|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1260 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 1233 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... s own decision rendered in the case of Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra). In our opinion, the facts in the present case are materially different and it is not possible to hold in the present case that the assessee was the beneficiary owner of the shares held by its two directors in Karnataka Automats Pvt. Ltd. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ankitech (P) Ltd. (supra) will be applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the assessee was not a shareholder in Karnataka Automats Pvt. Ltd., the deeming provision of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted. We therefore hold that the addition made by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be sustained. The same is therefore directed to be deleted. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1232 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 0) of the Act in respect of its Millennium project despite the assessee not satisfying the conditions stipulated in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 80IB(10) of the Act? This Court in ITA No.763/2009 c/w ITA No.25/2009 (DD29.2.2012) has answered the said question of law against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the assessee against the block assessment order and the addition made by the AO by restricting the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IB was deleted. Since the said order of the learned CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue was not challenged by the Revenue and had become final, the Tribunal accepted the basis of allocation adopted by the assessee and decided the similar issue in favour of the assessee. As the issue involved in the year under consideration as well as all the material facts relevant thereto are similar to that of the earlier years decided by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11th Sept., 2009, we respectfully follow the said order and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue. 13. In the result, the appeals for assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 are dismissed whereas the appeal for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of Oct. , 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1230 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 80 ITD 25 wherein netting of interest for the purposes of explanation (baa) has been upheld. We direct the Assessing Officer to follow the said decision." 7. Thereafter, a miscellaneous application was filed by the revenue for modification of order dated 29-7-2005, Annexure A.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 20-12-2007, Annexure A.4, affirming the said order. The effect of the same would be that it is the net interest which has to be taken into consideration while computing deduction under Section 80HHC as per Clause (baa) of the explanation to Section 80HHC of the Act. The order passed by the Tribunal being in conformity with the order of the Apex Court in ACG Associated Capsules (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), it is held that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 8. As a result, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1229 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hares on April 10, 2008, when Solrex was still in the process of investing more money into the scrip of the target company. It is also interesting to note that the funds for investment for purchasing the scrip of the target company were made available by Mr. V. K. Kaul and the sale proceeds of the scrip were also transferred back to him. Mrs. Bala Kaul, in her reply dated January 1, 2011, has further stated that instructions to the stockbroker for the transaction were also given telephonically by Mr. V. K. Kaul. We, therefore, cannot find any fault with the findings arrived at by the adjudicating officer that Mr. V. K. Kaul had traded in the scrip of the target company in the name of his wife when he was in possession of UPSI that Solrex was to purchase large number of shares of the target company for which funds were being arranged by Ranbaxy. Therefore, we have no hesitation in upholding the impugned order. In the result, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1228 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the recommendations as used in the provision not only serves the purpose of a "lamp in the study" but also as a "light house" which is shining, clear and transparent. 48. I emphasize on the decision making process because in such a case there is exercise of power of judicial review. In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982) 1 W.L.R. 1155, Lord Brightman observed thus ...Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made.... 49. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I conclude that there has been total non-compliance of the statutory provision by the Selection Committee which makes the decision making process vulnerable warranting interference by the constitutional courts and, therefore, the High Court is justified in holding that the appointment is non est in law. 50. Consequently, the appeal, being sans substratum, stands dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1227 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... his Court also does not find any other just and reasonable ground for restoring the name of the Company in the Register of Companies. In fact, the conduct of the petitioner in suppressing vital facts and information from this Court and sale of the assets and liabilities of the Company by the members-Directors three years prior to filing of the Company petition, would go against the petitioner in appealing for exercising discretion in favour of the Company under sub-section (6) of Section 560 by holding that it is just that the Company be restored to the register. 27. It is a defunct Company and its Directors and shareholders have washed their hands of it by selling all its assets and liabilities. This is coupled with the fact that there are serious allegations of criminal nature against the Company and its members-Directors while it was in operation. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the Company petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1226 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... mistake in such assessment. In any case as noted by the Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A)’s reversals were made in accounts based on a one time settlement with M/s.IDBI and it required a detailed analysis to find the exact amount of interest and loans, which were waived or the exact amount of repayment of loan or interest, made pursuant to such settlement. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kesari Metal Pvt Ltd. ITA Nos.. 199 & 200 /Mds/12 7 237 ITR 165 a look at the record must show that there is an error, which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Resort to documents outside the records is impermissible in the rectification proceedings. We are therefore, of the opinion that CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeals of the assessee. No interference is required. 7. In the result, appeals of assessee for both the years stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on Thursday, the 11th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1225 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l for the revenue, this observation is only obiter dicta and is not the ratio of the decision and the question whether an activity amounts to manufacture or not is to be decided in the facts of each case. 13. As far as conversion of limestone into limestone powder is concerned, The Apex Court has clearly held that the conversion into lime and lime dust or concrete by stone crushers can legitimately be considered to be a manufacturing process while the mere mining of limestone and marble and cutting the same would not be so considered. The observation of the Supreme Court cannot be termed to be 'obiter dicta' since the Supreme Court has held that the process of conversion of limestone into lime and lime dust is a manufacturing process. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue. Accordingly, all the questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 14. These appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1224 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... company would not fall within the provision of section 194C and hence no tax was required to be deducted. The hiring of ships for the purpose of using them in the assessee’s business did not amount to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated in section 194C.” 8. On perusing the order of the learned AO and the learned CIT(A), we are of the view that the revenue had not made a detailed enquiry on the submission of the assessee recorded herein above and made any findings thereon. Further, the decisions of the case relied upon by the assessee cited supra were also not before the revenue for consideration. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby set aside the orders of the revenue and remit the matter back to the file of the learned AO for de novo consideration and for considering all the aspects mentioned herein above. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26 -10-2012
-
2012 (10) TMI 1223 - ITAT AMRITSAR
... ...
