|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1898 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1881 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal before HC - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the tax effect is Rs. 5.07 lakhs as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the Appeal Memo.
Revenue does not press the present Appeal.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1880 - SUPREME COURT
Restraint on invocation of Bank Guarantee - Execution of bank guarantee was made for securing payment in lieu of the products supplied by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1, M/s. RMSFC - Unconditional Bank Guarantee - Outstanding Certificate seeking payment, on account of despatch of fruit to M/s. RMSFC - balance of convenience - HELD THAT:- The principles laid down by this Court in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. [1987 (11) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT], and in Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 588 - SUPREME COURT] have been gone into - Having given thoughtful consideration to the law laid down by this Court, in respect of grant/refusal of an injunction of an unconditional bank guarantee, and keeping in mind the terms and conditions, more particularly of the contractual conditions extracted and narrated above, we are satisfied that the courts below were not justified in injuncting the invocation of the three bank guarantees, executed by the State Bank of Mysore, at the instance of M/s. RMSFC.
The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - the State Bank of Mysore is directed to honour the same forthwith.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1879 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Unexplained investment in undisclosed bank account - CIT-A applying the concept of peak theory and requirement of additional capital - HELD THAT:- We find that the assessee opened a bank account in ICICI Bank and deposited cash on various dates and also made withdrawals. The total deposits during the year and the same was treated by the A.O. as unexplained credit while framing the assessment.
We also note that the said account was not disclosed by the assessee in his balance sheet whereas all the withdrawals were made under his signatures. CIT(A) applied the theory of net peak balance and sustained the addition of peak balance of Rs.50,435/- and also sustained Rs.25,000/- as additional capital requirement as unexplained investments and treated the same as income of the assessee. No infirmity in the order of CIT(A) as he had rightly applied the theory of peak balance i.e. Rs.50,435/- and took additional capital at Rs.25,000/-. Appeal of Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1878 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient funds - legally enforceable liability or not - blank cheques were handed over to the petitioner with the signature of respondent No. 1 - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case in hand, the petitioner is coming with a specific case that the cheques were handed over duly signed and he had not filled in the contents, which would include the body of the cheques and the amount which is disputed. The respondent No. 1 has to be given a fair chance to substantiate the defence.
In that view of the matter, there are no case for interference under the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out.
Criminal writ petition dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1877 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
Nature of receipts - Income accrued on account of carbon credits - revenue or capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The issue is covered in favour of the assessee by order of DCIT Vs Kotla Hydro Power Pvt. Ltd. [2015 (4) TMI 1346 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] assessee was carrying on the business of power generation for the assessment year 2007-08. Carbon credit was not an offshoot of business of the assessee but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business but it was generated due to environmental concerns. There was no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get entitlement for the carbon credits. Therefore, the income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable to tax under any head of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1876 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque - defence of forgery - petitioner can be be precluded from taking steps in Law to prove her innocence and preventing the same will lead to serious miscarriage of justice or not - real grievance of the Revision Petitioner/Accused is that she is entitled in law to take any type of defence till the conclusion of the trial of a case and in this regard, the valuable right of the Revision Petitioner/Accused cannot be taken away abruptly because of the simple reason that the 'Defence of Forgery' was not taken at the earliest point of time - principles of natural justice.
HELD THAT:- One cannot brush aside a very vital fact that a 'Fair Trial' includes fair and adequate opportunities allowed by Law to establish ones innocence. It is to be remembered that adducing necessary oral or documentary evidence in support of a defence is a valuable right and if the same is denied, then it amounts to 'denial of fair trial', as opined by this Court. That apart, Section 243 authorises the defence to project an application for summoning the witnesses and imposes a duty upon the Court to summon such witnesses. A Court of Law cannot avoid /shirk the duty unless it considers that such petition ought to be refused for any of the reasons mentioned in the sub-section, in the considered opinion of this Court.
It cannot be gainsaid that what must be the nature of evidence to be adduced by a person/accused should be left the discretion of a party/accused and the same should not be left within the ambit of a Court. Also, it cannot be frightened that the right of an accused to lead evidence in his defence is not absolute. Notwithstanding the presumption that can be raised under Section 118 (a) or 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an opportunity of rebuttal must be granted to an accused for adducing evidence to discharge it.
