|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 928 Records
-
2013 (2) TMI 920 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e Act. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before us. 20. Learned Authorised Representative submitted that interest on FDs and rebate under sec. 88E has no connection. He submitted that assessee made submissions before learned CIT(A) but learned CIT(A) has not given any specific findings on the said issue. Therefore, matter may be restored to the file of learned CIT(A) to redecide the same afresh after giving due opportunity to assessee. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that he has no objection to restore the matter to file of learned CIT(A). 21. Considering above submissions of learned representatives of parties and the findings given by us in respect of ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal hereinabove, we restore this issue to the file of learned CIT(A) to redecide the same by a reasoned order after giving due opportunity of being heard to both sides. Thus, ground No. 3 is allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed in part.
-
2013 (2) TMI 919 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 33B of Income-tax Act, 1922, had relied on certain facts, which were not indicated or communicated to the assessee. Hon'ble Apex Court held that this was not a reason to quash the order of CIT since assessee would have opportunity before Assessing Officer to put forth her case, when it was taken up pursuant to revisionary proceedings. In our opinion, the facts of this case are entirely different. Assessee here has not argued that any facts mentioned by the CIT in his revisionary order were not communicated to it. On the other hand, what the assessee here says is that the order of CIT itself was erroneous and not that of Assessing Officer. 20. In the result, order of the CIT is quashed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 21. To summarize the result, assessee’s appeal in I.T.A. No. 1208/Mds/2012 is partly allowed, while its appeal in I.T.A. No. 1209/Mds/2012 is allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on Thursday, the 14th of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 918 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... also prepare a complete inventory of all the assets of the Respondent company before sealing the premises in which they are kept. He may also seek the assistance of a valuer to value the assets. He is permitted to take the assistance of the local police authorities, if required. 3. Publication of the citation of the petition be effected in the Official Gazette, ‘The Hindustan Times’ (English) and ‘Dainik Jagran’ (Hindi) in terms of Rule 24 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (?Rules?). The cost of publication shall be borne by the Petitioner. 4. List on 8th July 2013. 5. A fresh status report be filed by the OL before the next date of hearing.
-
2013 (2) TMI 917 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the learned trial Judge and this is so, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Girja Nandini Devi v. Bijendra Narain Chaudhari, AIR 1967 SC 1124 and State of Karnataka v. Hema Reddy, AIR 1981 SC 1417. 29. On overall reassessment and re-appreciation of evidence, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused. Suffice it to say that the learned trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and the learned A.P.P. has failed to dislodge the reasons given by the learned trial Judge and convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Judge. Seen in the above context, we do not find any valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged. Hence, the appeal deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 916 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... questions as to when the earlier partnership was dissolved and since which date the Respondents (in that case) ceased to be the partners of the firm. It was in that context that the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court should not have discharged the respondents who were being prosecuted under Section 141 of the Act being working partners of the firm. 11. I have also extracted above para 2 of the complaint. There are simply bald allegations that the Petitioner (accused No. 6) and other directors were responsible for day to day affairs of the accused company. Following the law laid down in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Central Bank of India and Anita Malhotra, these averments were not sufficient to issue process against the Petitioner. The Petitioner's summoning is, therefore, quashed. 12. The Petition, therefore, has to be allowed. I accordingly quash the complaint No. 596/2012 so far as it concerned the Petitioners. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
-
2013 (2) TMI 915 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ty by way of running a Tamil High School at Karaikal for the benefit of the local population. There is no allegation that the assessee trust is diverting any of its income for purposes other than the objects proclaimed by it. There is no case of any private enjoyment of any asset, property or income of the assessee trust. On going through the records of the case, we find that the assessee is carrying on charitable activity by running a Tamil High School for the benefit of poor and people of moderate income. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to deny the benefit of sec.80G(5)(vi) to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to renew exemption given to the assessee under sec. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act, from the date of expiry of earlier order granting exemption. 7. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 12th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 914 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n would act; the authorities must not look at the matter from their viewpoint, but from that of a prudent businessman impelled by commercial expediency. In view of the above discussion, the order of the lower authorities was to be set aside. 8. If the facts of the case under consideration are compared with the cases of M.M. Textiles and Subhash Chander & Co (supra), it becomes clear that the they are more or less identical. In the present case, Directors/relatives have been paid interest @ 15%, which in few cases after adjustments, have fluctuated to 16%. It is a known fact that interest on FDs is 7 to 9%. AO/FAA has not established that interest payment to Directors was un-reasonable or excessive. Therefore, respectfully following the orders of the coordinating Benches, we reverse the order of the FAA. We decide Grounds of Appeal in favour of the assessee. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 913 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd they are laid off, that immediately results in their unemployment, however, temporarily. 10. In the context of industrial Dispute Act, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Nutan Mills Vs. E.S.I. Corporation AIR 1956 Bombay 336 also expressed the same view that the term 'laid off' assumes and implies that the employer is not in a position to offer employment to his employee and, therefore, he terminates employment, though temporarily, during emergency and while that emergency continues, the employee is unemployed. No authority could be cited by the learned counsel for the appellants to take a different view. Both the aforesaid authorities have been referred to by the Hon'ble Single Judge also in the judgment under question and we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge in the case in hand. 11. No other point has been argued, therefore, we find no merit in the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e have raised for our consideration and decision is no more a debatable issue in view of what has been stated by a three judge bench of this Court in the case of Adalat Prasad (supra) and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court is not justified in rejecting the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code. 15. In view of the above, while setting aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, we now direct the learned Magistrate to restore the complaint to its Board and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. However, we grant liberty to the respondents herein, if they so desire, to question the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, while issuing summons to them, before an appropriate Court, including the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code. We clarify that all the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (2) TMI 911 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y by way of appeal is available to the petitioner, Sub-Registrar against the impugned penalty order before the first appellate authority i.e., CIT(A), this Court need not to go into the questions of merits on the imposition of penalty against the Sub-Registrar and he has the liberty to file appeal before the CIT(A), against the penalty order dt. 12th March, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the petitioner. Sub-Registrar/s that if they intend to challenge the said impugned penalty orders before the CIT(A), they may do so by filing appeals within one month from today and if such appeals are so filed within one month from today, the objection of limitation will not come in the way and the concerned appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. No costs.
-
2013 (2) TMI 910 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee to the Tribunal was allowed on a statement that the matter was covered in favour of the assessee by another order of the Tribunal. On appeal Held dismissing the appeal, that the income of the assessee being exempt, the assessee was only claiming that depreciation should be reduced from the income for determining the percentage of funds which had to be applied for the purposes of the trust. There was no double deduction claimed by the assessee. It could not be held that double benefit was given in allowing the claim for depreciation for computing income for purposes of section 11. “ 10. Respectfully following the above quoted decisions of the High Courts and the Tribunal, we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 22nd of February, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 909 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dispute having regard to its nature. In these circumstances, we feel that the Secretary, Finance may summon both the parties and discuss the matter with them to find out the possible solution, if any. List on 09.04.2013. The appellant/assessee has deposited a sum of ₹ 278 crores in the treasury. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the present appeal and subject to the outcome thereof, let that amount be treated as the amount paid to the Income Tax Department on account of tax in the present case.
-
2013 (2) TMI 908 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... as been considered as income, the same cannot be considered as deposit for levy of penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the penalty u/s. 271D & 271E. We accordingly direct the deletion of penalty. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the Revenue, we have no reason to interfere. It appears that the receipt for which revenue intends to invoke the provisions of section 269SS or 269T as the case may be for imposing penalty under section 271D or 271E as the case may be were during the assessment proceedings treated as the booking advance and consequently assessed as undisclosed income of the assessee invoking section 68 of the Act. Such amounts were treated as booking advance and therefore, taxed as undisclosed income. We agree with the view of CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal that same would thereafter not bear the in that view of the matter, no question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 907 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee. 3.5 The Ground No. 6 is regarding re-computation of indirect cost attributable to export of trading goods. This issue we have already decided while dealing with Ground No. 9 of the assessees. The same issue had been considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1998-99 in which the issue was decided in favour of the revenue to which the both the parties agreed. We therefore direct the AO to compute the indirect cost in the light of decision of Tribunal in the A.Y. 1998-99 (supra). 3.6 The Dispute raised in Ground No. 7 is regarding adjustment u/s 145A of the Income-tax Act. The same issue we have already considered while dealing with the Ground No. 7 of the assessee. Following our decision in Para No. 2.9.1 this issue is restored to the file of AO for fresh decision after following opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20th day of February 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 906 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ,08,394/-. Moreover, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of P.G. Electronics Vs. ITO reported as 15 SOT 79 has held that Keyman Insurance Premium has to be allowed as expenditure in view of Board’s Circular No.762 (supra). 