|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1299 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1222 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... isallowance made by the A.O. and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of freight charges by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) is not sustainable as per the amendments made in the said provisions by the Finance. Act, 2010 which, being remedial/curative in nature, have retrospective application. Accordingly, we delete the said disallowance and allow ground No. 2 of this appeal.” 3. Accordingly, respectfully following the decisions relied upon by Ld. AR, after hearing both the parties we are of the opinion that disallowance cannot be made if the deposits are made before the due date of filing the return as described in section 139(1). As there is no dispute so as it relates to date of deposit of tax and these dates are stated in the remand report itself we direct the AO to delete disallowance of ₹ 7,43, 955/- 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1221 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... earch operation u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted in assessee’s case. Therefore provisions of section 271AAA are not attracted in his case because section 271AAA is applicable only in cases where search u/s. 132 has been initiated which is clear from the plain reading of this section which reads as under - “Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAA. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 but before the 1st day of July, 2012 , the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year.” In view of the above, we feel no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and the same is hereby upheld. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1220 - ITAT PANAJI
... ...
... ... ..... n sold by the Assessee by taking the cheque. The revenue also accepted that the cheque has been received by M/s. Landscape Developers and has duly been accounted for by them. We do not agree with the revenue that while these flats have been sold, the cash would have been received by the Assessee and the Assessee would have given the cheque to M/s. Landscape Developers. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the cash received in respect of the 9 flats belonged to M/s. Landscape Developers and the revenue is directed to assess the said amount in the hands of M/s. Landscape Developers. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) and delete the addition made in this regard with the direction that the cash portion as stated at pg. 48, if the Department choses, may treat as income of M/s. Landscape Developers. Thus, ground nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 stands allowed. 6. In the result, both the appeals filed by assesses are allowed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1219 - SUPREME COURT
Disciplinary proceedings against a government servant - Decision for suspension/review of suspension lies with highest departmental authority - Finance Minister - seeking “approval for issuing charge memo/sanction of prosecution” - Department seeking order for Initiation of departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings or both simultaneously - Disciplinary authority to "draw up" or "cause to be drawn up" - the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges - Delinquent officer - HELD THAT:- to ensure that only an authority that is not subordinate to the appointing authority takes disciplinary action and that rules of natural justice are complied with. The primary submission of the respondent was that the charge sheet not having been issued by the disciplinary authority is non est in the eye of law. This plea of the respondent has been accepted by the CAT and by the High Court. The action has been taken against the respondent in Rule 14(3) of the CCS(CCA) Rules which enjoins the disciplinary authority to draw up or cause to be drawn up the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charges.
The term “cause to be drawn up” does not mean that the definite and distinct articles of charges once drawn up do not have to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The term “cause to be drawn up” merely refers to a delegation by the disciplinary authority to a subordinate authority to perform the task of drawing up substance of proposed “definite and distinct articles of charge sheet”. These proposed articles of charge would only be finalized upon approval by the disciplinary authority.
The Court in the case P.V. SRINIVASA SASTRY VERSUS COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL [1992 (12) TMI 222 - SUPREME COURT] : HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly Article 311(1) does not say that even the departmental proceeding must be initiated only by the appointing authority.
Inconsistency with Article 311 of the Constitution - HELD THAT:- At the same time it is pointed out by the court that “However, it is open to Union of India or a State Government to make any rule prescribing that even the proceeding against any delinquent officer shall be initiated by an officer not subordinate to the appointing authority.” It is further held that “Any such rule shall not be inconsistent with Article 311 of the Constitution because it will amount to providing an additional safeguard or protection to the holders of a civil post.”