This Court taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and also this Court bearing in mind a prime fact that a Court of Law is to consider an application filed by the Petitioner/Accused praying for comparison of a signature on a disputed document with her admitted signature on its own merits and if an opportunity is granted to the Petitioner/Accused to substantiate her case, then no prejudice would be caused, this Court comes to an irresistible and inevitable conclusion that the view taken by the trial Court with a view to protract the proceedings of the main case etc., are not legally tenable in the eye of Law.
Petition allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1875 - SC ORDER
Compounding of offences punishable u/s 276B r.w.s.278B - admitted default in deposit of TDS - HELD THAT:- Issue notice.
There shall be stay of initiation of prosecution. The prayer in respect of other interim reliefs stands rejected.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1874 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - bogus purchases - AO treated the additional income as concealed income considering the fact that only after the finding of the bogus purchases by the department, assessee accepted and filed the revised return of income - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee had accepted the bogus purchase as additional income voluntarily due to the fact that assessee was not in a position to substantiate the claim, even though, the transaction was made through banking channel. The assessee had declared the additional income voluntarily and filed return of income, which the AO accepted the revised return of income to complete the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147.
We are inclined to note that the assessee filed the revised return of income which was duly accepted by the AO. From the above observations, it is clear that the assessee had neither concealed the particulars of the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hence, this is not a fit case to attract penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1873 - ITAT PUNE
Undisclosed income u/s 69A - undisclosed cash receipt on sale of stone quarry is handwritten loose paper termed ‘isar pawati’ signed by the partners and also signed on behalf of the buyers - addition assuming a piece of paper as constituting “Issar Pavati” i.e. advance receipt - piece of paper was found in survey action u/s 133 - as argued piece of paper i.e. ‘Isar Pavati’ has been wrongly presumed as agreement to sell - HELD THAT:- Since the concerned loose paper is found to be pertaining to the Appellants herein, seizure of the same in the hands of other corporate entity represented by one of the partners of the Appellant firms herein will not render it extraneous per se for assessment purposes. In our considered view, the Revenue is entitled to use the incriminating evidence against the assessee in the given facts.
It is also pertinent to notice the other limb of the argument on behalf of the Assessee that impugned loose paper found in survey under S. 133A do not constitute evidence and can not give rise to presumption against the Assessee in the absence of any actual cash found as alleged to be unaccounted income. We have already observed that contents of loosed paper i.e. isar pawati impounded is entitled to great weight due to its substantial corroboration of payments with registered document, naturally without cash. We are of the opinion that once it is concluded on facts that the contents of the document found are relevant and true which establishes ownership, non-detection of physical cash or other equivalent asset per se would not be a handicap to invoke section 69A of the Act. Hence, notwithstanding nondeduction of physical cash, deeming provision of section 69A of the Act will apply.
In the facts of the case, loose paper found in the drawer of the director of the company surveyed who is also the partner of the Assessee and contents found to have been vindicated, the presumption against the assessee is supportable in law. The loose paper or isar pawati in our opinion assumes the colour of valid evidence against the assessee on its corroboration by payment details of registered document. Thus, the plea of the Assessee in this regard does not hold water.
Addition u/s 69A No merit in assessee contention since no unaccounted cash were actually found, nor any investment was found, section 69A of the Act is not attracted - The word ‘owner’ employed has to be understood in the context. We have already observed that physical presence of cash or other corresponding unaccounted investment per se to support an entry found in the documents is not the pre requisite to support its ownership for assessment purposes under section 69A.