... ... ..... nts made by the assessee before the AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter requires thorough investigation at the level of the A.O. and with liberty to the assessee to establish that the assessee is not a dealer/trader in shares and is an investor. The assessee has also to establish that he is doing day to day trading in shares and was involved in F & O segment and is not taking delivery of shares in dispute and is not required to get his accounts audited as required under section 44AB of the Act. With these directions, the matter is set aside to the file of the A.O. for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assesse. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10th October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1222 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remand this issue with regard to determination of interest income that is to be treated as having accrued to the assessee under mercantile system of accounting, keeping in mind the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank (supra) and also exclude the interest income accounted for in the books, which does not pertain to the previous year, but pertains to the period earlier to the previous year but accounted for during the previous year on receipt basis. The assessee will let in necessary evidence to establish its case and the AO will consider the same and decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee opportunity of being heard. The assessee is at liberty to put forth all contentions regarding the quantum of interest income that is to be brought to tax. 11. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of October, 2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1221 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ew case has been made out by the adjudicating officer. 21. To summarise, we are of the considered view that the trial balances for the quarter ending September 2008, which were available with the company by October 11, 2008, was price sensitive information within the meaning of regulation 2(ha) of the Regulations and was unpublished till the collated and finalised accounts were placed before the Board on October 21, 2008. Mr. Manoj Gaur became privy to it when trial balances were considered on October 11, 2008 and therefore, he was in possession of UPSI on that date. However, the Board has not brought any evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, to show that he had passed on this information to either Mrs. Urvashi Gaur or Mr. Sameer Gaur or that the trading done by Mrs. Urvashi Gaur on October 13, 2008 or Mr. Sameer Gaur on October 13, 14 and 16, 2008 was based on UPSI. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow all the three appeals with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1220 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot capital expenses ? f) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is right in holding that while computing income under Section 115JA, deduction under Section 80HHC has to be computed on the basis of book profits and not on the basis of profits under normal provisions ? 2. As regards questions (a), (b) and (E) are concerned, counsel for the Revenue fairly states that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.6195 of 2010 have not been entertained by this Court. Hence, questions (a), (b) and (e) cannot be entertained. 3. Counsel for the Revenue further states that questions (c) and (f) are covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P) Limited reported in (2012) 340 ITR 593 (S.C.). Accordingly, questions (c) and (f) cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on question (d).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1219 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of question (d), the Tribunal following its decision in the case of assessee for assessment years 19891990 and 19901991 has allowed the claim of the assessee. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Revenue has challenged the decision of the Tribunal for earlier years. Moreover, no case is made out to find fault with the decision of the Tribunal in this year and the earlier years. Hence, we see no reason to entertain question (d). 4. The appeal is admitted on questions (b) and (e), which reads thus (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 1,12,762/claimed by the assessee company as temple expenses ? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 40,07,238/claimed by the assessee company as community welfare expenses ?
-
2012 (10) TMI 1218 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of ₹ 43,39,215/claimed by the assessee company as community expenses ? 2. As regards question (a) is concerned, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all necessary materials for the purpose of assessment and, hence, reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is bad in law. Since the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is based on finding of fact, we see no reason to entertain question (a). 3. As regards question (c), (d) and (e) are concerned, counsel for the parties state that similar questions raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being Income Tax Appeal No.6186 of 2010 have not been entertained. For the reasons stated therein, questions (c), (d) and (e) cannot be entertained. 4. The appeal is admitted on questions (b) and (f).
-
2012 (10) TMI 1217 - SUPREME COURT
Prayer for grant of statutory bail - Offences committed under Sections 307, 427 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code - Explosion involving an Israeli Embassy vehicle carrying the wife of an Israeli Diplomat - later amended to cover Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Whether the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was competent to remand the accused beyond 15 days for offences under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967? - HELD THAT:- There is no denying the fact that on 17th July, 2012, when CR No.86 of 2012 was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the custody of the Appellant was held to be illegal and an application u/s 167 (2) Cr.P.C. was made on behalf of the Appellant for grant of statutory bail which was listed for hearing. Instead of hearing the application, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate adjourned the same till the next day when the Public Prosecutor filed an application for extension of the period of custody and investigation and on 20th July, 2012 extended the time of investigation and the custody of the Appellant for a further period of 90 days with retrospective effect from 2nd June, 2012.
