|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 770 Records
-
2012 (4) TMI 791 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... est of the Ld. AR for remitting all these appeals to the file of the CIT (A) with a direction to again call a remand report from the Assessing Officer with a direction to Assessing Officer to give the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of hearing and after giving effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee the Assessing Officer will re-submit the remand report which will be submitted to CIT (A) on the basis of which Ld. CIT (A) will re-adjudicate all these appeals filed by the assessee as per provisions of law. We direct accordingly. Since we are restoring these appeals to the file of CIT (A), we do not express any opinion regarding the merits of additions which have been upheld by Ld. CIT (A) as those will be re-considered by Ld. CIT (A) in pursuance of our above directions. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are considered to be allowed for statistical purposes in the manner aforesaid. The order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 790 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the CIT for passing the fresh order under Section 263. However, the fact remains that at present the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT dated 31.12.2009 does not survive because it has been set aside by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the matter is restored back to the file of the CIT for passing a fresh order. Thus, when the order under Section 263 dated 31.12.2009 does not survive, the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed in pursuance to the order under Section 263 dated 31.12.2009 cannot survive. We, therefore, hold that learned CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment order dated 28.12.2010. However, before we part with the matter, we may clarify that the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to pass the fresh assessment order in accordance with law in pursuance to the fresh order passed under Section 263, if so advised. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17th April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 789 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... igible for deduction u/s 80IB of the Act, is covered in favour of the assessee with the decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Paliwal Ice & Cold Store V/s ITO(ITA No.231/Agr./2007 dated 24.10.2008), a copy of which has also been filed before us. It has also been brought to our notice that the said decision of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, vide its order dated 3.11.2011 in Income Tax Appeal No.288 of 2009. In view of the matter and in the absence of any decision to the contrary brought to our notice, we find no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). We accordingly uphold the same rejecting the grounds of the Revenue in this appeal”. 7. Respectfully following our decision in assessee’s own case for earlier years, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. 8. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11. 4.2012
-
2012 (4) TMI 788 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er, there cannot be any conversion of the subject premises from leasehold to freehold and therefore substitution of the Lessees of commercial plots like the instant one, clearly attracts the imposition of unearned increase, in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Indian Shaving Products (Supra). The single bench decision in Kiran Kohli (Supra) relied upon by the petitioners is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the instant matter, as it does not deal with the Instructions (Annexure P-23), which squarely governs the dispute raised herein. 11. Logically speaking, Respondent’s right to levy unearned increase cannot be defeated by first effecting de-merger and then to further assign, transfer etc. without previous consent of the respondent/lessor. Consequentially, impugned demand (Annexure P-17) and the Notice (Annexure P-20) are held to be valid and this writ petition is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000/, while vacating the interim order.
-
2012 (4) TMI 787 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... of public issue expenses u/s 35(2) of the Act, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is confirmed. (3) The next issue is with regard to interest on bank deposit and RBI Bonds. Both the Members, who originally constituted the bench found that it has to be assessed as “Income from other sources’. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) is set aside and that of the assessing officer is allowed. 4. Now coming to the cross objection filed by the assessee, the only issue is with regard to the levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act. As per the decision of both the Members, who constituted the bench originally has set aside this issue to the file of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) to decide the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objections are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 786 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ince right to file a suit or proceedings stood extinguished, the SARFAESI Act would not revive this extinguished claim. Position would have been different if the bank had filed mortgage suit and such a suit was pending. In Ivee Injectaa Ltd. (supra), mortgage suit has already been filed and therefore, claim for enforcing mortgage rights was subsisting as it was pending adjudication. If the period of 12 years had not expired under Article 62 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act and there was still time to file the proceedings of mortgage suit, even that would have saved the right of the Bank to enforce the provision of SARFAESI. But even that action has become time barred. In the facts of this case, we hold that the claim is barred under Section 36 of SARFAESI Act and therefore, it was not open to the bank to proceed under this Act. We, thus, allow this appeal and quash the impugned notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act issued by the bank. No order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 785 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... see and because of the Act of 2003, the petitioners' status has not changed to assessee from non-assessee. (VII) Section-5 of the Jharkhand Electricity Duty(Amendment)Act, 2011 amending Section 4 of the Act of 1948 is declared to be arbitrary as it gives power to the State Government to choose and pick up either of seller or consumer of the electricity for payment of electricity duty and Section 5 of the Act of 2011 amending Section 4 of the Act of 1948 is wholly unworkable and may create chaotic situation, made against the public interest, therefore, declared to be ultravires and illegal. 64. The petitioners are not liable to pay surcharge to the Damodar Valley corporation. Challenge to the rest of the provisions of the Act of 2011 is left open. The writ petitions are allowed accordingly, in terms of the points mentioned above. However, none of the petitioners, if has paid electricity duty to the State, shall be entitled to recover it from the State. No order as to cost.