We are alive to the fact that the scope in respect of coverage of premises under section 133A of the Act are limited. Also, the circumstances have to be weighed to come to conclusion about the alleged unaccounted money for assessment purposes. In the instant case, in our view, money in the form of cash was found to be attributable to the assessee as per the incriminating document i.e. Isar Pavati, nature and source whereof has not been explained satisfactorily. AO has sought explanation on alleged cash not founded to be recorded in book and found the explanation offered by the assessee as unsatisfactory. Therefore, we do not find merit in the plea of the Assessee with regard to non applicability of S. 69A. - We endorse the essence of the findings of the CIT(A) that in view of the speaking facts narrated in the loose paper found at the time of survey which clearly matches on material particulars with the registered sale deed executed subsequently, there is no room left to disbelieve the contents of the loose paper. It is trite that when a part of the document has been accepted, other part of the same document cannot be ignored in the absence of any tangible proof to the contrary. In our considered view, assessee failed to rebut the contents of the loose paper satisfactorily and thus failed to discharge the onus which lay upon it to prove what is apparent as per loose paper is not real. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1872 - ITAT NAGPUR
Eligibility of Deduction u/s 80IB - HELD THAT:- We find that since the facts are identical and in assessee’s own case the Tribunal has decided the issue, judicial discipline mandates that we follow the order of the Tribunal. We further note that the Revenue has already filed appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in Income Tax Appeal - In this view of the matter since the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court [2010 (4) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has not reversed the decision of ITAT, we follow the above said order of ITAT in assessee’s own case - Hence we set aside the order of learned CIT(Appeals) and hold that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
Addition of electricity expenditure - AO while making the disallowance relied on the statement of Smt. Anju Saraf recorded on 07-12-2009 before the ACIT, Circle-1, Nagpur wherein it has been stated that crushing and screening machines are run on generator and there is no electricity connection is available for running crushing and screening machines - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the assessee has paid the expenditure on account of electricity to its associate concern. The expenditure is duly supported by bills and vouchers. Such expenditure were claimed in earlier years and were allowed. Merely because the expenditure was paid to sister concern, the same cannot be disallowed. Accordingly we uphold the order of learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue.
Addition on account of wind mill maintenance expenses - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- We find that the AO’s main plank of argument is that the expenditure incurred was excessive. For this he has compared some agreements entered into with other concerns with the payee. We agree with the learned CIT(Appeals) that no case has been made out as to whether the maintenance charges paid by others were comparable to the one paid by the assessee. Hence in our considered opinion the AO is trying to enter into shoes of the businessman to decide as to how he should enter into an agreement. No case has been made out that the payments are bogus or the services were not rendered. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned CIT(Appeals). Accordingly we uphold the same. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1871 - ITAT PUNE
Gain on sale of agricultural lands - Nature of land sold - taxable as business income OR was exempt from tax - Whether CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the lands sold in this year were capital asset of the firm and since the said lands were agricultural lands and beyond 8 kms from the municipal limits, the gain arising on sale of lands was exempt from tax? - HELD THAT:- The assessee is a partnership firm and the main activity in which the assessee is engaged is in dealing the lands. The factual finding of the CIT(A) in this regard is that the assessee had owned various lands, which have been declared in the balance sheet under the ‘list of Sundry Debtors related with land transactions – Scheme – VII’ starting from assessment year 2003-04 and then in assessment year 2004-05.
During the year under consideration, there is certain movement in the lands and two of the lands have been sold by the assessee. In view of the large number of transactions carried out by the assessee in lands reflect the nature of assessee to carry on the business of sale and purchase of lands, where the lands purchased by it were shown as stock-in-trade. The nature of the lands purchased by the assessee is claimed to be agricultural lands.
No iota of evidence has been filed by the assessee to establish that any agricultural activity was carried on the aforesaid lands. Further, even 7/12 extract filed by the assessee reflects no agricultural activity. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, where the assessee is admittedly engaged in the business of purchase and sale of lands and in view of the assessee having declared the said lands as part of its current assets, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard and dismissing the same, we uphold the orders of authorities below in treating the profit on sale of land as business income in the hands of the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1870 - ITAT CHENNAI
Disallowance u/s 40A(7)(b) - HELD THAT:- The co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the immediately preceding assessment year in assessee’s own case restored this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. Following the said order of this Tribunal, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall decide the issue afresh following the direction of the co-ordinate Bench [2013 (3) TMI 869 - ITAT CHENNAI]
Deduction u/s 10B - CIT-A directed recompute the deduction by excluding freight and clearing expenses and business development fee from export turnover and total turnover also - HELD THAT:- CIT-A correctly following the Special Bench decision in the case of ITO Vs. Sak Soft Ltd. (2009 (3) TMI 243 - ITAT MADRAS-D] directed the Assessing Officer to reduce the said amounts from the total turnover also for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 10A.
Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - As argued assessee has not earned any dividend income - HELD THAT:- On going through the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.Baskaran [2015 (3) TMI 192 - ITAT CHENNAI] we find that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the said decision wherein the Tribunal held that when the assessee has not earned dividend income, disallowance under section 14A is not warranted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1869 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Disallowance u/s 40A(9) - Substantial question of fact or law - HELD THAT:- The said order was assailed by filing an appeal which was partly allowed and as such the department as well as the assessee approached the tribunal by preferring the second appeal and the tribunal by means of order and judgment [2011 (6) TMI 900 - ITAT KOLKATA] allowed the appeal so preferred by the assessee and at the same time dismissed the departmental appeal.
