|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1037 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1549 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations. As the export were completed and so was the contravention of the non realisation of the corresponding proceeds, prior to the FEMA came into force, the provisions of Section 7 of FEMA were also held inapplicable. 12. The facts dealt with in the judgment of the Delhi High Court referred lo supra are similar to the facts and circumstances of the case which are presented in the instant case. The principle of law laid down by the Delhi High Court referring to two judgments of the Apex Court is very much applicable lo the facts and circumstances of the present ease. Therefore I do not have any hesitation to hold that the show-cause notice under challenge is issued without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 13. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned show cause notice is quashed. Consequently the proceedings initiated and continued pursuant to the show-cause notice shall stand quashed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1548 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or setting aside the sale does not arise since it is the duty of the Court to order resale. 13. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge did not take into consideration the above law and did not apply properly to the facts of the case. If there are attachments over the money in deposit, the auction purchaser has got all rights to recover the same from the judgment debtors. Therefore, the order of the lower Court suffers from infirmity. However, the revision Petitioners are directed to deposit the amounts, which were deducted from the auction money belonging to the auction purchaser with interest at 12% per annum, failing which, it can be recovered as a decree against the judgment debtors. The balance amount, which is in deposit, shall be returned to the auction purchaser along with the value of the non-judicial stamps said to have been deposited in pursuance of the order of the Court. 14. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1547 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the said fact cannot be given undue importance. 33. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that 70 kgs of poppy husk alleged to have been recovered from two persons and Vikas accused has stated to have died and as such at the most 35 kgs of poppy husk can be said to be attributed to him. 34. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. 35. If two persons are found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband in that case the same cannot be bifurcated to the convenience of accused to make it non-commercial. Therefore, the said contention is also meritless. 36. No other point has been urged before me. 37. So, in view of the above discussion, no ground for interference in the appeal is made out and finding of trial Court regarding guilt of accused stands affirmed. 38. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1546 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y be liable for departmental action and may also render himself liable to be punished for contempt of court and the proceedings for contempt of court may be instituted in any High Court of the country having territorial jurisdiction of the matter. The officials may be liable for departmental action or punishment for committing contempt, but on the basis of observation indicated above, it would not be open for the petitioner's counsel to contend that the lapse on the part of the opposite party, if any, would amount to any kind of contempt. It is also necessary to mention here that for initiating contempt proceedings the procedure has been laid down in Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The instant case is not of such a nature to take action suo-moto, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere to initiate any proceeding against the opposite party. In view of the above the contempt petition is misplaced and misconceived and therefore the petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1545 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... facts of the instant case, it is noticed that the Tribunal, in the aforenoted order, has set aside the order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) on account of limitation. The effect of the Tribunal order is that the assessee is not deemed to be in default in respect of any failure to deduct or pay tax at source. In such circumstances, the question of penalty u/s.271C cannot arise. 5. As the ld. CIT(A) has also ordered for the cancellation of penalty u/s.271C on the basis of the Tribunal order, without going into the merits, we are refraining ourselves from considering the submissions by both the sides on merits. Resultantly, the impugned order is upheld. 6. The cross objections filed by the assessee in respect of these years have become academic in view of our decision on the appeals by the Revenue. 7. In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections by the assessee are dismissed having become infructuous. Order pronounced on the 31st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1544 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... re, the appellant’s claim is not acceptable and was rightly rejected by the AO as an after-thought. As regards the payment of ₹ 14,75,000/- by appellant’s wife late Smtl Urmila Luthra was also not explained showing the proper sources. There were no evidences found at the time of search regarding these transactions by the appellant. The retraction made by the appellant after a period of 19 months strengthens the arguments of the AO that the explanation given at the time of assessment was an after-thought and without any proper basis.” In the absence of any material to negate the aforesaid, we hereby affirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upholding the addition. 11. The last Ground relating to chargeability of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act being consequential in nature needs no adjudication. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on the 31st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1543 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ronounced today the Respondent is convicted for offences punished under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 12th January, 2011. The respondent will be present in Court on that date.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1542 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... heard the rival submissions and perused the records placed before us. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee had maintained two separate accounts for Poiser as well as Saki Naka projects and the CIT(A) gave a finding that the assessee had maintained two separate accounts. The learned CIT(A) has given a further finding that the A.O. presumed that the assessee might have debited the expenditure relating to Poiser project to Saki Naka project to get the benefit u/s.80IB(10) because the project is fully eligible for deduction. It is a fact that the assessee has already debited expenses for Poiser project of ₹ 1,05,11,664/- and the A.O. has not pointed out any defect in the books of account submitted by the assessee. In view of the above, we find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and uphold the same. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21st day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1541 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssment year 2006-07 in I.T.A.No. 1368/Mds/2009. But the case of the Revenue is that the said order of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the Revenue and the matter is taken up before the Hon'ble High Court in appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The Revenue is fully justified in keeping alive the contentious issues by filing appeal before the Court of Law if it is not satisfied in the decision delivered by the appellate Tribunal. But as on date, the Hon'ble High Court has not passed any order reversing the common order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the earlier assessment years. As of now, the order of the Tribunal is binding on the Commissioner(Appeals) and is binding on this co-ordinate Bench, too. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that this appeal filed by the Revenue is liable to be dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 13th of January, 2011, at Chennai.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1540 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... lic cause. That expression cannot be isolated from the main body of the document so as to make out a case that the Body of Governors will be free to apply the funds of the society for purposes other than charitable purposes. We do not think that the said drafting expression “Otherwise” in any way defeats the proclaimed objects of the assessee. 6. If per chance, assessee goes beyond the scope of its objects, the same can be looked into by the Revenue in the assessment proceedings while examining the eligibility for benefit of sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the assessee is entitled for the benefits available u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act and section 80G of the I.T. Act, 1961. Director of I.T. Exemptions is directed to issue orders accordingly. 8. In result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, 12th day of January, 2011 at Chennai.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1539 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es on charitable purpose, but it also extends assistance to such institutions carrying on these charitable purposes. It is not in dispute that all the donees who are carrying on charitable activities are exempted under Section 80G and which is renewed every year. If those donees have not utilized the funds for charitable purposes, the said amount is taxable at their hands. The donee trusts which are registered under the Act are recognised as carrying on charitable purposes and the registration is renewed every year and in particular to the relevant years. Therefore, the lower appellate authority as well as the Tribunal on consideration of the entire material on record, have properly held that the order passed by the AO is illegal, contrary to law and requires to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Hence, no interference is required by this Court. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for consideration. Accordingly, all appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1538 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Regular First Appeal was filed for challenging the original decree that the Respondents made an application under Order VI Rule 17 for amendment of the original written statement to incorporate the counter claim with a prayer for possession of the land in dispute in Survey No. 110/1. In such circumstances, the High Court erred in disturbing the findings recorded by the trial court. 36. The matter herein symbolizes the concern highlighted by this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand (supra). Permitting a counter claim at this stage would be to reopen a decree which has been granted in favour of the Appellants by the trial court. The Respondents have failed to establish any factual or legal basis for modification/nullifying the decree of the trial court. 37. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court committed a serious error of jurisdiction in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondents. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1537 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n Communication Pvt. Ltd. supra, wherein it has been held that ”....merely because the services are ebbing provided in association with MTNL, does not mean that the assessee is not providing the basic telecommunication services and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 80IA.” , decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The above order has been followed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s cases for subsequent Assessment Years i.e. 04-05 and 05-06 supra. In the absence of any distinguishing feature brought on record by the revenue we respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal hold that the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s.80-IA of the Act and accordingly we are inclined to uphold the finding of the ld. CIT(A) in allowing the same. The grounds taken by the revenue are, therefore, rejected. 8. In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.1.2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1536 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... nt of the provisions of Sec.80-AB of the Act, we are of the view that the issue as to whether deduction under any sections of Chapter-VIA of the Act, had to be restricted to the income under the head “Income from business” because of the provisions of Sec.80-AB of the Act, or it is only the overall ceiling of deduction under Sec.80-A(2) that has to be seen, is in any event a debatable issue on which there could be possibly two views. The AO having taken one of the possible views, the Commissioner cannot exercise jurisdiction u/s.263 just because he does not agree with the view of the AO. Even on this ground the order u/s.263 is liable to be quashed. We have not dealt with the other arguments of the learned counsel for the Assessee, since we have agreed with him on two counts. 