|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1235 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1222
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the complaint and summoning order u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Grounds for dishonor of the cheque.
3. Service of notice.
4. Responsibility and liability of the Managing Director.
Summary:
1. Validity of the complaint and summoning order u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioners challenged the complaint and the summoning order dated 17.3.2009 issued by the Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners contended that the complaint was not maintainable as the cheque was dishonored due to a court order for attachment, not for insufficient funds. The court, however, held that the presumption u/s 139 is attracted even in cases of stop-payment instructions and that the burden of proof lies on the accused to show sufficient funds were available.
2. Grounds for dishonor of the cheque:
The cheque issued by the petitioners was dishonored with the remark "payment stopped by attachment order/court order." The petitioners argued that this does not constitute an offense u/s 138 of the Act. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in M.M.T.C Ltd. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd., which held that an offense u/s 138 could still be made out even if the cheque is dishonored due to stop-payment instructions, provided the presumption u/s 139 is not rebutted by the accused.
3. Service of notice:
The petitioners argued that there was no evidence of service of the statutory notice on them. The court noted that the respondent had issued the notice dated 18.9.2008 under registered cover and UPC, which were not returned. The court held that there is a presumption of delivery of notice within a reasonable time after posting on the correct address, and the respondent had prima facie fulfilled the requirements of Sections 138 and 141 of the Act.
4. Responsibility and liability of the Managing Director:
The petitioners contended that there were no specific averments in the complaint that petitioner No. 2, the Managing Director, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business. The court referred to several precedents, including S.M.S Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, which emphasized the need for specific averments. The court found that the complaint did contain sufficient averments that petitioner No. 2 was managing the day-to-day affairs of the company and was the authorized signatory of the cheque, thereby making him liable u/s 141 of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the complaint and the summoning order were valid. The interim order dated 10.1.2012 was vacated, and the parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 10.9.2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1221
Issues involved: Ejectment and resumption of possession of suit land, denial of title by tenants, estoppel, plea of mistake of fact in lease deed, surrender of possession, relief sought in the plaint, decree for eviction.
Summary:
Ejectment and Resumption of Possession:
The Respondents filed a suit for ejectment and resumption of possession of the suit land against the Appellants, claiming that the lease was not renewed and rent was not paid. The trial Court decreed the suit for eviction as the Appellants failed to prove title to the land. The First Appellate Court and the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the Appellants were estopped from denying the Respondents' title.
Plea of Mistake of Fact in Lease Deed:
The Appellants argued that the lease deed was executed and rent was paid by mistake of fact, citing a judgment from the Madras High Court. However, the Supreme Court noted that this issue was not raised or framed by the trial Court, and no evidence was adduced on this matter.
Denial of Title by Tenants:
The Supreme Court referred to the principle that a tenant cannot deny the landlord's title as long as possession is not surrendered. Exceptions to this rule were not established by the Appellants, requiring them to surrender possession before challenging the Respondents' title.
Relief Sought in the Plaint:
Although the Respondents claimed ownership of the land in the plaint, the relief sought was eviction, not a declaration of title. The Courts were not required to decide the question of title, leading to the modification of findings on title while maintaining the decree for eviction.
Decree for Eviction and Surrender of Possession:
The Supreme Court set aside previous findings on title but upheld the decree for eviction. The Appellants were ordered to vacate the land within six months and were prohibited from filing a suit for declaration of title unless possession was first surrendered to the Respondents.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent indicated, modifying the judgments of the lower Courts. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1220
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of a complaint filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the High Court, regarding the demand for illegal gratification by a government hospital employee for performing a medical operation.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Quashing of the complaint under Section 482 of the Code
The State of Rajasthan appealed against the High Court's decision to quash the complaint filed by a complainant alleging that the respondent demanded illegal gratification for a medical operation. The High Court's decision was challenged on the grounds that the FIR and collected material established a strong case against the respondent. The respondent argued that the complaint was false and that the prosecution case lacked support from the alleged victim and her husband. However, the Supreme Court found that the statements and affidavits did not conclusively disprove the complainant's allegations. The Court noted that the evidence, including taped conversations and the successful trap operation, supported the complainant's case. The Court emphasized that at this stage, the evidence should be tested during trial and that the FIR should not be quashed based on the affidavits submitted by witnesses during investigation or court proceedings.
