|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1233 Records
-
2014 (5) TMI 1136 - ITAT JODHPUR
Disallowance of administrative expenses - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee is a public limited company, so there cannot be a personal use on account of telephone and trunk call expenses. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer did not point out any instance where the expenses relating to travelling and conveyance were unreasonable or excessive or proved to be bogus. The Assessing Officer himself accepted 90% of the rental expenses as allowable and merely on the basis that there was an increase in the rental expenses as compared to earlier years it cannot lead to the disallowance of expenses in part. In the present case, the Assessing Officer disallowed the membership and subscription expenses merely on this basis that the proper vouchers had not been maintained but no defect was pointed out and no specific instance of claim being bogus and unreasonable or excessive had been pointed out, therefore, disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was rightly deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We do not see any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that turnover of the assessee increased in comparison to the earlier years and the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any specific instance of bogus, unreasonable or excessive expenses relating to repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery. He had also not pointed out that the expenses were not incurred for business purposes or those were personal in nature, therefore, the disallowance made on the basis of surmises and conjecture is not tenable and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of manufacturing expenses - Held that:- Assessing Officer made the adhoc disallowance without quantifying any of the expenses, which was not incurred for the business purposes. The Assessing Officer also not pointed out which of the item was not supported by proper bills and vouchers, therefore, the disallowance was made only on the basis of presumption, which is not tenable and the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the same. - Decided against revenue
Disallowance of selling expenses - Held that:- It appears that the Assessing Officer made an adhoc disallowance only on this basis that the expenses were more in the year under consideration as compared to the earlier years. However, he ignored this vital fact that the main expenses amounting to ₹ 18.25 lacs out of total expenses of ₹ 26.60 lacs under this head were on account of royalty and the Assessing Officer did not point out any specific instance where the expenses were not incurred for the business purpose. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was only on the basis of presumption, which is not tenable and the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the same.
- Decided against revenue
-
2014 (5) TMI 1135 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Disallowance u/s 14A computation - Held that:- We are also of the view that the basic facts about the details of the investment as well as the source of the investment in shares and mutual funds for the purpose of earning exempted dividend has not been properly explained to the lower authorities. As decided in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1998-99 and 2001-02 wherein, as well, the matter was restored for reconsideration as per law as relied upon Hero Cycle [2009 (11) TMI 33 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] wherein it was observed that disallowance u/s.14A requires finding of incurring of expenditure and where it is found that for earning exempted income no expenditure has been incurred, disallowance u/s.14A could not be made.
Consistent with the view taken in the past by the Tribunal in assessee’s own cases, we deem it proper to restore this ground back to the stage of the AO to be decided denovo after taking into account the latest decisions on the issue of the applicability provisions of Section 14A. The AO is required to examine the balance-sheet and related accounts of the assessee so as to see whether there was investment in shares/mutual funds out of the borrowed funds or non borrowed funds. In the light of the above directions, this ground of the assessee may be treated as allowed for statistical purpose only.
Depreciation on the assets leased back to Rajasthan Electricity Board (RSBB) is to be allowed as per law.
Expenditure in respect of a sale of a capital asset - allowable Revenue expenditure u/s.37 - Held that:- The accepted factual position was that the LPG Division was sold by the assessee in earlier years as a “slump sale”. We have been informed that on sale of the said LPG Division the assessee had offered to tax a ‘capital gain’ in the past. The assessee’s only argument is that the additional stamp duty was demanded in the year under consideration, therefore, the liability had crystallized during the year; hence, allowable only in this year. We are not convinced with the argument of learned AR because under the provisions of Section 37 of IT Act an expenditure which is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business can be allowed as an expenditure. The expenditure of additional stamp duty being not an expenditure for the purpose of the business of the assessee but pertained to a capital gain which was shown in the past years, therefore, not to be allowed u/s.37 of IT Act for the year under consideration.
Expenditure for acquiring license to use software applications would be applicable as Revenue expenditure.
