|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 994 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 922 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e cognizance of the dates of “Cash receipts” mentioned in seized documents ie., at page 1 of Annexure A1 and page 50 of Annexure BS1 ?” C “Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of ₹ 65,83,830/ made on account of gift received in kind, though the gifts were not genuine ?” Counsel for the Revenue stated that Questions A & B do not arise out of the Tax Appeal in question, and therefore, Revenue has filed separate appeal raising such questions. These questions are therefore, not considered in the present Tax Appeal. With respect to sole surviving Question C , counsel for the Revenue submitted that in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, the issue involved in the said question was raised by the assessee and the assessee’s appeal was not accepted. He clarified that therefore, such question does not arise in the present Tax Appeal. In the result, Tax Appeal is disposed of as infructuous.
-
2013 (4) TMI 921 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently pursing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply that there is a merger of the original decree and the order dismissing the review petition. 4. We are in complete agreement with the principle laid down by this Court in DSR Steel (Private) Limited (supra) and applying the 3rd situation referred to therein in paragraph 25.3, we are inclined to dismiss this special leave petition. We find force in the contention made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent that this SLP is not maintainable, since the main order was not challenged but only the order passed in the review petition alone was challenged in this SLP. Hence, the SLP is, therefore, not maintainable and the same is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 920 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... i Mittal, the AO also passed assessment order u/s. 143(3) on dated 30.03.2006 as was done in the case of Satish Prakash Mittal. In the cases of remaining assessees, earlier the returns were processed u/s. 143(1) of the IT Act. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Satish Prakash Mittal, the cross-objection of the assessee shall have to be allowed in the case of Sheela Rani Mittal also. In the cases of other assessees except on point No. 2, the findings given on point No. 1, 3 and 4 in the case of Satish Prakash Mittal (supra) would clearly apply in these cases for the purpose of quashing the re-assessment proceedings. In view of the above discussion and following the decision in the case of Satish Prakash Mittal, remaining departmental appeals are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessees are allowed. 15. In the result, all the cross objections of the assessee are allowed and all the departmental appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court.
-
2013 (4) TMI 919 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... held that provisions of section 234D are applicable on the date on which regular assessment order has been passed and not the year of assessment that falls for consideration. In the present case, regular assessment order under section 143(3) was passed on 30.03.2006, the provisions of section 234D came into operation on and from 1.6.2003 i.e. prior to the completion of regular assessment, therefore, the provision of section 234D will apply to assessee as well. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Ltd.,(supra), we reverse the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the ground of appeal of the Revenue.” In view of the above, we allow this ground of appeal of the Revenue in the present appeal. 8. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday, the 2nd day of April, 2013 at Chennai.
-
2013 (4) TMI 918 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arises. 5. With respect to Question B also we notice that the same is primarily based on appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal confirmed the view of CIT(Appeals) deleting the additions made by Assessing Officer under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 making following observations "9. With regard to the ground No.2 being the addition made by the AO on the basis of cash payment in excess of amount prescribed under section 40A(3) of the Act, we find that this disallowance is also regarding cash payment noted in the impounded diaries transaction of which are duly recorded in the books of M/s Suraj Builders and not of the assessee. Hence, no such addition can be made on this aspect also in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the issue also." 6. In view of such factual findings, in our opinion, no question of law arises in this respect also. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 917 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ware of the disputes between the appellants on the one hand and the respondents on the other. CONCLUSION The order of the CLB, in C.P. No. 4 of 2010 dated 25.05.2012, is set aside to the extent indicated hereinabove, and is remanded back for its consideration afresh. In respect of such of those questions decided by the CLB, which were not put in issue during the hearing of this appeal, the order of the CLB has attained finality and is, therefore, confirmed. The CLB shall, after putting the appellants herein and respondents 1 to 20 on notice and after giving them an opportunity of being heard, pass orders, in accordance with law, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The CLB shall also take into consideration the statutory provisions and observations of this Court, as has been extensively referred to in this order, while examining the company petition afresh. The Company Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 916 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... he Assessing Officer has not disputed the fact that when the project was sanctioned the road acquisition area was still in possession of the assessee and was not handed over to the Corporation till that point of time. Further, the assessee was entitled to FSI on account of road acquisition and therefore this was taken care in development agreement itself. 8. In view of the above, assessee was correct in taking stand that area of the plot is 4074 sq. mtrs as per plan and registered development agreement and reduction of road acquisition area from this gross plot area for calculation of minimum 1 acre was not justified. Accordingly, CIT(A) was justified in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction in respect of housing project “Prem Aangan” which needs no interference from our side. With the above reasoning we uphold the same. 9. As a result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 17-04-13.