The order so passed by the Income Tax Officer was assailed before us.
Being aggrieved thereof, the instant appeal has been preferred. We have gone through the records and we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises out of the orders so passed tribunal.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1868 - ITAT MUMBAI
Correct head of income - treating the interest income as income from other sources and not business income - crux of arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that there was no deployment of surplus income and it was not an independent transaction de hors by business rather JV partner had kept it in the account - HELD THAT:- We note that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Lok Holdings [2008 (1) TMI 365 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] while coming to a particular decision distinguished the decision from Hon’ble Apex Court, pronounced in CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [1998 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] and TUTICORIN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD [1997 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT] then held that accrued interest arises out of business activity is assessable as business income and not income from other sources. Identically, Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Swiss Jewels Ltd and Another [2005 (9) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein amount was set apart for import of machinery was invested in short term intercorporate deposits. Such interest income was held to be assessable as business income. There are various decisions in an identical situation but the fact of each case has to be kept in juxtaposition before taking any decision.
Interest of income on the funds placed with banks - As assessee had neither started commercial production nor even trial production during the year under consideration and the funds were kept in banks from which interest was earned. In such a situation, it can be said that interest income was earned prior to starting of business, therefore, it cannot be said to be business income of the assessee and has to be assessed as income from other sources. Funds were available with the assessee before the same are invested in actual business activity, therefore, it can be concluded that such interest income is not incidental to the business activity of the assessee. There is further finding in the impugned order that in the present case the source of funds on which the interest was earned were not the business funds. It is not the case that business funds were kept in bank for a short duration before starting the business. The expression “derived from” is narrower in scope than the expression “attributable to” as was held in CIT Vs. Sterling Foods Ltd. [1999 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], Pandyan Chemicals Ltd. [2003 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Ashoka Leyland Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT].
So far as the expression derived from is concerned it must be understood as profit directly arising from business of the assessee and not incidental to it. The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned cases, if applied by keeping them in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeal, it can be said that the interest received from FDRs, can be treated as income from other sources only. If such interest is derived from actual conduct of the business or such interest is oozing out from the direct source and having proximate commercial connection between the interest earned and business of the assessee then it can be said to be ‘derived from’ the business of the assessee, therefore, it was rightly held to be income from other sources, because no direct nexus has been established by the assessee between the interest so received and business of the assessee, therefore, the interest earned on account of FDRs, kept with the banks is income from other sources as it has ‘no direct nexus’ with the business activity of the assessee.
Payment of foreign exchange gain - We note that the expenditure has not been claimed as deduction during the year by the assessee. We find that in the aforementioned case of Enron Oil & Gas India Ltd [2008 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the loss arising on account of foreign exchange transaction would be allowed as business loss and the gain has to be treated as business receipt. Section 42 of the Act for claiming deduction is a special provision itself. The section becomes operative when it is read with production sharing contract, therefore, the provisions of production sharing contract will prevail as the PSC is an independent accounting regime and a complete code by itself u/s 42(1)(c) for the purposes of computing profit & gains of any business consisting of extraction or production of mineral Oil etc. and allowance as specified in the agreement - And such allowances shall be computed and made in the manner specified in the agreement, the other provision of the said being deemed for this purposes to have been modified to the extent necessary to give effect to the terms of the agreement.
If the provision of the Act is analysed that it can be concluded that the production sharing contract is an independent accounting regime which includes tax treatment of cost, expenses, income, profit etc. it prescribes separate rule of accounting as it is a complete code by itself. Reference may be made to Joshi Technologies International Inc. Vs. Union of India [2013 (7) TMI 809 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - The additional benefits, apart from the normal allowance, admissible under other provisions of the Act is to be allowed as a deduction in computing the business profit of the assessee provided such allowances are specified in the agreement of the assessee entered into with the Central Government etc. and then the allowance shall be computed in the manner specified in the agreement. In the present appeal, neither such agreement was discussed before us nor there is a finding in the impugned finding, therefore, we set aside this issue to the file of the Ld. DRP to examine the facts and then decide the issue in accordance with law, therefore, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard.