-
2013 (9) TMI 1218 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... unsel for the assessee has also placed on record the copy of the letter dated 1st August 2001 from the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Secretariat for Industrial Assistance Investment Promotion & Infrastructure Development Cell, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Govt. of India where approval has been accorded to the assessee for setting up an industrial park in terms of the scheme notified by the Ministry in exercising of powers u/s. 80IA sub-section 4(iii) of the Act. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in assessee’s own case and the fact that the assessee is operating industrial park duly approved by the competent authority, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s. 80IA and the income of the assessee is assessable under the head ‘Income from Business’. The appeal of the assessee is allowed, accordingly. Order pronounced on Friday, the 13th September, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1217 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... aid purpose. 20. In case, the petitioner-company alleges any fraud and forgery or non-receipt of sale consideration of the shares, then CLB is not the correct forum to seek such relief. It is a case where the dispute can be conveniently settled in a court other than the CLB by the litigants. The judgment in the case of Finolex Industries Ltd. (supra), relied by the petitioner has been overruled by the same Bombay High Court in Morgan Ventures Ltd. (supra). On the facts and circumstances of the present petitions, it is seen that the other judgments relied by the petitioner are not applicable, whereas the legal authorities cited on behalf of the respondents are applicable to the facts of the present petitions. 21. In view of the above discussions, it is held that both the petitions are neither maintainable in law nor hold good on merits and are, therefore, dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated and all pending applications, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1216 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ." 9. Further, that ratio has been reiterated in the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumiri Devi 1997 8 SCC 715 where it was observed that a review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 10. The aforesaid views were reiterated by Hon'ble the Apex Court also in a later judgment reported in Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik AIR 2006 SC 1634. Similar views have also been taken in another judgment reported in Inderchand Jain v. Motilal Jain 2009 14 SCC 663. 11. In view of all the aforesaid, there is no error/mistake apparent on the face of record. 12. Thus, there is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed as such.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ded over during the assessment year under consideration nor any consideration had been received in this year. Therefore, we agree with the submissions of the assessee that there was no transfer of property in assessment year 2006-07 and, therefore, no capital gain can be taxed in this year. Moreover, in case of a co-owner as pointed out by the assessee, the capital gain has already been accepted in assessment year 2007-08. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) upholding the taxation of capital gain in assessment year 2006-07 cannot be upheld. As capital gain held not to be taxable in this year we do not consider it necessary to go into the alternative claim of the assessee that the capital gain even if taxable in this year, was exempt u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the ground raised regarding the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act is dismissed as having become infructuous. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 6-9-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1214 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... 7A(2) that was a distinct omission or default for which penalty is prescribed. 11. In both the above cases, it is seen that either the Forms were filed during the course of assessment proceedings or belatedly in the present case. The Assessing Officer has nowhere doubted that the assessee had not received the Forms in question i.e. the 15G/15H beyond end of financial year but disallowance is merely based on the reason of violation of Rule for not sending the copies of the said forms to the office of the CCIT or CIT. In our opinion, the principles laid down in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra) are squarely applicable to the assessee’s case. We, accordingly, following the decision in the case of Vipin P. Mehta Vs. ITO (supra), allow the claim of the assessee and delete the addition, accordingly, Ground No. 2 is allowed. 12. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Pronounced in the open Court on 30-09-2013 Pronounced in the open Court on 30-09-2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1213 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... eration is materially identical to that of the case decided by the coordinate bench in case of Ashwin Joshi (supra), respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the same de novo following the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Ashwin Joshi (supra) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 21. As the order of the CIT(A) has been set aside and remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication while deciding the revenue’s appeal by us, the CO filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and therefore, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 22. In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th September, 2013
-
2013 (9) TMI 1212 - ITAT COCHIN
Disallowance of claim for “Provision for leave encashment” u/s. 43B(f) - Disallowance of claim of “provision for gratuity” - Application filed seeking application for Gratuity fund - Result for Approval of Gratuity fund not declared - Duly ascertaining the fate of application filed before competent authority - HELD THAT:- The operative part of the said decision reads as under:- “In answering the reference, we hold that merely because in some cases the Revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the Revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts.”
The Calcutta Bench of Tribunal [2012 (3) TMI 585 - ITAT KOLKATA] has considered an identical issue in the case before and the Tribunal, has set aside the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to consider the issue afresh as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SC ORDER]. Accordingly, the orders of Ld CIT(A) on this issue were set aside in both the years under consideration and restore them to the file of the AO with the direction to examine the issue afresh as per the discussion.
Accordingly matter restored before the AO for fresh decision.
The disallowance of claim of “provision for gratuity” - HELD THAT:- The claim of “Provision for gratuity” was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the gratuity fund was not approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Though the assessee contended that the application seeking approval of the Competent Authority is pending as on the date of the assessment but the Assessing Officer proceeded to disallow the claim saying that the same will be reviewed as and when the approval of the competent authority is received. It was not fair to disallow the claim of the assessee when the application is pending before the competent authority. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim made by the assessee under both the heads in both the years. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed these appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The assessee could not explain about the steps taken by the assessee to pursue the application filed by it before the competent authority. Thus, in these cases, Court has not expressed its opinion.