Adjustment of capital gain - whether a short term capital gain/loss can be adjusted against the long term capital gain/loss - Held that:- We are of the view that the long term capital gain is to be adjusted against the long term capital loss and likewise the short term capital gain is to be adjusted first against the short term capital loss. The provisions of the Act has prescribed the intra-head adjustments, therefore, the Revenue Authorities have correctly held that the appellant had wrongly adopted the method of adjustment of capital gain. Further we have also noted that, although not in the ground of appeal, the question of cost as per index cost was directed to be computed by AO as per Section 48 vide paragraph 16.2.1 of the order of learned CIT(A). Therefore, the assessee should not have any grievance in this regard. This ground of the Assessee is hereby dismissed.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1134 - ITAT LUCKNOW
Registration under section 12AA denied - non disposal of application - Held that:- Since the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax has not disposed of the application for registration within a period of six months consequent to the order of the Tribunal remitting the matter back to him vide its order dated 28.1.2010, registration under section 12AA of the Act will be deemed to have been granted. Accordingly, we direct the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax to grant registration under section 12AA of the Act forthwith. - Decided n favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1133 - SC ORDER
TDS u/s 194H - Trade discount provided by newspaper publishers to advertising agencies under Rules and regulations of Indian Newspaper Society - Held that:- Special Leave Petition is dismissed. It is clear that advertising agency has never been appointed as agent of the petitioner. The relationship between the assessee and the advertising agency in accordance with the INS Rules is that of a principal to principal because (a) the assessee has no control over the advertising agency, (b) the advertising agency is responsible for payment even if the advertiser has not paid the advertising agency, (c) the advertising agencies are rendering service to the advertisers/ customers & other terms. Therefore, trade discount provided cannot be termed as Commission. See HC ref -2012 (5) TMI 488 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
-
2014 (5) TMI 1132 - ITAT KOLKATA
Revision u/s 263 - unsigned notice by the designated authority - notice was issued by ACIT - Held that:- The said notice u/s. 263 of the Act ha s not been signed by the “Commissioner of Income Tax” rather it has been signed by ACIT, Hqrs., Burdwan. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Pandey (2012 (9) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ) has expounded that when the Ld. CIT has not recorded his satisfaction, but it was the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer (Technical) who is not competent to revise his order u/s. 263 of the Act, the order passed was liable to be set aside.
Thus it is clear that for a valid assumption of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act should be issued by the Ld. CIT. In this case, it is undisputed that notice was issued by ACIT, Hqrs, Burdwan who is not competent to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Hence, the notice was not under the seal and signature of Ld. CIT. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1131 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Works Contract Service - erection and commissioning or installation services - denial on the ground that they have not filed any written option to avail said works contract scheme composition scheme benefit - Held that: - the option to be exercised is not required to be exercised in writing and the very fact of payment of duty under the composition scheme reflects upon the option of the assessee. As such, I find no reason to deny the benefit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1130 - SC ORDER
Amortization of lease premium - Revenue v/s capital - HC [2012 (11) TMI 325 - DELHI HIGH COURT] confirmed disallowance directed by the Income Tax authorities, on account of the assessee's amortization cost of land which according to the Revenue constituted capital expenditure - Held that:- Tag these Appeals
-
2014 (5) TMI 1129 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Deduction u/s 24(b) - deduction for interest paid - Held that:- The meaning given at Sl No. 2 for renewal would definitely take in its stride the conversion charges also because the dictionary clearly states that recreation of legal relationship or replacement of old contract with a new contract is covered by the definition of renewal. This means in the case of the assessee when the original contract for the property was for industrial shed and after charging the conversion charges the contract would be for commercial property. In our opinion, this would be definitely covered by the expression 'renewal". In practical terms the assessee could not have used the property except for running the industry in electrical items but now the assessee has been allowed to use the same in commercial terms and i.e. why the assessee has been able to exploit the same by giving commercial site on rent for the purpose of running a hotel. This is because of the renewal made by the Chandigarh Administration by changing the usage of the property.
Thus the assessee is definitely entitled to claim the deduction for interest paid to Chandigarh Administration and accordingly we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to allow deduction of this interest.
