|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 1829 Records
-
2017 (1) TMI 1672 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Review petition - whether review lies in relation to an order passed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? - HELD THAT:- Review petition is maintainable.
As decided in MEGHALAYA STEELS LTD. [2015 (8) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT] and AUTOMOBILE CORP. OF GOA LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 650 - SUPREME COURT] on a cursory reading of section 260A(7), the said section does not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under section 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are necessarily excluded or that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is in any manner affected
-
2017 (1) TMI 1671 - ITAT COCHIN
Exemption u/s 11 - cancellation of registration of the trust u/s 12AA(3) - charitable activity u/s 2(15) or not? - search proceedings - trustees are diverting trust funds for the benefit of persons specified, thereby infringing the provisions of section 13(1)(c) and violating provisions of section 11(5) - trust is not maintaining proper books of accounts and no returns of income were filed for the A.Y. 2006-07 onwards - HELD THAT:- onus for proving the existence of factors calling for cancellation of registration granted to an institution is on the Department rather than on the institution. In the present case, the CIT has miserably failed to discharge such onus. No material has been brought by the CIT that the assessee society exists for profit motive. The Department has not been able to discharge its onus of showing as to how the conditions for grant of registration have been breached by the assessee. The assessee remained enjoying the registration granted to it for the last number of years under the same unchanged facts and circumstances. It has also not been demonstrated by the Department as to how the approach of the assessee has turned to a commercial one. The predominant object of the assessee is and remains to carry out charitable purpose of advancement of education, and not to earn profit. In fact, no profit has been established to have been earned by the assessee. The CIT has failed to specify as to how profit earning is the predominant activity of the assessee instead of carrying out its said charitable purpose. On the other hand, the assessee has filed various details of income from property held under trust and application of income for charitable purpose as per which its application of income for its object is more than its income generated from property held under trust for all these years.
CIT’s observations are baseless as the administrative expenditure shown by the assessee in its financial statements predominantly consists of amount spent for objects of the trust which is evident from the fact that the assessee has filed a statement of expenditure showing details of administrative expenses which is enclosed in paper book page no. 159. Therefore, the allegation of the CIT that the trust is running education on profit motive in baseless and without any application of mind.
CIT is not justified in withdrawing the registration granted u/s.12AA of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 12AA(3) of the Act. Such act of the Revenue will only affect the poor students, who are studying in the institution by paying nominal / normal fees and also other students thereby defeating the very purpose of these provisions of the Act, which are enacted with the intention of promoting education in the country.
In the instant case, the material on record shows that the Trust has established educational institutions and was imparting medical education. Every year, students are admitted. Huge investment is made for construction of buildings for housing the college, hostel and for providing other facilities to the students who are studying in the College. The College is recognized by the Medical Council of India, State of Kerala and all other statutory authorities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Trust is not genuine.
Admittedly, the students are being admitted every year. Students are studying in all courses. Thus, the object of the constitution of the Trust namely imparting of education is going on uninterruptedly. Therefore, it cannot be said that the activities of the Trust are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the Trust. When the aforesaid two conditions are fully satisfied, the registration of the Trust cannot be cancelled for the reasons stated by the CIT in her order, i.e. non maintenance of books, non filing of returns of income or belated filing of returns of income, collection of additional fees and diversion of funds in violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) as these are passing remarks which are not relevant for the purpose of section 12AA(3) and also all observations of the CIT has been negated by the assessee with enough evidences which are discussed in detail in foregoing paragraphs.
Therefore, we are of the considered view that the CIT was erred in withdrawing registration granted u/s 12AA, by using her powers u/s 12AA(3). Hence, we set aside order passed by the CIT u/s 12AA(3) and restored registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1670 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Demand of Customs Duty alongwith interest - import of Hot Rolled Plates under advance authorizations - HELD THAT:- The respondent No.1, under instructions, submits that NTPC is willing to replace the bank guarantee in the sum of ₹ 8,15,00,000/-, furnished by the petitioner to the Custom Authorities, with a bank guarantee of NTPC.
The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to approach the Custom Authorities for the replacement of the bank guarantee in the sum of ₹ 8,15,00,000/- furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner shall afford all assistance for the said purpose and both the parties shall execute such necessary documents, as may be required by the Customs Authorities, for replacement of the bank guarantee.