Issue 2: Consideration of the respondent's retirement and investigation period
The respondent's argument that he was on the verge of retirement and had undergone investigation since 2007 was not considered as a valid reason to quash the FIR. The Court highlighted the prevalence of corruption and the importance of not showing mercy in serious cases involving illegal gratification. The Court emphasized that continuing the proceedings was essential to prevent abuse of the legal process and to uphold the rule of law.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision to quash the complaint, stating that all observations made were prima facie and that the matter should be dealt with strictly on merits and in accordance with the law by the appropriate court.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1219
Issues Involved:
1. Nature and enforceability of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
2. Specific enforceability of the MOU under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. Arbitrary termination of the MOU by the respondent.
4. Interim protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary:
1. Nature and Enforceability of the MOU:
The court examined whether the MOU dated 14.11.2008 constituted a binding contract or was merely an "agreement to agree." It was observed that the MOU included forms of definitive agreements, indicating that the essential terms were already known to the parties. The court, referencing clauses 4.1(ii) and 11.1 of the MOU, and the conduct of the parties, prima facie found that the MOU was intended to be a binding agreement. The court cited precedents such as *Kollipara Sriramulu v. T. Aswatha Narayana* and *Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.*, concluding that the MOU constituted a binding contract between the parties.
2. Specific Enforceability of the MOU:
The respondent argued that the MOU was not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, claiming it was determinable and monetary compensation would suffice. The court disagreed, noting the speculative nature of estimating the value of the petitioner's 49% shareholding in the proposed JV companies and the unique business opportunity. Citing *Old World Hospitality v. Indian Habitat Center* and *Atlas Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd v. BSNL & Anr.*, the court found that specific performance would do more complete justice than monetary compensation.
3. Arbitrary Termination of the MOU:
The respondent terminated the MOU citing clauses 2.1 and 5.1, which the petitioner challenged as arbitrary. The court observed that the respondent had continued to act under the MOU even after the expiration of the 240 days period, indicating a mutual extension. The court found that the respondent's conduct constituted a waiver of the right to terminate under clause 5.1, and the termination was prima facie arbitrary and irrational. The court referenced *P. D'Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu* and *Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity (dead)* to support its conclusion.
4. Interim Protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The court granted interim protection to preserve the subject matter of the dispute, noting that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss if the textile mills were alienated or disposed of during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. The court emphasized the need to maintain the status quo to ensure that the arbitral award, if in favor of the petitioners, would not be rendered meaningless. The court confirmed the interim order dated 01.10.2010 till the making of the arbitral award and awarded costs of Rs. 25,000/- in each petition.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1218
Issues involved: Application challenging rejection of discharge plea u/s 482 CrPC against accusation of theft and forgery.
Details of the judgment:
The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their discharge plea in a case involving the theft of F forms from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Chaibasa. The case was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners, senior officers of a company, were accused of using stolen forms. The petitioners contended that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in the alleged offences of theft or forgery. They argued that the company, which used the forms, was not made an accused despite the petitioners not being directly responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the business. The petitioners also raised the issue of the applicability of the Central Sales Tax Act, claiming that the prosecution under general law was impermissible due to the special provisions of the Act.
The court examined Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, which deals with the burden of proof in cases of goods transfer. It noted that the Act required the dealer to furnish F forms, and failure to do so could lead to penalties under Section 10A of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the stolen forms were used to claim exemption from sales tax, implicating the petitioners. However, the court found that the petitioners were being prosecuted under general law instead of the specific provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, which was not permissible under Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court emphasized that the petitioners could not be prosecuted under general law for offences falling within the purview of the Central Sales Tax Act. It highlighted the principle that vicarious liability cannot be a basis for prosecution unless specifically provided for in the law. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that the trial court and the revisional court erred in not discharging the petitioners from the accusation. Consequently, the court set aside the orders and discharged the petitioners from the case, finding the refusal to discharge them as illegal.
In conclusion, the court allowed the application challenging the rejection of the discharge plea, thereby discharging the petitioners from the case.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1217
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cheque (Ex.P1) was issued by the respondent for discharging a legally enforceable debt.