As far addition on account of interest paid to other parties No doubt the assessee has raised further funds, therefore Sarovar Hotel Pvt. Ltd by way of interest bearing securities but the same has not been shown to be paid for payment of conversion charges. In fact we had asked the Ld. Counsel to file the copies of partner's capital account because the Assessing officer has given a finding that there was a negative balance in the partner's capital account. These were filed and perusal of the same clearly show that there is negative balance in the partner's capital account. Even the balance sheet clearly show that partner's capital account had a negative balance. Therefore clearly the further borrowing have gone towards the payment to the partners and same are not related to the conversion charges. To this extent the Assessing officer is right that the disallowance has to be maintained. We may clarify that this contention is quite right because in the computation the assessee has claimed interest of only ₹ 60,18,199 and the income has been computed by the Assessing officer on the basis of computation filed by the assessee. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1128 - ITAT CHENNAI
TDS u/s 195 - payments of commission made by the assessee to the nonresident agents - non deduction of tds - Held that:- In the present case, the disputed agents were nonresidents. Those non-resident agents are carrying on the business wholly outside India. The assessee had paid commission to those non-resident agents for services rendered by them wholly outside India. It also has to be seen that the nonresident agents did not have any permanent establishment (PE) in India. The commissions were remitted by the assessee directly to the non-residents outside India.
In the facts of the case as stated above, we find that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is justified in holding that the payments of commission made by the assessee to the nonresident agents were not chargeable to tax in India in the hands of those non-resident agents. When no income is generated to the non-residents within India, those non-resident agents are not liable for any levy of income tax on account of the commissions they earned out of the services rendered outside India for the assessee. TDS arises only where there is a corresponding tax liability in the hands of the payee.- Decided against revenue
-
2014 (5) TMI 1127 - ITAT PUNE
Claiming the deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(iv)(a) - Held that:- We find that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2010 (3) TMI 860 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and f Serum International Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-6 [2013 (1) TMI 688 - ITAT PUNE ] wherein held profits are to be computed as if such eligible business is the only source of income of the assessee. When the assessee exercises the option, only the losses of the years beginning from the initial A.Y. are to be brought forward and not the losses of the earlier years which have been already set off against the income of the assessee - no notional brought forward and set off against the profits of the eligible business as no such mandate is provided in section 80-IA(5). When the assessee exercises the option, only the losses of the years beginning from the initial A.Y. are to be brought forward and not the losses of the earlier years which have been already set off against the income of the assessee.- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1126 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of lease deed executed after the Provisional Attachment - Attachment orders - money-laundering prevention - Held that:- Adjudicating Authority has the power to issue a provisional attachment order so that during the pendency of the proceedings, the property is neither transferred nor disposed of or parted with or dealt with in any manner. Subsequently, if upon a complaint being filed by respondent No.1, the provisional attachment order is confirmed, then the authority has the power to take over possession.
This Court is further of the view that after a provisional attachment order has been passed, no noticee-owner can create a tenancy or transfer possession or create third party rights to defeat an ultimate order of taking over possession under the Act, 2002 and Rules, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that the expression ‘attachment’ is defined under Section 2(d) of Act, 2002 to mean prohibition of transfer, conversion, disposition or movement of property by an order issued under Chapter III.
Though in the present case, it has been averred that the tenancy had been orally created on 01st June, 2013, yet this Court is of the view that the alleged oral tenancy would create no right either in favour of the petitioner or respondent No.2 as the lease deed in question was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.Further, the covenant in the lease deed that security deposit shall be paid not at the time of handing over of possession or at the time of registration throws doubt upon the genuineness of the oral tenancy and the handing over of possession in June, 2013.
This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that Prirthvi Raj Road is one of the most prime and posh areas of the city and it is inconceivable that a property ad measuring 6796.50 sq. ft. would have been leased out in an arms length transaction at ₹ 80,000/.
Consequently, as the lease deed in question had been executed only after the Provisional Attachment order had been passed by the statutory authority, this Court is of the view Rule 5(3) of the Rules, 2013 would not enure to the benefit of either the petitioner or respondent No.2-tenant.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1125 - ITAT MUMBAI
Depreciation on membership rights of Multi Commodity Exchange - Held that:- In the present case assessee has paid non-refundable admission fees for acquiring trading rights in Multi Commodity Exchange Ltd. The said capital expenditure was eligible for depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. See case of Techno Shares and Stocks Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (5) TMI 1124 - SC ORDER
Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) - Scope of term 'Direction' in the Assessment Order to initiate penalty proceedings - Whether penalty proceedings can be initiated when there is no loss to revenue - Held that: - The special leave petition is dismissed.