-
2013 (4) TMI 915 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... pect of the impugned income. 36. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we hold that the impugned order of the Assessing Officer dated 30.06.2010 levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is untenable. We hold so. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) for assessment year 2008-09 is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 37. In the result, appeal of the a2s2sessee in ITA No. 809/PN/2012 for assessment year 2008-09 is allowed. 38. The other captioned appeals in the cases of Smt. Gulabbai Tupe (ITA Nos. 766 to 770/PN/2012), Smt. Versa Tupe (ITA Nos. 777 to 780/PN/2012 and ITA No. 800 to 803/PN/2012) for the respective assessment year, contain issues similar to those considered in the case of Shri Mangesh Tupe in the above paragraphs. The said appeals are also disposed-off in the light of decision in the case of Shri Mangesh Tupe, as above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th April, 2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 914 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... had held cash in hand with him for ₹ 5,00,000/- for a period of six months and another amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- for a period of four months. There could be various reasons for the assessee to keep liquid cash with him in his possession which is not unnatural. Moreover, the revenue has not brought out any materials on record to establish that the assessee had deposited cash other than what he had withdrawn from his bank account. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is an employee of ONGC a public sector undertaking and do not have any other occupation. Both the learned AO and the learned CIT(A) had proceeded to tax the assessee based on presumptions and assumptions which is harsh and not justifiable. Therefore, we hereby delete the addition of ₹ 11,00,000/- made by the learned AO u/s 68 of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is decided in his favour. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12-04-2013
-
2013 (4) TMI 913 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Vidharbh Estate Pvt. Ltd. for sale of its property. The bill, however, did not materialize since the assessee did not give NOC for transfer of property. The same was later on cancelled and money was returned. Additionally, the assessee had furnished the copy of the sale agreement, copy of the cancellation of the agreement, copy of PAN number of the intending purchaser and copy of acknowledgement of return of income of the proposed purchaser. In case of such deposits the assessee had produced a copy of confirmation from the party, copy of the acknowledgement of the return of income and also PAN number of said entity. Such facts were not controverted by the revenue nor contended that the documents produced by the assessee were not genuine. 4. In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly followed the decision of this Court in case of CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava 2012 208 Taxman 35/21 taxmann.com 159. No question of law arises. Tax appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 912 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... et of circumstances and the Apex Court’s clear pronouncement of law on fraud on the Tribunal compell me to interfere in the case on hand and I do so. 20. The impugned order is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the claim put forth by the petitioner afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate allegations. Opportunity has to be afforded to the respondent to rebut the allegation. While disposing of the contention afresh the Tribunal is not to be influenced by any one of my observations, if any made by me on the merits of the allegations. 21. In the case on hand, I am compelled to impose costs on the respondents for their omission and commission on the peculiar facts of this case. The cost is quantified at ₹ 5,000 and is payable to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within four weeks from today. 22. Writ Petition is allowed. The order is set aside with the above directions. 23. Ordered accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 911 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lakhs which the later document carried in the form of repayment on 6/1/2009. The Assessing Officer completely discarded the assessee's version of collection of such amount towards sale of Ampad land to Kanubhai Patel, which transaction ultimately did not materialize and therefore, the requirement for refunding the amount. It is true that neither the CIT A nor the Tribunal has commented on this approach of the Assessing Officer. They, however, treated taxing of such amount as double taxation. In terms, therefore, CIT A and the Tribunal accepted assessee's version that the land was sold only once for which the assessee had disclosed short term capital gain on the entire amount; including the on money receipts during such sale. Any attempt on the part of the Revenue to tax the entire amount of ₹ 5.24 Crores once again was thus seen as a case of double taxation. All in all, the issue is based on facts. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 910 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of India v. Escorts Ltd., and others AIR 1986 SC 1370. (paras 101, 102). Similar view has been taken by this Court also in A.K. Home Chaudhary v. National Textile Corporation U.P. Ltd., Kanpur 1984 UPLBEC 81; B.M. Varma v. State of U.P. and others 2004 (4) AWC 2866 (2005 All LJ 164); and Vivek Kumar Mishra and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ESC 2811 (2009 (1) ALJ 319). 17. In view of above, question No. 1 is answered in negative, i.e., against plaintiff-respondent and in favour of defendants-appellants and question No. 2 is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of appellants. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000 passed by Lower Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2000 passed by Trial Court is restored and confirmed. The Original Suit No. 839 of 1996 filed by plaintiff-respondent is accordingly dismissed. The defendants-appellants shall be entitled to costs throughout.