2. Whether the appellant had the financial status to lend Rs. 2,75,000/- to the respondent.
3. Whether the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted by the respondent.
Issue 1: Legally Enforceable Debt
The appellant claimed that the respondent issued a post-dated cheque for Rs. 2,75,000/- to discharge a debt. The cheque was returned due to "insufficient funds," leading to a statutory notice u/s 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, stating the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt, as the appellant lacked the financial status to lend such an amount. The High Court upheld this view, noting the appellant failed to provide independent evidence proving the loan.
Issue 2: Financial Status of the Appellant
The appellant admitted to having only Rs. 50,000/- and claimed to have borrowed the remaining amount from his father-in-law and a friend, neither of whom were examined as witnesses. The respondent argued that the appellant, being a sundry worker, lacked the financial capacity to lend Rs. 2,75,000/-. The High Court found this defense plausible, noting the appellant's failure to prove his financial status and the improbability of lending such a large sum without documentation.
Issue 3: Rebuttal of Presumption u/s 139
The appellant argued that the respondent's signature on the cheque entitled him to a presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the respondent contended that the cheque was issued to Lakshmi Saraswathi Finance Company and was misused by the appellant, who worked as a collection boy. The High Court noted that the respondent successfully rebutted the presumption by probabilizing his defense and highlighting inconsistencies in the appellant's claims. The court emphasized that the appellant failed to prove the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt.
Conclusion:
The High Court confirmed the trial court's judgment of acquittal, concluding that the appellant did not prove the issuance of the cheque for a legally enforceable debt and lacked the financial status to lend the amount. The presumption u/s 139 was effectively rebutted by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1216
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Kerala Lok Ayukta.
2. Entitlement to Scheduled Caste Certificate.
3. Validity of Government Orders and Enquiries.
4. Applicability of Res Judicata.
Summary:
1. Jurisdiction of Kerala Lok Ayukta:
The Writ Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge which set aside Exhibit P-4 order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta for want of jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge opined that the Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction in passing Exhibit P-4 order, thus quashing it. The Lok Ayukta's jurisdiction to issue directions for community certificates was questioned, as the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, and the Kerala State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act, 2007, govern such matters. The Lok Ayukta is authorized to enquire into maladministration but lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass orders directing the issuance of community certificates.
2. Entitlement to Scheduled Caste Certificate:
The appellant, born to an inter-caste marriage, claimed entitlement to a Scheduled Caste Certificate as her mother converted to Hinduism and became a Hindu-Sambavar, a Scheduled Caste Community. The appellant's mother had previously obtained a caste certificate, but subsequent applications were rejected. The State contended that the appellant was not entitled to claim Scheduled Caste status as she was not born to Scheduled Caste parents. The competent authority, after due enquiry, found justification in rejecting the application. The appellant argued that her mother's conversion revived her Scheduled Caste status, entitling her to the certificate.
3. Validity of Government Orders and Enquiries:
The issuance of community certificates is governed by the Kerala (Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996, and subsequent Government Orders. The competent authority must follow the guidelines issued by these orders. The appellant's application for a Scheduled Caste Certificate was rejected based on the report of the Village Officer and KIRTADS. The learned Single Judge noted that the competent authority must conduct the enquiry and issue certificates as per the special enactment and Government Orders.
4. Applicability of Res Judicata:
The appellant contended that the issue was hit by the principles of res judicata as previous orders by Lok Ayukta in 2004 and 2007 had established their caste status. The State argued that the principles of res judicata and estoppel prevent re-litigation of the same issue. The learned Single Judge upheld that the Lok Ayukta's order exceeded its jurisdiction and that the appellant should have approached the appellate authority under the special enactment.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the learned Single Judge's decision that the Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction in passing Exhibit P-4 order. The appellant was advised to approach the appellate authority under the special enactment if aggrieved by the rejection of the community certificate. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1215
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of set off of interest earned on FDR against the interest paid on bank borrowings for deduction u/s 80IB.
2. Determination of whether interest earned on FDR can be considered as income derived from manufacturing activity for deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Consideration of netting of interest earned against interest paid for the purpose of deduction u/s 80IB.
Summary:
1. Denial of Set Off of Interest Earned on FDR:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in denying the set off of interest earned on FDRs, which were made to provide margin money against the letter of credit issued by the bank, against the interest paid on bank borrowings while calculating the quantum of deduction admissible u/s 80IB. The FDRs were purchased out of the company's bank account maintained for margin money purposes. The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80IB on this income, following the assessment order for AY 2005-06, which held that the interest on FDR is not an income derived from manufacturing activities.