Claim of depreciation with respect to assets such as office equipment fixture and furniture etc used at the project office of the assessee - There is a finding in this impugned order that drilling activities has been started thus the claim of depreciation is a statutory allowance, it has to be allowed more specifically when the assessee is the owner of the asset which was used for business purposes. Since the asset was put to use and owned by the assessee, the depreciation has to be allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1867 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Input tax credit - tax paid at the time of purchase of goods from their suppliers - whether amounts offered by way of discount through credit notes issued by the supplier of the goods, at a point in time subsequent to the sale of the goods to the petitioners, can be added to the sales turnover of the petitioners' by invoking the provisions of explanation VII to the definition of turnover under Section 2(iii) of the KVAT Act? - HELD THAT:- The essence of the scheme is that, whenever tax is paid by a dealer at the time of purchase of goods, he is entitled to take credit of the tax so paid and to set off the said tax amount against the output tax to be paid by him at the time when he sells the product. A variation of the input tax credit availed by him is called for only in a situation where, it is found that the tax paid by the supplier of the goods, of which credit was taken by the petitioner as input tax credit, is subsequently reduced on account of a refund granted to the supplier, of the tax initially paid by him. It follows that, in the absence of any claim for refund of tax paid by the supplier, the input tax claimed by the petitioners cannot be varied or modified, save in the situations mentioned in Section 11 of the KVAT Act, such as, for instance, where the goods in question are sold at a price lower than that at which they were purchased or when the goods are sold at a subsidised rate.
On a perusal of the notices and assessment orders that are impugned in these writ petitions, it is found that the assessing authorities have not examined the issue as required. The assessment orders impugned in these writ petitions are therefore vitiated by a non-application of mind and is therefore quashed. The respondent assessing authorities in all these writ petitions, are directed, to complete the assessment proceedings, initiated against the petitioners through the notices issued to them under Section 25(1) of the Act, by taking note of the observations in this judgment, and after granting the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
Petition disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1866 - SUPREME COURT
Compulsory acquisition of lands for the Indian Army for its "Field Firing Range" in the year 1981 - grant of 15% developed residential land in lieu of compensation which, as perceived by the oustees, had been promised by the Urban Development Department of the State Government by its proclaimed policy dated 13.12.2001 - HELD THAT:- The Respondents have utterly failed to abide by a public policy upon which, the Appellant had altered their position and had suffered immense prejudice. The persistent denial to the Appellants of their right to the developed land in lieu of compensation and that too without any legally acceptable justification, has ensued in manifest injustice to the Appellants over the years. Neither have they been paid just compensation for the land acquired nor have they been provided with the developed land in place thereof, as assured. They are thus predominantly entitled for the remedial intervention of this Court to ensure fair, just, efficacious, tangible and consummate relief in realistic terms. If fairness is an indispensable and innate constituent of natural justice, this imperative indubitably has to inform as well the judicial remedy comprehended. In the overwhelming factual scenario, as obtains in the instant case, refusal to grant the relief to which they are entitled, would amount to perpetuation of gross illegality, unjustness and unfairness meted out to them. The textual facts demand an appropriate response of the judicial process to effectuate the guarantee of justice, engrafted in the preamble of the Constitution reinforced by the canons of equity.
The remedy indeed has to be commensurate to the cause and the prejudice suffered. The invocable judicial tools, predominantly in the form of a writ of mandamus, and the plentitude of the powers of constitutional courts, and more particularly, this Court Under Article 142 of the Constitution are assuredly the potential redressal aids in fact situations akin to the one in hand - A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and is intended to supply deficiencies in law and is thus discretionary in nature. The issuance of writ of mandamus pre-supposes a clear right of the applicant and unjustifiable failure of a duty imposed on an authority otherwise obliged in law to imperatively discharge the same.
As the nature and extent of the power indicates, there can be no straight jacket formula, for its exercise nor there can be any fetter thereto, it being plenary in nature. The invocation of this power is to reach injustice and redress the same, if it is not feasible otherwise to achieve this avowed objective. In doing so, this Court acts in its equity jurisdiction to balance the conflicting interests of the parties and advance the cause of administration of even handed justice. The purport and purpose of this power being justice oriented and guided by equitable principles, it chiefly aims at the enforcement of a public duty, if not forthcoming on legitimate justification ensuing in oppressive injustice, militating against the constitutional ordainment of equality before law and equal protection of laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and entrenched as are, among others, in the invaluable right to life envisioned in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The failure to discharge an obligatory duty defined by public policy without any justification in disregard thereto viewed in the context of the sacrosanct content of human rights in Article 300A is an inexcusable failure of the state to discharge its solemn constitutional obligation, the live purpose for its existence. The predominant facts herein, justifiably demand a fitting relief modelled by law, equity and good conscience. Thus, the elaborate preface.