Petition disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1669 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accrual of income - Demurrage/wharfage charges accrued to the assessee - assessee followed mercantile system of the accounting - existing right in favour of the assessee to receive the charges and the assessee accordingly billed for the same - HELD THAT:- The issue came up before this court in respect of the same assessee [2016 (10) TMI 1263 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held Tribunal while considering the issue has rightly appreciated and has rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. Assessee was a Government Corporation and has shown the liability in spite of stay order granted by the Court and in our view, the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. The issues are required to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1668 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Time Limitation - refund claim - HELD THAT:- Though we entirely agree with the High Court on the view expressed on the issue of limitation, we are unable to accept the direction to seek an explanation from the VATO who issued the above 'adjustment order' and to pass appropriate orders on the disciplinary side as he deems fit.
In view of our disagreement, the said direction is set aside - The direction issued by the High Court with regard to the refund shall be complied with by the end of April, 2017 - SLP disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1667 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
Oppression and mismanagement - siphoning off of funds - petitioner has alleged mass scale oppression and mismanagement in the Company and that the books of account were found to be fudged and cash entries had not been updated - HELD THAT:- The functioning of the respondent No. 1 Company is in a total mess because of the distrust between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondents on the other. It is just and proper to provide exit to the petitioner because respondents No.2 to 4 jointly hold majority shares in the Company, whereas the petitioner is a minority shareholder - We take cut off date as end of financial year 2014-15 i.e. 31.03.2015 for evaluating the fair value Of the shares of the Company as soon thereafter i.e. on 07.05.2015. the petitioner was prima-facie illegally removed from the Board of Directors.
Petition is disposed off with certain directions to be followed.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1666 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD
Oppression and MIsmanagment - Rectification of register of members of the Respondent No. 1 Company - cancellation of allotment of shares - permanent injunction against the Respondents from altering the share capital in any way and not to increase the share capital till further orders - HELD THAT:- In the present case, admittedly, the Shares of Respondent No.l Company was allotted to the first Petitioner only on 21.03.2011 and the second was not a member at all. So the Second petitioner cannot join the resent Company petitioner as Second petitioner; but he can represent the first petitioner as a Chairman. Since the first petitioner is admittedly holding 20.79 % of shareholding in the Respondent No. 1 Company, the present petition is maintainable so far as the first petitioner is concerned with reference to the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement stated to have occurred after becoming a member of Respondent No. 1 Company i.e., from 21.03.2011 - It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 1 Company is a subsidiary of Respondent No. 6 company and thus the affairs of subsidiary company is always subject to holding company and the will of holding company would naturally prevails in the management of affairs of the subsidiary company. S.2(71) also says a Company, which is a subsidiary of a Company, not being a private Company, is to be deemed a public Company for the purposes of act even where such subsidiary company continues to be a private Company in its Article.
Whether the 1 st Petitioner can raise the alleged oppression and mismanagement, which have taken place prior to becoming member of RI Company i.e. with effect from 21.03.2011? - HELD THAT:- A member of a Company can only raise oppression and mismanagement U/s 397/398. So cause of action arises only from that date. However, there are several allegations of oppression and mismanagement in the present company petition, which arise prior to the first petitioner ecoming a member of Respondent No. 1 Company. The only allegation of oppression/mismanagement, after becoming the member, is cancellation of land allotted by APIIC to Respondent No. 1 Company.
It is also not in dispute that no shares of Respondent No. 1 Company were allotted during 2006-07 to 2009-10. All the shares allotted including the 1 st Petitioner shares were allotted during 2010-11. The 6th Respondent, though he invested huge money in the company (₹ 50.14 crores in Nov, 2006), he was also allotted shares only on 28.5.2010 and 23.09.2010 and likewise Respondent No. 8 to 10 also - So there is no discrimination in allotment of shares to the 1 st Petitioner vis-a-vis the 6th respondent. Hence, I find that there is no prejudice caused to 1 st Petitioner in allotting shares in November, 2011.
The affairs of Respondent No. 1 Company are not being conducted in a manner oppression to any member or members and there is no case is made out by the petitioners for winding up Respondent No. 1 Company in terms of provisions Section 397/398 of Companies Act, 1956 so as to interfere in the case. However, since the second petitioner has worked as Director of Respondent No. I Company for a considerable period and gained experience in the Company apart from his own experience, and the first petitioner holds 20.79% of shareholding of Respondent No.1 Company, equity demands that at least some representation should be provided to such party in the affairs of Company and majority shareholders should not totally ignore minority shareholders and the same would not be in the interest of Respondent No. 1 Company.