2. Interest Earned on FDR as Income Derived from Manufacturing Activity:
The appellant contended that the interest earned had a direct nexus with the interest paid and only net interest, if positive, could be considered for disallowance of deduction u/s 80IB. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, stating that the interest income on FDR is not derived from the business of the industrial undertaking and is only incidental income. The CIT(A) relied on case laws such as CIT Vs. Madras Motors Ltd., which held that interest earned from bank deposits does not have a direct nexus with the industrial undertaking and is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB.
3. Netting of Interest Earned Against Interest Paid:
The appellant's alternative argument was that if the interest on FDR is treated as income from other sources, then u/s 57, the interest expenditure should be deducted from such income. The CIT(A) rejected this argument, stating that there is no direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the investment made in the FDRs. The interest expenditure on borrowed funds is for the purpose of business and not for making FDRs, thus cannot be netted against the interest earned on FDRs. The Tribunal upheld this view, citing that netting of income under one head of income against expenditure under a different head of income is not permissible as per law.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the interest income on FDRs is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB as it is not derived from the business of the industrial undertaking. The alternative claim for netting of interest was also rejected, maintaining that interest expenditure on borrowed funds cannot be netted against the interest earned on FDRs. The decision was consistent with the Tribunal's previous ruling for AY 2005-06, which had become final.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1214
The Supreme Court of India issued an order for the petitioner to deposit Rs.2,00,000 within six weeks in the Supreme Court Registry, to be placed in a Fixed Deposit Account in a nationalized bank for three months. (Citation: 2012 (8) TMI 1214 - Supreme Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1213
Issues involved: Substitution of deceased respondent by legal representatives, condonation of delay in filing appeal, refund of seized goods and payment of interest.
Substitution of Deceased Respondent:
An interlocutory application was filed to substitute the deceased respondent Dwarika Prasad Agrawal with his legal representatives, his wife and son. The advocate for the respondent confirmed his appearance on behalf of the legal representatives, and the application was allowed. The necessary correction in the cause title was directed to be made within ten days.
Condonation of Delay:
Another interlocutory application sought condonation of a delay of 91 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, which was granted, and the application was disposed of.
Appeal on Refund of Seized Goods:
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and others against a judgment favoring the writ petitioner regarding the seizure of betel-nuts worth Rs.3,50,000. The seized goods were sold for a lesser amount due to perishability, and upon the order setting aside the confiscation, a sum was refunded to the writ petitioner after deducting costs. The learned single Judge directed the appellants to pay the difference amount with interest, which led to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine after extensive hearing, and the interim relief was vacated.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1212
Issues Involved:
The petitioner questions the order dismissing the application to forward a cheque for ink comparison to forensic experts under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Application for Forwarding Cheque for Ink Comparison
The petitioner sought to send the cheque for ink comparison as the ink used for signature differed from that used for dates and amounts. The petitioner argued that the non-MICR NCE coded cheque was issued long back, supporting the need for comparison. However, the court dismissed the application, citing the unavailability of scientific methods to assess ink age in Tamil Nadu, as per a previous court decision.
Issue 2: Validity of Court's Decision
The court upheld the decision to reject the plea for ink comparison, stating that the age of the ink or variations in the cheque's ink were not determinable. The court emphasized that bank records could establish the cheque's issuance date, making signature comparisons unnecessary. Additionally, the delay in filing the application and the court's previous ruling on ink age assessment further supported the dismissal of the petitioner's request.
In conclusion, the Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of the application for ink comparison was dismissed, and the Connected M.P. was closed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1211
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against ITAT order, interpretation of India-France DTAA, applicability of tax treaty benefits.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed against the ITAT order dismissing the appellant's appeal related to the Assessment Year 2002-2003 under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. The main question was whether the slot charges are entitled to the benefit of the tax treaty between India and France.
3. The appeal was heard along with other appeals concerning tax treaties with the UK. The court dismissed the UK-related appeals, stating that the relevant provisions of the India-France Treaty and India-UK Treaty are similar.
4. The respondent, a French company operating ships in international traffic, claimed exemption under Article 9 of the India-France DTAA.