The question of law is kept open.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1123 - ITAT CHENNAI
Claim of deprecation on the fixed assets acquired - assessee could not produce original invoices/bills for the purchase of fixed assets - Held that:- In the light of the fire incident which has gutted the branch offices of the assessee at Bhiwandi and Jamshedpur, the assessee has not been able to produce documents in support of purchase of assets. However, the assessee has been able to show from records expenditure incurred for fixing of the assets. The said claim of the assessee has not been rebutted by the Revenue. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the assessee is entitled to claim deprecation on the fixed assets acquired for Bhiwandi and Jamshedpur Branches. - Decided in favour of assessee
TDS u/s 194C - Dis-allowance u/s.40(a)(ia) - non deduction of tds on freight charges - Held that:- A perusal of the assessment order as well as the impugned order shows that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had produced 164 Form 15-I having value of ₹ 7.28 Crores on 10-11-2009 of which the Assessing Officer had not taken note of although reference of the same has been made in the assessment order. The CIT(Appeals) after considering the same had granted the relief to the assessee to the extent of Form 15-I produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. We do not find any error in the order of CIT(Appeals) in giving benefit of Form 15-I valuing ₹ 7.28 Crores. This ground in the appeal of Revenue is accordingly dismissed.
For the remaining amount of ₹ 8.41 Crores assessee has submitted that the details of truck-wise list of forms 15-I received and destroyed in fire at Bhiwandi were produced before the Assessing Officer Filing of Form 15-I is mandatory. Obtaining of duplicate Form 15-I could be difficult but not impossible. The assessee could have made some effort in procuring duplicate Forms. There is nothing on record to show that any effort was made to obtain duplicate Forms. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the assessee has not discharged its duty and thus, cannot take advantage of fire in the office to get absolved from this liability. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Dis-allowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss - CIT(Appeals) after examining the documents on record concluded that out of the total loan of ₹ 23.84 Crores, ₹ 21.68 Crores were utilized for working capital purposes and hence allowed the same as expenditure - Held that:- The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd., (2009 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT ) has held that loss suffered by the assessee on account of fluctuation in the rates of foreign exchange as on the date of balance sheet is an expenditure u/s.37(1) of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on this issue.
Dis-allowance of interest on diversion of interest bearing loans - Held that:- CIT(Appeals) has rightly allowed the interest claimed by the assessee on sums advanced to its subsidiary company as a measure of commercial expediency. We do not find any reason to dislodge the findings of the CIT(Appeals) on the issue.See case of S.A. Builders Ltd., v. CIT [2006 (12) TMI 82 - SUPREME COURT]
-
2014 (5) TMI 1122 - ITAT MUMBAI
Income on account of 'Royalty and Fees for Technical Services' - taxable on receipt basis OR accrual basis - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 2001-02 has held that Royalty has to be assessed to tax on receipt basis and not on accrual basis
Software is a part and parcel of equipment sold, therefore, no Royalty is payable
-
2014 (5) TMI 1121 - SUPREME COURT
Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act - whether Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock - cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country - Held that:- Taming of animal for domestic use and taming of animal for exhibition or entertainment are entirely different. Section 2(c) of TNRJ Act speaks of ‘taming of bulls’ which is inconsistent and contrary to the provisions of Chapter V of PCA Act. Sections 4(vii), (viii) and 5 (viii) speak of Bull tamers. Bull tamers, therefore, tame the bulls at the arena, thereby causing strain, stress, inflict pain and suffering, which PCA Act wants to prevent under Section 11 of the Act. Taming of bulls in arena during Jallikattu, as per the State Act, is not for the well-being of the animal and causes the unnecessary pain and suffering, that is exactly what the Central Act (PCA Act) wants to prevent for the well-being and welfare of animals, which is also against the basic natural instinct of the bulls.