-
2012 (4) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... assis’ which is in the nature of a capital asset cannot be brought within the meaning of ‘inputs’. Since the list of items of capital goods on which credit can be allowed is restricted for goods falling under chapters and heading Nos. of the Central Excise Tariff and since Chapter 87 is not one such goods during the relevant period, credit cannot be granted on this item considering it as capital goods either. 6. Therefore, there is no merit on the main issue contested. There is prayer from the appellant that the penalty amount may be reduced. I find that Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules does mandate imposition of penalty equal to duty involved. In the facts of the case, I find it proper to reduce the penalty. Accordingly I order reduction of penalty to ₹ 15,000/-. 7. Thus the appeal is dismissed except to the extent of reduction in penalty allowed. Thus stay petition and appeal are disposed of. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
-
2012 (4) TMI 783 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... himself possessed of any knowledge or any material or documents forming basis for the allegations made in the first information report as regards misappropriation of the funds collected from the public. 30) In the light of the fact that the court has found that no offence as alleged in the first information report is made out against the applicants, it is not necessary to delve into the contention as to whether or not the applicant in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.12430 of 2005 was a director at the relevant time when the offence is alleged to have been committed and as to whether in the light of the resignation tendered by him, his name was required to be deleted from the first information report. 31) For the foregoing reasons, the applications succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The first information report registered vide Navrangpura Police Station I-C.R. No.846 of 2003, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly in both the applications.
-
2012 (4) TMI 782 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ndered in assessment year 2005-06 on a similar issue and uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) allowing the claim of the assessee for depreciation on technical knowhow and right to use trademark. 17. In its cross objection filed for assessment year 2004-05, the assessee company has raised a solitary issue challenging the validity of reassessment made by the AO u/s 143(3) read with section 147. Since the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) for assessment year 2004-05 deleting all the additions made by the AO in the reassessment made u/s 143(3) read with section 147 has been upheld by us while disposing of the cross appeal filed by the Revenue, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee challenging the validity of the said assessment has become virtually infructuous. The same is, therefore, dismissed. 18. In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 11th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 781 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... ssee is closed down, admittedly the benefit of CENVAT credit not availed of against the excise duty payable on manufactured items, cannot be utilized by the assessee and the said write off of CENVAT credit, is allowable as an expenditure in the year under consideration on the closure of the business. The write off of CENVAT credit by the assessee in its books of account is thus allowable as business expenditure under the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act relatable to the year, in which the manufacturing activities are closed down by the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of write off of CENVAT credit of ₹ 35,94,577/-. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 11. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is not pressed and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25th day of April, 2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 780 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e appellant’s role in the manipulative trade cannot be brushed aside. The only saving grace is that the appellant was not directly or indirectly connected with the promoters in the game plan as found by the adjudicating officer. At the same time, the appellant assisted the clients in framing the subtle pattern of trades which resulted in price manipulation. To this extent, the appellant is guilty of violating regulations 3 and 4 of the FUTP Regulations. However, considering the facts of the case we find that the penalty of ₹ 2 lacs on this count is on the higher aside. Having regard to the facts of the case we reduce the penalty for violation for FUTP Regulations to ₹ 1 lac. The facts of the case establish that the appellant has not acted with the required diligence, care and skill in its dealings with the clients. The penalty of ₹ 1 lac on this count is upheld. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and penalty reduced to ₹ 2 lacs. No costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other applicable condition/provisions. Any lease found to be operating in violation of the stipulated conditions/provisions should be liable for closure and/or termination of the lease; (H) the present Members of the Monitoring Committee should continue for a period of next two years; and (I) in the larger public interest the mining operations in the two leases of M/s NMDC may be permitted to be continued. However, it will be liable to deposit penalty/compensation as payable for the mining leases felling in "Category-B". The implementation of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plans for all three categories shall start immediately. It is made clear that preparation, implementation and monitoring of Reclamation and Rehabilitation Plan will be under the supervision of Central Empowered Committee. 2. Central Empowered Committee shall inform this Court, next week, whether the suggestions with regard to stockyard and preparatory work for Category 'A' can be started.
-
2012 (4) TMI 778 - SUPREME COURT
Petition for Sufficiency of Quantum of compensation - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988I (the Act) - the appellant’s husband died in a road accident when the Maruti car in which he was travelling with husband of respondent No. 2 and the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 went out of control. husband of respondent No. 2, who was driving the vehicle also suffered multiple injuries and died on the spot.
HELD THAT:- It is also not possible to approve the view taken by the Tribunal which has been reiterated by the High Court albeit without assigning reasons that the deceased would have spent 1/3rd of his total earning, i.e., ₹ 500/-, towards personal expenses. It seems that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were totally oblivious of the hard realities of the life. It will be impossible for a person whose monthly income is ₹ 1,500/- to spend 1/3rd on himself leaving 2/3rd for the family consisting of five persons. Ordinarily, such a person would, at best, spend 1/10th of his income on himself or use that amount as personal expenses and leave the rest for his family. The Tribunal’s observation that the two sons of the appellant cannot be treated dependant on their father because they were not minor is neither here nor there. In the cross-examination of the appellant, no question was put to her about the source of sustenance of her two sons. Therefore, there was no reason for the Tribunal to assume that the sons who had become major can no longer be regarded dependant on the deceased.