5. The Assessing Officer denied the benefit of the DTAA to the respondent.
6. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held the respondent to be entitled to the benefit of the DTAA.
7. The respondent arranged for the carriage of goods by sea from Indian ports to foreign ports using slot hire facilities.
8. The income from slot hire was a small portion of the total income earned by the respondent.
9. Article 9 of the India-France DTAA deals with the taxation of profits from the operation of ships in international traffic.
10. The court referred to a similar case involving the India-UK DTAA and held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Article 9(1) of the India-France DTAA.
11. Various arguments related to sections 44B, 115VB, and 172 were considered and covered in favor of the respondent.
12. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1210
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for unexplained share money and loans.
2. Examination of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions.
3. Status of the company as Private Limited or Limited.
4. Applicability of section 68 before the commencement of business.
Summary:
1. Deletion of Addition u/s 68:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs.1,04,73,000/- made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which included unexplained share money and loans. The AO had added Rs.79,22,000/- as unexplained share money and Rs.25,51,000/- as unexplained loans, totaling Rs.1,04,73,000/-.
2. Examination of Identity, Creditworthiness, and Genuineness:
The AO questioned the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The AO examined a few shareholders and found discrepancies in their capacity to invest. However, the CIT(A) noted that the shareholders and lenders were agriculturists with sufficient documentation to prove their identity and transactions. The CIT(A) found that the AO did not refute the evidence provided by the assessee, such as ration cards, Kisan Bahis, bank statements, and affidavits.
3. Status of the Company:
The Revenue argued about the company's status, suggesting it was not a Private Limited Company. However, the assessee clarified that it was initially a Private Limited Company converted into a Limited Company, and necessary filings were made with the ROC. The tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's submission.
4. Applicability of Section 68 Before Commencement of Business:
The assessee argued that the addition u/s 68 was unjustified as the company was in the formation stage and had not commenced business activities. The tribunal referred to the Apex Court's decision in CIT vs. Bharat Engineering & Construction Company, 83 ITR 187, which held that amounts received before the commencement of business could not be added as business income.
Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, confirming that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the addition u/s 68 was not sustainable based on the evidence provided and the legal precedents cited.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1209
Issues involved: The judgment involves the following issues:
1. Treatment of a business transaction amount as a loan by the Revenue.
2. Disallowance of travel expenses amounting to `Rs. 80,083.
3. Disallowance of electricity expenses amounting to `Rs. 85,319.
4. Addition of `Rs. 3,667 due to a difference in closing balance of receivables.
5. Adequate opportunity not given to the assessee by the Revenue.
Issue 1 - Treatment of business transaction amount as a loan:
The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that an amount advanced by the assessee to M/s Jamuna Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was treated as a loan under sec. 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The AO did not accept the claim that the transaction was a business transaction, leading to the addition of the amount as a loan.
Issue 2 - Disallowance of travel expenses:
The AO disallowed travel expenses of `Rs. 80,083 incurred by Ms. Cristina Patnaik for finding new products for M/s Heritage Resorts, as it was unrelated to the business of the assessee, resulting in the disallowance of the amount.
Issue 3 - Disallowance of electricity expenses:
The AO disallowed electricity expenses of `Rs. 85,319 attributable to premises sublet to other parties, along with `Rs. 3,667 due to non-reconciliation of closing balances with Heritage Resort Pvt. Ltd., leading to the total disallowance.
Issue 4 - Addition due to difference in closing balance:
An addition of `Rs. 3,667 was made by the Revenue due to a discrepancy in the closing balance of receivables from Heritage Resort Pvt. Ltd., as per the books of the assessee and the said company.
Issue 5 - Adequate opportunity not given to the assessee:
The ld. CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO as the assessee did not appear during the appeal process despite multiple notices, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The lack of evidence to substantiate claims led to the upholding of additions by the Revenue.
The judgment highlighted the importance of passing reasoned orders by quasi-judicial bodies, emphasizing the need for clarity, application of mind, and adherence to the rule of law. The requirement of recording reasons and communication thereof was deemed essential for fair procedures. The decision underscored the significance of passing speaking orders, especially when dealing with issues raised in appeals. Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, ensuring a speaking order with sufficient opportunity for both parties. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with no additional grounds presented or arguments made before the Tribunal.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1208
Issues involved: Transfer pricing adjustments, depreciation rate on UPS, disallowance of expenses for non-deduction of TDS.