The Appellants are entitled to be allotted their quota of 15% developed land in the terms of policy/circular dated 13.12.2001 in one or more available plots at Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal and Vaishali Nagar as enumerated by them in their affidavit dated 17.8.2015. The Respondents are hereby directed to accommodate them accordingly.
The Respondents would allot the developed land as per policy decision dated 13.12.2001 to the Appellants at the places indicated hereinabove without fail and within a period of six weeks herefrom - the appeals are allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1865 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment in the name of company amalgamated - corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation - Amalgamation of two companies - Assessment to be made on which entity? - HELD THAT:- In view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax(Central-II) v. P.D. Associates (P) Ltd [2015 (7) TMI 1400 - DELHI HIGH COURT] no substantial question of law arises for determination by the Court in these appeals.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1864 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - Addition of sum received by assessee trust as unsecured loan - onus to prove - CIT -A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Creditor has explained that the amount was withdrawn from Rajasthan bank Limited and same were deposited in union bank of India and then cheques were issued to the assessee trusts. These facts were also confirmed by AO in remand proceedings also. Now looking at the information that has been gathered by AO from ADIT is very simple which is available in case of every company and is also based on the information filed by those companies as per the Companies Act 1956. Therefore it is the same information which company has uploaded on the website of MCA and same information is supplied by the assessee and lender company to the AO.
On perusal of information received it does not suggest that the company is not in existence or the sources of the funds which are given as loan to the assessee trust are not proper in spite of the compliance made by lender by making himself available before AO for examination. It is also not important that whether the company is carrying on any business activity or not but what is important is that funds lent by that company are also shown in the balance sheet of the lender who is assessed to Income Tax - assessee has discharged its onus cast up on as per the provisions of section 68 by proving identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction and therefore we confirm the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition - Decided against revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1863 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - HELD THAT:- In view of the submission and endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, recording the same, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1862 - ITAT INDORE
Unexplained share application money - Information u/s 133(6) as received from the following parties - Proof of identity of the share applicants, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- In the present case the assessing officer himself has not doubted the identity in respect of all the share holders of the assessee company. Hence, the following the decision of the Hon’ble Co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Agrawal Coal Corporation[2011 (10) TMI 496 - ITAT INDORE]the amount of share application money as received by the assessee requires to be accepted as genuine.
As regard share premium of ₹ 990/- Per share is concern, the assessee company is a big player in the Media segment and engaged in the Print and Boarding business. The assessee company was incorporated on 05-04-1989 and therefore having more than 20 years experience of this line of business. The assessee company declared total income in its books of account prior to depreciation was of ₹ 9995881/- as on 31.03.2008 and the same was increased to ₹ 12489838/- as on 31.03.2009. That considering the long standing in the business and huge profit the amount of share premium is duly justifiable. That in case of private limited company the amount of share premium is mutually decided between the Management of the company and share applicant. Hence, the issue in dispute should not be the amount of share premium but the identity of the share holders who has applied in the share application money of the assessee company.
Once the assessee has established the identity of the share holder in that case the amount of share premium is not an issue. If the assessing officer has not satisfied with the explanation of the share applicant, necessary addition is to be made in the hand of the share applicant but not in the case of the assessee.
That as regard the blank transfer deed duly signed by the share applicant as found during the course of survey. The assessing officer himself after being satisfied not taking any cognizance for the same. Since, by the time of assessment proceeding these transfer deed was not used by the assessee and therefore after the date of Annual General Meeting , old date transfer deed has no legal value.
Additional evidence filed before the Ld CIT[A] - department in this ground of appeal has challenged the Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules - HELD THAT:- During the course of hearing, we find that the assessee has submitted all the documentary evidence before the Assessing Officer and the ld. DR has not disputed this fact, therefore, we are of the view that this departmental ground deserves to be dismissed. We dismiss the same.
........
|