13. In view of the categoric issue-wise findings of the CIT(A) in the impugned order, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the same and uphold the order of the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year 2005-06 is also dismissed as it is devoid of merit. 14. Since, the counsel for the assessee has not pressed the Cross Objections filed by the assessee and in view of the fact that appeals of the Revenue have been dismissed, both the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed as having become infructuous. 15. In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday, the 7th day of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 905 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pplication for production of additional evidence, and the documents have simply been placed on record along with the memorandum of appeal. It is settled legal procedure that any party which seeks to place reliance upon any documentary evidence, is required to prove the contents of the same by leading evidence in support thereof. Without following any procedure as required under law, such documents which have simply been placed on record cannot be taken into consideration. 19. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the complainant has not proved the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court is in full agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judicial Magistrate which is a plausible view. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any perversity being pointed out in the impugned judgment and order, there is no warrant for intervention by this court. The appeal being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (2) TMI 904 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Prevention of Corruption Act - Allegations against Chief Minister - Vigilance Case - Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) - Transferring money through Hawala - Investigation done by CBI - Scheduled offences in terms of sub-section (x) of Section 2 are the offences specified either under Part (A), Part (B) or Part (C) of the schedule of the PMLA. A complaint was lodged against Chief Minister Shri Madhu Koda and other 2 members.
Whether the Special Court can proceed simultaneously with the trial of the scheduled offence as well as trial of the offence punishable u/s 4 of the PMLA.
HELD THAT:- That the Special Court may proceed with the trial for the scheduled offence as well as trial of the offence punishable under the PMLA simultaneously. the provision as is enshrined in Section 3 postulating therein that whoever is connected with the proceeds of the crime projecting it as untainted property would be committing offence of Money Laundering Act and further that the proceeds of crime must have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offence in terms of sub-section (u) of Section 2 of the PMLA, there has been no doubt that unless one is held guilty for the scheduled offences, he cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA but hardly there appears to any embargo for the special court to proceed with the trial of the scheduled offences as well as offence under Section 4 of the PMLA simultaneously particularly when there has been nothing in the Act nor intention of the legislator seem to be there of taking of the trial of the offence punishable under Section 4 after one is found guilty for the scheduled offence.
-
2013 (2) TMI 903 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... missible for the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration for the assessment of such income. We also carefully gone through the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Rajinder Nath (supra). It does not carry the case of the assessee any further inasmuch as on a plain reading of the Tribunal order, it is apparent that finding recorded by the assessee is to the effect that the impugned receipt is not taxable in those assessment years and it is to be assessable in the assessment year 2002-03. Thus, the contention that there is no finding or direction within the meaning of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act is contrary to the facts of the case. Further, same is the position in the case of other judgements relied on by the assessee counsel. Accordingly, we are inclined to uphold the orders of the lower authorities. 27. In the result, assessee's appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd February, 2013.
-
2013 (2) TMI 902 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... od of two and half decades has seen lots of ups and downs qua fair market value of the immovable properties. Faced with this situation, we notice that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case law 2012 204 TAXMAN 258 (Mad) titled as CIT v. J. Chelladurai has determined fair market value of the property as the average value of the claim made by the assessee and the Revenue. Guided by the aforesaid analogy and by adopting holistic approach, we also proceed as per same formula in the larger interest of the justice and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the average value adopted by the Sub- Registrar and the assessee i.e. ₹ 10,000 ₹ 11,84,124 ÷ 2 ₹ 5,97,062/- as the fair market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 and pass consequential order in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, appeal of the assessee is partly accepted, whereas, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 18th of February, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (2) TMI 901 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ssible view. It has been held that jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act cannot be exercised to substitute a possible view of the AO with that of another contrary possible view of the CIT. 12. Apart from the above, we find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Tata Elxsi Ltd., 349 ITR 98 (Karn), has taken a view that whatever is excluded from the export turnover has to be excluded from the total turnover as well. If the aforesaid decision is applied, then there would be no effect on the claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act, as allowed by the AO. In other words, the order of the AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Thus even on this ground, action u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. 13. For the reasons given above, we quash the order u/s. 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 22nd day of February, 2013.
........
|