Matter restored back to AO.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1211 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... eal is an identical to the issue which was before the bench in Appeal No. E/861/2012, in respect of the very same assessee. As the issue involved in this case is same as was in appeal wherein, we granted unconditional waiver, we find that the dismissal of the appeal by the first Appellate Authority for non-compliance is incorrect. In view of the fact that the tribunal has taken a view on the selfsame issue, granted unconditional stay, we find that the first Appellate Authority should reconsider the issue afresh, without insisting any pre-deposit. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue on merits after following the principle of natural justice. 3. The first Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the findings recorded by us in the stay order dated 23.04.2013. 4. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1210 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e designed’. The adjudicating authority had not given any findings as to whether the appellant had rendered any service of advice, consultancy etc. In view of that, it is appropriate that the matter be remitted to the original authority for reconsideration of the case. The learned Counsel also submits that the taxable value have also to be taken into consideration for arriving at the liability and it would be examined by the adjudicating authority. 8. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned orders and the matter is remitted to the adjudication for re-examination of the case on the facts, legal provisions and case laws. The appellant is directed to provide all the documents at the time of hearing. It is needless to say that the appellant be given proper opportunity for hearing. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is disposed of. Miscellaneous application for change of cause title is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1209 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment 1. 1st October 2013 ₹ 35,000,000 2. 1st November 2013 ₹ 35,000,000 3. 1st December 2013 ₹ 35,000,000 4. 1st January 2014 ₹ 35,000,000 5. 1st February 2014 ₹ 35,000,000 6. 1st March 2014 ₹ 35,000,000 7. 1st April 2014 ₹ 35,000,000 8. 1st May 2014 ₹ 35,000,000 9. 1st June 2014 ₹ 45,000,000 10. 1st July 2014 ₹ 45,409,802.35 4. I am duly authorised on behalf of the Company to give this undertaking. 5. I also say that the details of the above amounts are duly reflected in statement of account annexed herewith. 6. I also understand that today?s order and statement shall not be challenged by the company and is with the consent of the company through me as the CMD. The Company shall not seek any extension of time for any reason in future. 7. I also understand that if the company defaults the original order dated 25th April 2013, it shall come into force forthwith without any demur, protest or objections by the company.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1208 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... usion of jurisdiction must be strictly construed. A clause of this nature, at the highest, can apply where two or more courts have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit in which case it is open for the parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction on any one of those courts. Clause-34 ex facie does not apply to an arbitration petition under Section 34 for setting aside an arbitral award. 10. That apart, it is well settled in view of the judgment in Bharat Aluminium Co. (supra) that courts having jurisdiction over the place where the arbitration takes place would have supervisory jurisdiction. 11. For these reasons, we hold that the learned Single Judge was in error in dismissing the arbitration petition for want of jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Arbitration Petition No.909 of 2011 is restored to the file of learned Single Judge for consideration of the challenge to the arbitral award. 12. The appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1207 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commission did not commit any error by holding that the remedy of arbitration available to the complainant does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer forums and the consumer forums are not under an obligation to refer the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal. 11. With the above observation, the appeal is dismissed. Before concluding, we record our strong disapproval of the mechanism employed by persons like the Appellant to frustrate one of the main objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, namely, expeditious disposal of the consumer disputes. The record of the case shows that disposal of the objection raised by the Appellant has consumed almost three years' time. If the Appellant had not raised frivolous and vexatious objection, the main petition may have been finally disposed of by now. Therefore, the Appellant is saddled with cost of rupees one lakh which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one month from today.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1206 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ents are directly on the point of deductibility of employee’s contributions towards PF and ESI and are based on the ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alam Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC). Under these circumstances, in view of the precedents of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal and also the precedents by way of the judgements of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, we find no reason to depart from the view taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. (supra) to the effect that even in case of employee’s contributions towards PF and ESI which are paid before the due date of filing of return of income is an allowable expenditure. Thus, we hereby affirm the order of the CIT(A) and Revenue has to fail in the present appeal. 7. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 September, 2013.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1205 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ened, let this matter be listed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice for listing it before appropriate Bench. Mr. Deepak Khosla is insisting for listing today. Let the matter be listed before the Hon?ble Chief Justice today itself.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1204 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI BENCH NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... to start it from scratch. He referred to every paper clipping respondent publishers published in their Magazines. Mr Khosla says these journalists started airing their views as collected from known sources, knowing pretty well they are not supposed to let out opinionated information when matter is sub-judice before this Bench. He says these journalists purposely put up slanted news to influence or to thrust slanted news upon adjudicating bodies, which amounts to criminal contempt under section 15 of Contempt of Court Act. These paper clippings placed before this bench focussing Mr Bhakshi being unfairly treated by McDonald USA, is nothing but interfering in administration of Justice, therefore, he pleads this Bench to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents. Act, therefore, these applications are dismissed giving liberty to the applicants to seek remedy on the same cause of action before appropriate forum. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1203 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner/appellant. Hence these applications are dismissed for default. Consequently, the petitioner shall pre-deposit the liability as assessed by the adjudication order dated 30.12.2010 including the penalty and as confirmed by the appellate order dated 12.12.2012, within four weeks and report compliance by 14.10.2013. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the petitioner/appellant by Registry urgently.
........
|