CLB/Tribunal is having very little power, once it holds that there is no oppression and mismanagement after considering facts of a case in question. However, by revoking general powers conferred on CLB/Tribunal under Section 402 especially provisions (a) (g) of Companies Act, 1956 R/w corresponding Section of 242 of Companies Act, 2013, it is just and equitable that the second petitioner can be considered for appointment of a Director of Respondent No. 1 Company.
Application disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1665 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation on Wind Turbine Machine @ 80% - non segregating investment on building part and on electric item - HELD THAT:- Admit on the following substantial question of law:- “(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT has erred in holding that depreciation @ of 80% has to be allowed on Wind Turbine Machine without segregating investment on building part and on electric item without appreciating that depreciation @ of 80% is allowable on Wind Turbine Generator Machine and not on electrical fitting and building etc.” Issue notice to the respondent.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1664 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pre-deposit - Calculation of awarded amount - HELD THAT:- It is apparent, that on account of the amount deposited, which was stated to be less than the one contemplated under Section 19 of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, the objections raised by the petitioner have not been dealt with by the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, on merits - one further opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner, to make such deposit within 15 days, from the determination, of the deposit amount (under Section 19, a fore-mentioned) by the District Judge, in consonance with the order of the High Court dated 29th January, 2016.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1663 - ITAT PUNE
Deduction claimed u/s 80IB(10) in respect of projects Kumar Kruti and Kumar Shantiniketan - prorata claim of deduction in respect of project Kumar Shantiniketan - HELD THAT:- Two of the flat bearing Nos.3 and 4 in building ‘D’ had covered area exceeding 1500 sq.ft. and on that basis, the deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act was denied to the assessee.
Tribunal had in the earlier years relating to assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, allowed the claim of assessee with directions to the Assessing Officer to allow prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act and denied the said deduction in respect of two flats i.e. flat Nos.3 and 4 in building ‘D’, which had covered area of more than prescribed limit. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are reproduced under which are being referred to, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, where the issue is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in the earlier years, following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to re-work prorata deduction under section 80IB(10)
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) in respect of project Kumar Kruti - prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of eligible units - said deduction was denied to the assessee on account of two accounts i.e. where the project Kumar Kruti was part of larger project named Kumar City, and where the assessee had not completed the project by 31.03.2008, deduction was not allowed to the assessee - HELD THAT:- The Pune Bench of Tribunal further in assessee’s own case relating to assessment year 2010-11 [2015 (10) TMI 2755 - ITAT PUNE] had directed the Assessing Officer to work out the prorata deduction in respect of units sold in ‘Kumar Kruti’ project and re-work prorata deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of ‘Kumar Shantiniketan’. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to work out the prorata deduction in respect of units sold in Kumar Kruti project and ‘Kumar Shantiniketan’. In the entirety of the above said facts and circumstances, we uphold the order of CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1662 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI
Arbitration proceedings - responsibility of completion of the project conditions within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of Dalmia group was originally entrusted with Bawri group - whether the arbitration agreements are required to be rejected for not being certified in accordance with the prescription of law? - HELD THAT:- Section 76 of the Evidence Act, therefore, clearly shows that only the public documents are to be certified by public servants. But section 76 further shows only certain classes of the public servants, as indicated in that section itself, are allowed to do the job. An essential corollary to such a proposition is that a public servant, in his capacity as public servant, cannot certify a document which is private one.
The well apparent fact that in their section 9 application, the petitioners themselves admitted that they have sold their shareholding in the company to the Dalmia group on "as-is-where-is basis "makes such a conclusion inevitable. On considering such submission in the light of the materials on record, I have found to concur with such claim of the applicants.
It goes without saying that observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding issues as to whether the disputes should be referred to arbitrator and necessarily, same cannot be made applicable to any proceeding which the parties to this proceeding have already initiated or may have initiated in future.
The tribunal would, therefore, proceed to decide the matter on the basis of materials placed before it - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1661 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Whether Notification issued under Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 (a Central legislation), declaring Sections 186, 188, 189, 228, 295-A, 298, 505 or 507 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) when committed in the Union Territory of Goa (now State), Daman and Diu, to be cognizable and Sections 188 or 506 IPC to be non-bailable when committed, in the said territory ?
HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the 1932 Act is a Central legislation and even today it is operative and power conferred under Section 10 can be exercised.
In these circumstances, merely because the 1898 Code has been repealed and replaced by the 1973 CrPC, could not affect the situation.
We approve the view taken by the High Courts of Gujarat, Delhi, Allahabad and Madras in Vinod Rao, Sant Ram, Mata Sewak Upadhyay and P. Ramakrishnan and disapprove the view taken by the High Court of Allahabad in Pankaj Shukla.
Notification dated 27-6-1973 read with Notification dated 5-7-1973 are operative in the area mentioned therein - Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1660 - ITAT MUMBAI
Revision u/s 263 - allowability to the claim of leave encashment - HELD THAT:- We have noticed that while making the claim, the assessee has paid the tax in accordance with the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court in M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. [2009 (5) TMI 894 - SUPREME COURT].
AO examined the allowability to the claim of leave encashment. During the assessment, the assessee furnished the sufficient information vide reply dated 22.12.2011. The AO passed the order after considering the submission in reply dated 22.12.2011. As the assessee has already paid the tax before filing of the return of income. The order is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Company vs. CIT [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] held that Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise the assessment order if twin conditions as provided in section 263 are fulfilled i.e. the order is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, both twin conditions are essential perquisite. Order passed by AO is not prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as the assessee has already paid the tax on the provisions for leave encashment. Thus, as per our considered opinion, the order passed by CIT was not warranted. Thus, we hold that the order passed by AO was in order. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1659 - ITAT CHENNAI
Reopening of assessment - unaccounted cash found during the course of search action under section 132 conducted at the premises of the assessee - assessee has not maintained any books of accounts and the books of accounts were prepared only after completion of the search and seizure action - HELD THAT:- Rejection of claim of the assessee regarding the source of cash which was found during the course of search action was that the assessee did not maintain any books of account and it has prepared the books of accounts only after the search action was over. According to the Department, the preparation of books of account was only after thought and no credits should be given to such books of accounts.
Though it was found that the assessee did not maintain any books of account at the time of search action, if the assessee is able to explain the source of credit and prepared the true accounts of the assessee with supporting materials that its’ accumulated cash were from known sources of income then it has to be considered. AO was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee in-toto without examining each and every entries made in the books of account whether the entries were made with supporting materials or not - remit the matter back to the AO to examine the books of accounts properly and it is needless to so that the assessee shall explain each and every entries made in the books of accounts with regard to the cash amount of ₹.1.65 crores seized on the day of search and if the assessee is able to explain the same with supporting documents, AO shall consider the same in accordance with law after allowing sufficient opportunities of being heard to the assessee. With the above observations, we remit the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - additional income so disclosed in the statement of income recorded under section 132(4) which was later on declared in the return of income provided by the assessee - HELD THAT:- We are of the opinion that though the assessee has admitted during the course of search and disclosed in the return filed in response to notice u/s 153C by offering additional income is clearly liable to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). Accordingly, the order passed by the CIT(A) on this issue is reversed and that of the AO is restored.
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- Addition was made on estimated basis without bringing on record any material to show that there was any undisclosed income. The assessee has furnished agricultural income. In order to apply the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there has to be concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] - we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to levy of penalty on treating the agricultural income declared by the assessee as income from other sources. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted for all the assessment years.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1658 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- The tax effect involved in the present case is ₹ 32,630/-. In view of the order of the Apex Court in 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhanalekshmi Bank Lt., [2015 (8) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT] where the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the appeal due to low tax effect leaving the question of law open, the present appeal is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that dismissal of the appeal shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1657 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - notice beyond the period of four years from the date of the relevant assessment year - eligibility of reason to believe - proof of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts - HELD THAT:- In the present case, at the time of original assessment, which was a scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] the assessee disclosed interest expenses in the Profit & Loss Account and investment in the Balance-sheet. The assessee also disclosed in the return of income, the exempt income. The assessee also furnished details of investment at the original assessment stage. Despite the above, the Assessing Officer, while framing scrutiny assessment under Section 143 [3] of the Act did not make any disallowances under Section 14A of the Act. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.
Assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment beyond the period of four years is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Section 147 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1656 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Scheme of arrangement and amalgamation - freezing order of June 4, 2013 passed by SEBI in respect of such part of the promoters’ shareholding in the amalgamated company that exceeds 75% of the paid-up capital by treating the shares held by the trust to be a part of the promoters’ quota, till such time that the minimum public shareholding was achieved by the amalgamated company - According to SEBI, the public holding of shares in any listed company may not go below 25% of its paid-up capital - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that 4.32% of the paid-up capital in DPSCL is held by members of the public who have no connection with the promoters. For the public shareholding in the amalgamated company to reach the 25% mark, a further 20.68% of the shares in DPSCL has to be offered to the public by some transparent mechanism so that the holders thereof cannot be seen or regarded as persons acting in concert with the present promoters of the amalgamated company.
The amalgamated company reports that out of the 40% shares in the amalgamated company held by the trust, 32,63,16,563 shares need to be sold to the public for the 25% minimum public shareholding in the amalgamated company to be achieved. Such 32,63,16,563 shares should be sold by April 30, 2017. The trust should also transfer the balance shares held by the trust in the amalgamated company in favour of such entities as the trust may, on its own or at the direction of the promoters, deem fit. The transfer of the balance shares, other than the 32,63,16,563 shares, should be completed by March 31, 2017 such that upon the sale of the shares to the public, the trust does not own or control any further shares in the amalgamated company. As to whether the trust will continue for the purpose of the other investments under the scheme, is not required to be gone into for the present purpose.
The trust will cite this order and make a public offer for sale of the said 32,63,16,563 shares. Advertisements in such regard will be published in such newspapers as may be suggested by SEBI within a week of the form of the advertisement being forwarded to the office of SEBI in Kolkata. Such form of the advertisement should be forwarded to the relevant office within three weeks from date. The directions herein are in modification of the interim order of February 20, 2015 that restrains the amalgamated company from dealing with its shares. However, the interim order will continue for all other purposes till such time that the trust transfers the balance shares, other than those to be sold to the public, and the shares meant to be sold to the public are so sold.
It is made clear that the sale of the 32,63,16,563 shares may be in several tranches as long as the entire quantum is sold by April 30, 2017. At any rate, the entire quantum of the said shares should be offered to be sold to the public at least a fortnight before April 30, 2017. The sale of the shares will be in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the same.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1655 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Imposition of tax on stock transfer - Form 'F' not been produced before the assessing authority - HELD THAT:- Revisionist has already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount, and the issue is only as to whether Form 'F' had been issued to the revisionist in respect of stock transfer, it would be appropriate that appeal itself be heard and decided finally, without insisting upon the revisionist to deposit any further amount of tax, provided the revisionist furnishes security other than cash and bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the assessing authority, in respect of balance 20% amount of the tax demanded, since the Tribunal has already granted stay qua 70% of the disputed tax amount.
Revision disposed off.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1654 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deemed grant of registration u/s 12AA (2) - Non-disposal of application for registration within a period of six months - HELD THAT:- As decided in MUZAFAR NAGAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2015 (3) TMI 99 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LB)] Non disposal of an application for registration, by granting or refusing registration, before the expiry of six months as provided under Section 12AA (2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 would not result in a deemed grant of registration and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Society for the Promotion of Education Adventure Sport & Conservation of Environment [2008 (4) TMI 700 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] does not lay down the correct position of law.
Merger of decision of High Court with Supreme Court - against Judgment of HC, Supreme Court dismissing appeal stating "leaving all other questions of law open" - HELD THAT:- We find that Supreme Court in the judgment [2016 (2) TMI 1175 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] , has held that all other questions of law are left open, meaning thereby question of law raised in appeal by C.I.T. has not been decided, but left open, hence, it cannot be said that judgement of this Court has merged with the judgment of Supreme court on the above question of law, which was decided by this Court in Society for the Promotion of Education, Allahabad [2008 (4) TMI 700 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] .
In view of Full Court Judgment in Commissioner Income Tax vs. Muzafar Nagar Development Authority,[2015 (3) TMI 99 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LB)] ; the question formulated above is answered against Assessee.
-
2017 (1) TMI 1653 - ITAT BANGALORE
Deduction u/s. 10A - HELD THAT:- In the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 782 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] in which it has been held that where certain expenses are not part of the export turnover, the same should be excluded from the total turnover. We, therefore, following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court, decide this issue in favour of assessee and direct the AO to recompute the deduction u/s. 10A
TPA - comparable selection - HELD THAT:- Assessee is engaged in providing software development services and coding of embedded software to its Associated Enterprise (AE) thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list.
............
|