PCA Act, especially Section 3, coupled with Section 11(1)(m)(ii), as already stated, makes an offence, if any person solely with a view to provide entertainment, incites any animal to fight. Fight can be with an animal or a human being. Section 5 of TNRJ Act envisages a fight between a Bull and Bull tamers, that is, Bull tamer has to fight with the bull and tame it. Such fight is prohibited under Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act read with Section 3 of the Act. Hence, there is inconsistency between Section 5 of TNRJ Act and Section 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act.
TNRJ Act, in its Objects and Reasons, speaks of ancient culture and tradition and also safety of animals, participants and spectators. PCA Act was enacted at a time when it was noticed that in order to reap maximum gains, the animals were being exploited by human beings, by using coercive methods and by inflicting unnecessary pain. PCA Act was, therefore, passed to prevent infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering and for the well-being and welfare of the animals and to preserve the natural instinct of the animal. Over-powering the performing animal was never in the contemplation of the PCA Act and, in fact, under Section 3 of the PCA Act, a statutory duty has been cast on the person who is in-charge or care of the animal to ensure the well-being of such animal and to prevent infliction on the animal of unnecessary pain or suffering. PCA Act, therefore, cast not only duties on human beings, but also confer corresponding rights on animals, which is being taken away by the State Act (TNRJ Act) by conferring rights on the organizers and Bull tamers, to conduct Jallikattu, which is inconsistent and in direct collision with Section 3, Section 11(1)(a), 11(1)(m)(ii) and Section 22 of the PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution and hence repugnant to the PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation and hence declared unconstitutional and void, being violative of Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
We, therefore, hold that AWBI is right in its stand that Jallikattu, Bullock-cart Race and such events per se violate Sections 3, 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(m)(ii) of PCA Act and hence we uphold the notification dated 11.7.2011 issued by the Central Government, consequently, Bulls cannot be used as performing animals, either for the Jallikattu events or Bullock- cart Races in the State of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra or elsewhere in the country. We, therefore, make the following declarations and directions:
1) We declare that the rights guaranteed to the Bulls under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act read with Articles 51A(g) & (h) are cannot be taken away or curtailed, except under Sections 11(3) and 28 of PCA Act.
2) We declare that the five freedoms, referred to earlier be read into Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act, be protected and safeguarded by the States, Central Government, Union Territories (in short “Governments”), MoEF and AWBI.
3) AWBI and Governments are directed to take appropriate steps to see that the persons-in-charge or care of animals, take reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of animals.
4) AWBI and Governments are directed to take steps to prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on the animals, since their rights have been statutorily protected under Sections 3 and 11 of PCA Act.
5) AWBI is also directed to ensure that the provisions of Section 11(1)(m)(ii) scrupulously followed, meaning thereby, that the person-in-charge or care of the animal shall not incite any animal to fight against a human being or another animal.
6) AWBI and the Governments would also see that even in cases where Section 11(3) is involved, the animals be not put to unnecessary pain and suffering and adequate and scientific methods be adopted to achieve the same.
7) AWBI and the Governments should take steps to impart education in relation to human treatment of animals in accordance with Section 9(k) inculcating the spirit of Articles 51A(g) & (h) of the Constitution.
8) Parliament is expected to make proper amendment of the PCA Act to provide an effective deterrent to achieve the object and purpose of the Act and for violation of Section 11, adequate penalties and punishments should be imposed.
9) Parliament, it is expected, would elevate rights of animals to that of constitutional rights, as done by many of the countries around the world, so as to protect their dignity and honour.
10) The Governments would see that if the provisions of the PCA Act and the declarations and the directions issued by this Court are not properly and effectively complied with, disciplinary action be taken against the erring officials so that the purpose and object of PCA Act could be achieved.
11) TNRJ Act is found repugnant to PCA Act, which is a welfare legislation, hence held constitutionally void, being violative or Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India.