19. For the reasons stated above, we quash the order u/s.263 of the Act. 20. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in open court on 28th day of January, 2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1535 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue that the assessee had actually earned such huge income, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the addition of ₹ 21,25,000/-. This ground of appeal therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. 7. As regards the second question, the Assessing Officer had made the addition observing that it was reasonable to estimate the initial capital employed for the business out of which the above mentioned net profit of ₹ 21,25,000/- was earned, at ₹ 15 lakhs. Since this addition is merely based on the addition of ₹ 21,25,000/-, the deletion of the said addition is merely consequential to the deletion of addition of ₹ 21,25,000/- and as such the said ground of appeal also does not give rise to any question of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, as no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal as proposed by the revenue and as the appeal does not merit acceptance, it is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r would in no manner be read to mean that Skoda would be entitled to withhold or delay the payment of taxes in any manner, whether present or future. (A.A. SAYED J) (i) After pronouncement of the judgment, learned Counsel for the Skoda submitted that the ad-interim order granted earlier be continued for a period of 8 weeks from today. The learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayat opposed the application and submitted that the Gram Panchayat may be allowed to withdraw the amount of 10 lacs which was deposited by Skoda in this Court at the time of granting ad-interim relief. (ii) Considering the submissions of the Counsel for the parties, I am inclined to continue the ad-interim order dated 27-10-2010 for a period of eight weeks from today. I am also inclined to permit the Gram Panchayat to withdraw the amount of 10 lacs deposited in this Court by Skoda on filing an Undertaking in this Court that the said amount will be brought back as and when directed. It is accordingly ordered
-
2011 (1) TMI 1533 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ht to be raised in this appeal are covered by the decision of this Court against the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.827 of 2010 decided on 5-12-2008. 3. For the reasons stated in the said order, the present appeal is also dismissed. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1532 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n held that disallowance is called for u/s.14A in such circumstances. However, the manner of computation of such disallowance has been restored to the file of AO for making on some reasonable basis. It has further been held in this case the provisions of Rule 8D are not applicable as these are prospective. Respectfully following the precedent, we set aside the impugned order and direct the AO to compute disallowance u/s.14A in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted case of Godrej & Boyce Ltd. 4. In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 19th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1531 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er and copies of accounts of customers, and pointed out that in this letter dated 27th April, 2003 itself the amount of sales of ₹ 93,500/- was included in the total turnover. There was a search in the case of the assessee and certain statements were recorded and this reply was given explaining the total turnover. The amount was wrongly typed at Rs. .93,000/- from GESCO instead of Rs. 93,500/-. In fact, the copy of accounts enclosed at page 49 of the paper book clearly shows that sales of Rs. .93,500/- itself was debited to M/s GESCO on 25-8-1999. We are satisfied that the sale, in fact, was included in the turnover but because of lack of papers assessee was forced to surrender this item also and, accordingly, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the penalty. 34. In the result, appeal in I.T.A.No.741/M/10 for A.Y 2000-01 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th day of January, 2011.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1530 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of amount paid to Approved Superannuation Fund - violation of Rule 87 of Income tax Rules - Whether expenditure of the nature described in section 30 to 36 of the income tax Act?- HELD THAT:- A contribution to approved superannuation fund is deductible in principle as long as the quantum of the said contribution does not exceed the prescribed limits. The limits are, however, prescribed only for the initial contribution and ordinary annual contribution to the fund. As a corollary to these limits having been prescribed, amounts paid in excess of such limits, towards initial contribution and for ordinary annual contribution, are not allowed as deduction. That is the only limitation for quantum of deduction under section 36(1)(iv). However, it is not in dispute that the amounts paid in excess of the 27% of salaries of the employees, are neither towards the ordinary annual contribution nor towards the initial contribution. This payment has been necessitated due to shortfall discovered in the course of actuarial valuation of the fund, and is in the nature of a one time exceptional payment to ensure that the superannuation fund is able to discharge its obligation. Its neither an annual contribution, nor an ordinary contribution - the very foundation of the impugned disallowance did not have legally sustainable basis; the amount was deductible, in principle, under section 36(1)(iv) and the restriction on deductibility, as set out in the said section as also in Rule 87, did not apply in this case. The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A), though for the reasons other than the reasons adopted by the CIT(A), are correct and do not call for any interference - these grounds are dismissed.
Disallowance of claim of bad debt CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT:- Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue is now covered, in favour of the assessee, by Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of TRF. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT]. In this view of the matter, the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A), on this issue as well, do not call for any interference - This ground also dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
........
|
