in terms of clause (iii) has been carried out. Ground No.5 taken by the assessee is dismissed. 39. In view of the foregoing, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 13.09.2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1226
... ...
... ... ..... ;. 12 In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the examination of the seizure witnesses and taking of sample by the complainant himself i.e. PW1 vitiated the entire proceeding, resulting failure of justice. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the impugned conviction and sentence recorded, on the basis of such unfair investigation, cannot be maintained. 13 In view of what has been discussed above, I find sufficient merit in this appeal. The appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14 Before I part with this judgment, I acknowledge with appreciation, the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Vanlalnghaka, learned Amicus Curiae and order that an amount of ₹ 5000/- be paid to the learned Amicus Curiae as remuneration by the Mizoram Legal Services Authority. 15 Return the L.C.R.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1225
... ...
... ... ..... h sale as void and also in view of the settled position of law as declared in the four judgments referred to above, namely, (I) Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kapurchand Shrimal vs Tax Recovery Officer, Hyderabad, reported in 1967 64 ITR 1 AP , (II) Judgment of the Apex Court in Nancy John Lyndon Vs. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury and others reported in (1987) 4 SCC 78, (III) Judgment of this Court in Palani Gounder (Decd.) and Others V. Income Tax Revenue Department and others, reported in 1998 (229) ITR 59 (Mad.) and (IV) Judgment of this Court in Abdul Jamil and 5 Others Vs. The Secretary, Income-Tax, reported in 1998 (1) CTC 547 and that they can proceed further to bring the property to sale, etc., No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2010 in W.P.(MD)No.11726 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.8972 of 2012 are closed. As stated above, M.P.(MD)Nos.2 to 6 of 2012 in W.P.(MD)No.8972 of 2012 are DISMISSED.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1224
... ...
... ... ..... ile an affidavit of undertaking that the above scheme shall be implemented without fail, with a copy to the Registrar of companies, Punjab and Chandigarh at Chandigarh within fifteen days from the receipt of this order. 14. Any failure to comply with this order shall attract penal provisions contained in Section 58A(10) and Section 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act' 1956' 15. The company shall within three weeks, of release of this order send a copy of the operative portion of this order to all the depositors and at its discretion may also publish the same in leading newspapers. 16. A copy of this order shall be sent by the Bench officer to the secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, l.G.M. Cell, New Delhi for information and necessary action 17. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar of Companies, Punjab & chandigarh at chandigarh for taking necessary action in case of non-compliance of this order. 18. The Company Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1223
... ...
... ... ..... enses of ₹ 57,87,162 and depreciation and preliminary expenses (section 35D). The assessee had claimed total loss at ₹ 44,81,336/- after setting off income from other sources ₹ 22,21,427/- . We were not sure why only depreciation claim of ₹ 2,95,145/- and preliminary expenses of ₹ 18,970/- were only considered by CIT for disallowance. If his stand were to be accepted then the other expenditure claimed as personnel and operating expenses also require to be capitalized. There is no consistency in the stand of the CIT. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that since assessee has commenced its business and set up business also, the order passed by AO in the original instance is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore, CIT has no jurisdiction to set aside the same. Assessee’s grounds are allowed. 5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2013.
........
|