12) AWBI is directed to take effective and speedy steps to implement the provisions of PCA Act in consultation with SPCA and make periodical reports to the Governments and if any violation is noticed, the Governments should take steps to remedy the same, including appropriate follow-up action.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1120 - SUPREME COURT
Recruitment to Service - rule of quota and rota - Held that:- The Court made it clear that it was not laying down that rule of quota and rota cannot go exist. Service rules, in a particular case may specifically provide the co-existence of quota and rota. There may also be a situation where service rules be interpreted as such. That is a very important comment made by the Constitution Bench after taking note of the ratio in Paramjit Singh’s case[1979 (3) TMI 207 - SUPREME COURT]. It is specifically noted how the Court on harmonious reading of Rules 3,4,6,8 and 10 of these 1959 Rules had come to the conclusion that quota rule was operative both at the time of initial appointment and at the time of confirmation. After taking note of this ratio on the harmonious interpretation of the Rules in question, rather than stating that such an interpretation was impermissible or wrongly given, the Constitution Bench clarifies that there may be circumstances where such an interpretation would be permissible and validity of the rules would be tested in the total setting of facts.
It needs to be highlighted at this stage that having regard to the overall circumstances and the factual position which prevailed while deciding Paramjit Singh’s case, the Court held that in order to save Rule 10 from the vice of arbitrariness, the only interpretation which could be given was to hold that the quota rule would apply both at the time of recruitment and at the time of confirmation. Detailed reasons are given justifying the said line of action taken by the Court and that portion of the judgment has already been extracted. In the beginning, not only this, even when the Review Petition was filed the Court made it clear that there was no ambiguity in the judgment. It was also made clear that what the Court meant was that quota should be co-related to the vacancies which are to be filled in. Who retired and from what source he was recruited may not be very relevant because retirement from service may not follow the quota rule. A roster had to be introduced which was to continue while giving confirmation. Introduction of roster only postulates ascertainment of available number of vacancies and proceeding to make recruitment keeping in view of the quota.
We, accordingly, hold that the approach of the High Court in following the dicta laid down in Paramjit Singh was perfectly justified. Finding no merit in these appeals, the same are hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1119 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest earned on fixed deposits - "income from other sources" OR "business income" - nature of income - Held that:- The F.D.R. have not been received by Assessee for the purpose of investing money or otherwise, but it is a part and parcel of his regular business activities in which he has to furnish security to the Department to obtain civil contracts and if an interest has been earned thereon, in my view, it will qualify to be an "income on business" and not as "income from other sources".
Also F.D.R. were purchased for security purposes for obtaining the contracts and the Court observed that it is in connection with the business activities of Assessee, which was the view taken by Commissioner also so as to hold that income earned on such F.D.R. is to be treated as "business income" and not as "income from other sources".
-
2014 (5) TMI 1118 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Sale of land - Addition on cash deposits in the State Bank of India and Axis Bank - Held that:- The only inference which can be drawn is that the deposit of cash made by the appellant in his saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and with the SBI Bank had nothing to do with the facts of sale of land by his father and his uncles. It is also endorsed by the fact that there was no such deposit or withdrawal from the bank accounts maintained by the appellant. As far as, reliance placed on the statement of the father of the assessee and the copy of the affidavit of the father and of uncles of the appellant, it is noted that in the statement as well as in the affidavit, it is stated that the advance of ₹ 60 lac was received on 02.08.2008. Further amount of ₹ 25 lac was received on 30.04.2009 and further ₹ 15 lac on 25.06.2009 whereas, the first agreement dated 02.08.2008 was cancelled on 30.04.2009 and the entire amount of ₹ 60 lac was stated to be returned.
Fresh agreement was carried out and advance of ₹ 85 lac was received, which was also canceled later on and the entire amount of advance of ₹ 85 lakh was also returned on the same date. The facts given in the affidavit and in the statement are, as such, contradictory. The facts stated in the affidavits, relied upon by the appellant are, as such, not in consonance with the agreement and hence are not reliable.
In view of the fact discussed above, it is noted that the appellant failed to explain the source of deposit of cash in the saving bank accounts maintained with the Axis Bank and the SBI Bank and hence addition thereof made by the AO is hereby confirmed. Various ground of appeal taken by the appellant are, as such, rejected.
-
2014 (5) TMI 1117 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Cenvat demand - credit availed in respect of fibre glass, received in the appellant factory - Held that:- no justifiable reason found for denial of credit or for imposition of penalty inasmuch as fibre glass was cleared on payment of excess duty by reversing more credit. As such, the entire credit availed by the appellant stand reversed by them. The entire situation is revenue neutral and consequent confirmation of duty in respect of the credit so availed is not justified. - Decided in favour of appellant
............
|