Not only is the retrospectivity of the order of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate untenable, it could not also defeat the statutory right which had accrued to the Appellant on the expiry of 90 days from the date when the Appellant was taken into custody. Such right, as has been commented upon by this Court in the case of Sanjay Dutt [1994 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT] and the other cases cited by the ld Additional Solicitor General, could only be distinguished once the charge-sheet had been filed in the case and no application has been made prior thereto for grant of statutory bail. It is well-established that if an accused does not exercise his right to grant of statutory bail before charge-sheet is filed, he loses his right to such benefit once such charge-sheet is filed and can, thereafter, only apply for regular bail.
The circumstances, in this case, however, are different in that the Appellant had exercised his right to statutory bail on the very same day on which his custody was held to be illegal and such an application was left undecided by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate till after the application filed by the prosecution for extension of time to complete investigation was taken up and orders were passed thereupon.
We are unable to appreciate the procedure adopted by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which has been endorsed by the High Court and we are of the view that the Appellant acquired the right for grant of statutory bail on 17th July, 2012, when his custody was held to be illegal by the Additional Sessions Judge since his application for statutory bail was pending at the time when the application for extension of time for continuing the investigation was filed by the prosecution. In our view, the right of the Appellant to grant of statutory bail remained unaffected by the subsequent application and both the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.
We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order dated 20th July, 2012, passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extending the time of investigation and custody of the accused for 90 days, with retrospective effect from 2nd June, 2012, and the orders of the High Court dated 2nd July, 2012, 6th July, 2012 and 6th August, 2012, impugned in the appeal and direct that the Appellant be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, upon such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper, including surrender of passport, reporting to the local police station, and not leaving the city limits where the Appellant would be residing without the leave of the Court, so as to ensure the presence of the accused-Appellant at the time of the trial.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80IB(10) - Meaning and scope of the term "Housing Project" - The assessee company purchased three residential flats and converted them into commercial establishments. AO viewed that the provisions u/s 80IB(10) not having been satisfied on the ground that housing projects don't include commercial buildings, assessee not entitled to the deduction. It was contended that Housing project would include commercial buildings also as per the s. 80HHBA. - HELD THAT:- In the absence of definition of the expression 'housing project' anywhere else in the Act and the said expression being defined in a related deduction provision under the same Chapter VIA, we feel, it would be more appropriate to go by the definition of the expression 'housing project', as available under Section 80HHBA for the purpose of understanding the said expression of 'housing project' under Section 80IB of the Act.
Project is not, pure and simple, a residential one. After reading s. 80HHBA and 80IA, it is clear that s. 80IB is concerned about housing project namely, construction of any building other than what is contemplated as an infrastructure facility u/s 80IA. In s. 80HHBA, the expression "housing project" is defined in a wider sense but there is no such decision that allow the interpretation of housing project in wider sense u/s 80IB(10) thereby restricting the scope of Housing project.
Decision in the case of CCE VERSUS M/S HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL [2010 (11) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT] was relied upon.
Revenue appeal dismissed.
Seeking fresh claim / relief in the Revenue Appeal whereas no appeal was filed by the assessee against the decision of ITAT - Issue of chargeability of tax versus issue of grant of relief / deduction - HELD THAT:- The reliance of assessee in the case of Essar Shipping Ltd.'s case [2013 (12) TMI 443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] is not valid. - The situation herein is a totally different one. The question is one of deduction and not of chargeability under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, we reject the assessee's case in this regard.
The decision in the case of Essar Shipping Ltd.'s case [2013 (12) TMI 443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] distinguished.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1215 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. (supra) the issue may be set aside to the file of the A.O. Since we have set aside the issue of disallowance u/s 14A to the file of the A.O., we are of the view that in the interest of justice this issue may also be set aside to the file of the A.O. and accordingly we set aside the matter to the file of the A.O. to decide the same afresh in the light of the direction given in para 8 of this order and according to law including the decisions relied on by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and also the decision in the case of Sonata Information Technology Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (2012) 19 ITR (Trib) 408 (Mumbai) after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The grounds taken by the Revenue and assessee are, therefore, partly allowed for statistical purpose. 27. In the result, both appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on 31-10-2012.
-
2012 (10) TMI 1214 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... basis of the fact which were produced at the time of assessment, the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the claim of assessee that income in question is derived by firm from agricultural operations carried on the land belonging to MSFC Ltd., Pune, as agricultural income. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer is based on improper interpretation of law and on surmises and conjectures. In view of the above, the CIT(A) was justified that amount of ₹ 32,69,820/-and ₹ 35,13,376/- for A.Ys. 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively are agricultural income of assessee firm. This reasoned factual finding need no interference from our side. As a result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 22. The Cross Objections filed were in support of the order of the CIT(A) goes academic. In view of the foregoing conclusion wherein the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld. 23. As a result, both the appeals of Revenue as well as the cross objections are dismissed.
........
|