Transfer Pricing Adjustments: The Dispute Resolution Panel confirmed adjustments under section 92CA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, totaling Rs. 421,00,000 out of proposed adjustments of Rs. 44,200,000. The appellant contended that the TP adjustment was not valid as the international transactions were at arm's length based on the Transactional Net Margin Method. The appellant argued that the advertisement and marketing expenses were for product promotion, not just brand promotion. The Tribunal set aside the issue for the Assessing Officer to decide afresh.
Depreciation Rate on UPS: The Assessing Officer erred in reducing the depreciation rate on UPS from 60% to 15%, considering it as Plant and Machinery. The appellant argued that UPS is an integral part of the computer system and should be eligible for higher depreciation. The Tribunal allowed this ground of the appellant based on previous rulings.
Disallowance of Expenses for Non-deduction of TDS: The Assessing Officer disallowed expenses of Rs. 293,379 for non-deduction of TDS on traveling expenses reimbursed to Luxottica S.r.L Italy. The appellant argued that there is no TDS requirement on reimbursement of expenses. The Tribunal allowed this ground of the appellant.
Conclusion: The Tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the TP adjustment issue for fresh consideration, allowing higher depreciation rate on UPS, and accepting the non-deduction of TDS on reimbursed expenses.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1207
Here are the key points from the Supreme Court's judgment in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack case:
I. Conviction and Sentence of Mohammad Ajmal Amir Kasab (Appellant)
- The court upheld Kasab's conviction on charges of waging war against India, murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, and offences under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, Explosives Act, etc.
- The court confirmed the death sentence awarded to Kasab by the trial court and High Court.
II. Acquittal of Fahim Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed (Accused 2 & 3)
- The court upheld their acquittal by the trial court and High Court, finding the evidence against them unworthy of reliance.
III. Key Findings
- The terror attacks were part of a larger conspiracy hatched in Pakistan. The perpetrators were Pakistani nationals trained by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.
- Kasab's confession and other evidence conclusively proved his role and involvement in the larger conspiracy.
- The intercepted phone conversations between terrorists and their Pakistani handlers provided clinching evidence of the conspiracy.
IV. Rights of the Accused
- The court held that Kasab's constitutional rights, including access to legal aid, were not violated during the investigation and trial.
- It laid down guidelines for providing legal aid to accused persons at the earliest stage after arrest.
V. Death Penalty
- The court found this to be a rarest of rare case deserving the death penalty, given the magnitude, brutality and impact of the terror attacks.
The court dismissed Kasab's appeal and confirmed his death sentence, while upholding the acquittal of the two Indian nationals for lack of reliable evidence against them.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1206
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of Rs. 17,08,933/- on account of labour charges paid without deduction of tax at source.
2. Rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,73,861/- by applying net profit @ 12% of total receipts.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,04,948/- on account of raw material and work in progress.
Summary:
Issue 1: Disallowance of Rs. 17,08,933/- on account of labour charges paid without deduction of tax at source
The assessee's appeal against the disallowance of Rs. 17,08,933/- was based on the application of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Assessing Officer. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed this disallowance. However, the Tribunal referred to the Special Bench decision in ACIT Vs. Merilyn Shipping & Transports [136 ITD 23 (SB) (Vishakhapatnam)], which stated that no disallowance is warranted u/s 40(a)(ia) if the amounts were paid during the year and nothing was payable at the close of the year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim and, if the amounts were indeed paid during the year, no disallowance should be made. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Issue 2: Rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer
The Revenue's appeal contested the CIT (Appeals)'s decision to hold that the rejection of books of account by the Assessing Officer was not in order. The Tribunal noted various discrepancies highlighted by the Assessing Officer, including unverifiable vouchers, non-maintenance of muster rolls, discrepancies in the Balance Sheet, and others. The Tribunal found merit in the Assessing Officer's rejection of the books of account u/s 145 of the Act and reversed the CIT (Appeals)'s order, upholding the rejection of the books of account.
Issue 3: Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,73,861/- by applying net profit @ 12% of total receipts
The Tribunal found no merit in the Assessing Officer's application of a 12% net profit rate to determine the income. Instead, it referred to the Tribunal's decision in Shri Sukhwinder Singh Vs. ITO, where a net profit rate of 6% was applied. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to apply a 6% net profit rate to the gross receipts of Rs. 97,82,181/- to determine the income. The Revenue's appeal on this ground was partly allowed.