-
2013 (4) TMI 908 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot a lawful decree. 18. In view of the above, it is evident that the suit filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs was not maintainable, as they did not claim consequential relief. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 10 being admittedly in possession of the suit property, the Appellants/Plaintiffs had to necessarily claim the consequential relief of possession of the property. Such a plea was taken by the Respondents/Defendants while filing the written statement. The Appellants/Plaintiffs did not make any attempt to amend the plaint at this stage, or even at a later stage. The declaration sought by the Appellants/Plaintiffs was not in the nature of a relief. A worshipper may seek that a decree between the two parties is not binding on the deity, as mere declaration can protect the interest of the deity. The relief sought herein, was for the benefit of the Appellants/Plaintiffs themselves. As a consequence, the appeals lack merit and, are accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 907 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... hat the issue under consideration is squarely covered by various cases decided by jurisdictional Tribunal including the cases referred by the learned AR before the CIT(A) (supra). As held by the CIT(A) following the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of M/s Amaravathi Wine Shop (supra), the Tribunal in the said case directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% of the purchase or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than the returned income. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit at 5% of the purchases or stock put for sale during the year subject to the assessed income not less than returned income. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2013.
-
2013 (4) TMI 906 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s delay. In short, there is non-application of mind. Ex facie the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, calling for interference. 3. In the circumstances, the order impugned dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners on the ground of delay is quashed and the proceeding remit ted for a fresh consideration, after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, including permitting the petitioners to file additional affidavits over sufficient cause, and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law having regard to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Petitions are ordered accordingly. It is needless to state that the question of limitation is kept open.
-
2013 (4) TMI 905 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ur, which is looked down upon in the competition jurisprudence. Therefore, there has to be some deterrent punishment, but not so much as to affect their ability to deliver the goods in an efficient manner. We would, therefore, keep this factor into consideration while ordering the penalty. 69. While passing interim orders we had directed the parties to pay 5% of the penalties as a condition for grant of stay. It is reported that all the appellants have complied with that condition. We would choose to order reduction of the penalty to the extent of total of 10% penalty imposed by the CCI. Thereby the appellants would be required to deposit again 5% of the penalties. For this purpose, we would grant one month time to the appellants. Thus, the total penalty will be 10% of the penalty already imposed by CCI. With this observation and the modifications in the penalties, we would choose to dismiss the appeal on merits, however, the penalties stand modified as observed by us above.
-
2013 (4) TMI 904 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ll the petitions are disposed of in above terms. Tax bills raised by the various Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats impugned before us are declared to be invalid. It would be open to the local bodies to issue revised bills for the limited purpose of taxing the cabins. The petitioners are entitled to refund of the tax already paid, however, with a limit that no tax paid prior to one year of filing of the petition would be refundable. We put this limit to ensure that the petitioners who may not have approached the Court sufficiently promptly may not seek refund of the tax without any reference to time limit. 40. At this stage, learned AGP Ms. Sangeeta Vishen prayed for stay of this judgement. At her request, it is provided that this judgement shall stand stayed upto 15.6.2013. 41. All the petitions stand disposed of accordingly. In view of above, Civil Application No.2967/2010 in Special Civil Application no.2843/2009 does not survive. Same is disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (4) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence - In the instant case, upon CBI’s own finding that the offence covered by the Second FIR is part of the same conspiracy and culminated into the same series of acts forming part of the same transaction in which the offence alleged in the first FIR was committed. It is also pointed out that it is the case of the CBI itself before this Court that even the charges will have to be framed jointly and one trial will have to be held as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’).Finally, it is highlighted that the competent jurisdictional court has already taken cognizance of all the three alleged killings in the chargesheet/challan filed by the CBI in the first FIR itself.
HELD THAT:- filing of the second FIR and fresh charge sheet is violative of fundamental rights under Article 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution since the same relate to alleged offence in respect of which an FIR had already been filed and the court has taken cognizance. This Court categorically accepted the CBI’s plea that killing of Tulsiram Prajapati is a part of the same series of cognizable offence forming part of the first FIR and in spite of the fact that this Court directed the CBI to “take over” the investigation and did not grant the relief as prayed, namely, registration of fresh FIR, the present action of CBI filing fresh FIR is contrary to various judicial pronouncements.
the second FIR filed by the CBI to be quashed. As a consequence, the charge sheet filed in pursuance of the second FIR, be treated as a supplementary charge sheet in the first FIR.
-
2013 (4) TMI 902 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Mis-declaration of goods - it was alleged that certain products manufactured by the appellant were cosmetic products, not ayurvedic medicines - certain clearances made to related party - Held that:- There is no dispute about the fact that Apex Court had given certain directions for re-quantification of duty in para 33 of the judgment - From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that re-quantification has not been done in terms of this order, while the appellant plead that all the necessary information had been provided.
The matter is once again remanded to the Commissioner for re-quantification of the duty demand strictly in term of the directions of the Apex Court - appeal allowed by way of remand.
........
|