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment as also the award of the Tribunal are set aside and it is declared that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of ₹ 2,94,840 [₹ 1,500 + 30% of ₹ 1,500 = ₹ 1,950 less 1/10th towards personal expenses = ₹ 1,755 x 12 x 14 =₹ 2,94,840]. The claimants shall also be entitled to ₹ 5,000/- for transportation of the body, ₹ 10,000/- as funeral expenses and ₹ 10,000/- in lieu of loss of consortium. Thus, the total amount payable to the claimants will be ₹ 3,19,840/-. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. ₹ 1,42,340/- (₹ 3,19,840 - ₹ 1,77,500) shall carry interest of 7 per cent from the date of application till realisation.
Respondent No.1 – Insurance Company is directed to pay to the appellant the total amount of compensation within a period of three months by getting prepared a demand draft in her name which shall be delivered to her at the address given in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall be free to deduct the amount already paid to the appellant.
-
2012 (4) TMI 777 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... stration from the date of inception of the trust, as the time available for reopening is only six years. Therefore, he requests to recall the order passed on 18-8-2011 and adjudicate the appeal. 3. We considered the petition of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal has directed to grant registration to the assessee retrospectively. The law relating to time limit in respect of reopening or the period of limitation is not applicable in the present case. This is because, the registration is to be granted as a result of the order of the Tribunal. There is no such time limit prescribed under the Act. The time limit runs only from the date of the order of the Tribunal. 4. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax is within law to grant retrospective registration, as directed by the Tribunal. 5. In result, this petition filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 20th of April, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (4) TMI 776 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re 'abated' at the end of that period. No application under Order XXII Rule 9 to set aside the abatement was filed. In any event, after the objections were rejected and the Award, with a slight modification as regards interest, was made rule of the court on 10th May 2010, the suit itself ceased. Even when the suit was pending, unless the abatement vis-a-vis GEC Inc was set aside, no application by its successor-in-interest GE Canada under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC could have been entertained. 40. Neither applicant has any explanation to offer for their abject failure, over several years, to bring to the notice of the Tribunal, and later the court, the fundamental changes in the constitution of the original parties to the contract. It is not possible to condone such a serious lapse and overlook the irreversible legal consequences that have resulted. For the aforesaid reasons, both applications are dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (4) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ge recorded took time, what has to be seen is the time of filing of the rectification proceeding which is in the year 2005. If the plaintiffs had in the year 2005 asserted upon the registered trade mark, then as per the observations of the Division Bench in order to invoke Section 124, the defendant ought to have approached this Court first by applying for the prima-facie satisfaction, which defendant did not prefer before approaching IPAB. Accordingly, the defendant's rectification and circumstances therein are squarely covered within the ambit of judgment of Division Bench and learned Single Judge and are no different from the ones which the learned Single Judge and Division Bench was earlier concerned with. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are equally unmeritorious and the same are rejected. Resultantly, the application is dismissed with the cost of ₹ 5,000/-. CS(OS) No. 1421/2005 List before the Joint Registrar on 29.05.2012.
-
2012 (4) TMI 774 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... he Revenue. Wherever the assessee is getting any benefit out of the transactions, the assessee is offering the same as income under sec.41(1). When all these matters are accepted by the Revenue, it is incumbent upon them to accept the loss arising out of such transactions and allow it as a deduction. The bad debts were taken over as part of its business and even if those amounts were written off, as the amounts were not collected, they partook the character of business loss. Therefore, the assessee is entitled for claim of deduction under sec.37(1). 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow deduction for the amount of bad debts claimed by the assessee as a business loss. It is not necessary to be carried away by the nomenclature extended to the loss as ‘bad debt’. In fact, it is a business loss. 10. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Monday , the 2nd of April , 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (4) TMI 773 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eclared owner of the said land and it be declared that his mother was having no right to execute the Will in favour of anybody. If these pleading and the reliefs are compared, it will be squarely clear that the respondent No. 1 plaintiff was claiming title on the basis of benami transaction said to have taken place on 18-7-1979. This being so, the prohibition under the Act is squarely applicable and such a plaint was hit by Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. This being so, the Court below was not right in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 10. Resultantly, the revision is allowed. The order impugned is set aside. The application filed by the petitioners under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The suit filed by the respondent No. 1 plaintiff is dismissed as barred under section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.
-
2012 (4) TMI 772 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e no basis or foundation in the statutory provision, as noted by the Tribunal. Under the provisions of Section 10 (23G), it is inter alia provided that any income by way of interest from investment made in long term finance in any enterprise or undertaking which wholly engages in the business referred to in Section 80 IA (4) or Section 80 IB (3) or a housing project referred to in Section 80 IB (10) or a hotel project or a hospital project and which has been approved by the Central Government and which satisfied the prescribed conditions would be exempted. 3. Save and except for the said two grounds, there was no dispute that the other conditions which were fulfilled. Both, the CIT (A) and the Tribunal on a careful appraisal, have found that the conditions of Section 10 (23G) have been fulfilled. In that view of the matter, the Appeal will not raise any substantial question of law and is dismissed. No substantial question of law is raised. There shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