Issue 4: Deletion of addition of Rs. 8,04,948/- on account of raw material and work in progress
The Revenue's appeal against the deletion of Rs. 8,04,948/- was based on the Assessing Officer's observation that the amount was missing in the trading account. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition, noting that the closing work in progress was already accounted for in the total works cost, thus avoiding double addition. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal on this ground and dismissed it.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 582/Chd/2011 was allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 606/Chd/2011 was partly allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on August 28, 2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1205
Issues involved: Revision filed against tribunal's order considering outward freight as part of turnover for assessment year 2009-10.
Details of the judgment:
The revisionist entered into two contracts with the railways - part A for supply of stone ballast and part B for transportation. The rates for both parts were separate and distinct, argued by the revisionist's counsel. The goods' price and transportation charges were separately identifiable, forming part of turnover, as per the counsel.
The counsel relied on the definition of "turnover" in U.P. Trade Tax Act, specifically referring to Explanation II (i) which excludes cost of freight or delivery when separately charged. A previous court decision, M/s. Aruna Trading Company versus C.S.T., supported the separation of transportation costs from turnover when agreed upon separately.
The tribunal's reliance on India Meters Limited versus State of Tamilnadu was contested, as it pertained to different tax rules. The court directed the tribunal to re-decide the case, focusing on whether the prices in the contracts were actually paid by the railways. The tribunal was instructed to allow the revisionist an opportunity to present evidence and decide the matter within three months.
In conclusion, the impugned tribunal order was set aside, and the revision was allowed with no costs incurred.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1204
Issues involved: Questioning order of conviction and sentence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Summary:
1. The appellant challenged the order of conviction and sentence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending that the necessary ingredients for establishing the offence were not proven by the respondent-complainant. The defense of the accused was not correctly appreciated, leading to a plea for interference due to the perceived perversity in the judgments.
2. The respondent argued that the issuance of the cheque in question was not disputed, and after its return by the bank, a demand was made for payment which was not fulfilled, resulting in the filing of the complaint. The evidence presented, including witness testimony and various exhibits, supported the guilt of the accused as found by the Magistrate and upheld by the appellate court. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts warranted no interference.
3. Upon reviewing the record, the key consideration was whether the lower courts were justified in holding the petitioner guilty of the offence u/s 138 of the Act.
4. It was established that the petitioner had entered into an agreement with the respondent, issuing cheques towards refund which were subsequently returned. Despite a demand notice and a reply seeking time for payment, the amount remained unpaid, leading to the filing of the complaint under the relevant sections.
5. The complainant's deposition as PW-1 supported the claim made based on the cheques and related documents. The court, following the presumption that the cheque was issued for a debt, found the accused's defense to be improbable and inconsistent. With the failure to rebut the presumption, the Magistrate's finding of guilt u/s 138 of the Act was deemed justified, with no errors in the appreciation of evidence noted. The petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner time to deposit the fine, failing which custodial sentence would be enforced, and the deposited amount in the Trial Court would be released to the complainant.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1203
Issues Involved: Challenge to the maintainability of the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Maintainability of the order u/s 263 of the Act
The assessee challenged the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, primarily concerning the disallowance of interest expenditure. The ld. CIT contended that interest funds were diverted for non-business purposes, citing the decision in the case of CIT V. Abhishek Industries. The assessee argued that surplus funds were available from sister concerns, thus interest disallowance was not warranted. Reference was made to the decision in CIT V. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd. The ld. CIT disagreed, emphasizing a credit balance from associate concerns was not in cash but goods. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was cited. The assessee presented evidence of credit balances from sister concerns, asserting that the Assessing Officer had not erred in his view, as per the decision in CIT V. Max India Ltd.
Issue 2: Proper Enquiries by Assessing Officer
The ld. DR for the revenue contended that the Assessing Officer's lack of enquiry rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that proper enquiries were made and credit balances from sister concerns were sufficient to justify the interest expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer's view was valid, as supported by the decision in CIT V. Max India Ltd.
Conclusion:
After careful consideration, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and quashing the order passed u/s 263 of the Act. The decision was pronounced on 30.08.2012.
........
|
9911796707
