|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 1244 Records
-
2013 (7) TMI 1128
Issues involved: Petition filed u/s 482 of CrPC for quashing FIR u/s 42/45(12) of Prisons Act, 1894 and u/s 540 of IPC.
Quashing of FIR under Section 482 of CrPC: The petitioner argued that carrying a mobile phone in jail was not an offense as it did not fall within the definition of prohibited articles. However, the State counsel contended that u/s 42 of the Act, communicating with any prisoner is punishable. The petitioner was found with a mobile phone and charger hidden in his turban and shoe, indicating an attempt to communicate with a prisoner. Charges were framed, and the court held that no grounds for quashing the FIR were established at this stage, allowing the petitioner to raise defenses during trial. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1127
Issues involved: Challenge to order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on substantial questions of law related to addition/disallowance under section 14A and deduction under section 80-HHC.
The High Court dismissed the appeal after considering the arguments presented by both parties. The first substantial question of law regarding the addition/disallowance under section 14A was answered against the revenue in a previous case. The second substantial question of law concerning the deduction under section 80-HHC was answered in favor of the assessee by the Supreme Court in another case. Despite attempts to distinguish the judgments, the revenue failed to show any difference in the questions of law already decided in the mentioned appeals. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the precedents set by the previous judgments.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1126
The Supreme Court of India granted leave in Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2007. The judges were Mr. Anil R. Dave and Mr. A.K Sikri. Petitioner's advocates were Mr. Rajiv Agnihotri, Mr. Praveen Kumar, and Ms. Sunaina Kumar.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1125
Issues involved: Whether the Appellate Tribunal ITAT KOLKATA was justified in directing the AO to tax the gross receipt including the disclosed and undisclosed receipt at the net rate of 10%.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the decision of the ld. CIT(A) directing the AO to tax the gross receipt, including disclosed and undisclosed receipts, at a net rate of 10%. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been addressed in the assessee's case for A.Yr. 2004-05, where the Tribunal had directed the taxation of 10% of undisclosed and disclosed receipts. The ld. CIT(A) in the current case also restricted the addition in the assessee's hand to 10% of such receipts. The Revenue contended that the taxation of net profit alone at a high figure was not justified, leading the assessee to file a Cross Objection.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the issue was indeed covered by its decision in the assessee's case for A.Yr. 2004-05. The Tribunal had previously upheld the taxation at 10%, which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in the current case. The facts considered by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) were in line with the Tribunal's decision for A.Yr. 2004-05. The Cross Objection filed by the assessee was dismissed as the income was deemed taxable at 10%. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the submissions of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection.
Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the ld. CIT(A), resulting in the dismissal of both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection. The appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection of the assessee were both dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1124
Issues involved: Determination of the genuineness of gifts claimed by husband and wife assessees, appeal dismissal due to non-appearance, recall of order, assessment of impugned cash credits, examination of nature and source of credits, reliance on judicial authorities, confirmation of addition by CIT(A), restoration of appeals for fresh hearing.
M.A. No. 22/Rjt/2013 (Arising out of order in ITA No.46/Rjt/2012): AY 2005-06
The appeal was initially disposed of ex-parte due to non-appearance, but upon filing a Miscellaneous Application (MA) citing a mistake in noting the hearing date, the order was recalled. The assessee claimed a gift received from a donor, supported by documents, but failed to satisfactorily explain the nature and source of the cash credit. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) found the gift to be not genuine based on various factors, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
ITA No. 46/Rjt/2012: AY 2005-06: Appeal by Smt. Alkaben M Rachchh
The assessee, a trader, claimed a gift in her books of account, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the gift. Despite submitting documents like a gift deed and bank certificate, the lack of personal relationship between the donor and donee, absence of occasions for the gift, and failure to produce the donor for examination led to the rejection of the claim. Both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) upheld the decision, considering the surrounding circumstances and past history of similar claims. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities' findings and dismissed the appeal.
M.A. No. 23/Rjt/2013 (Arising out of order in ITA Nos.44 & 45/Rjt/2012)
Similar to the previous case, the order in this matter was also recalled following the filing of a MA. The appeals were restored for fresh hearing and disposal, mirroring the decision in the related case of Smt Alkaben Mukeshbhai Rachchh.
ITA Nos.44 & 45/Rjt/2012: AY 2004-05/2005-06: Appeal by Mukeshbhai G Rachchh
The factual circumstances in the appeals filed by the husband were found to be identical to those of the wife's appeals. The Tribunal, after confirming the decision in the wife's case regarding the non-genuineness of the gift claim, dismissed the appeals filed by the husband as well. The order passed by the CIT(A) was upheld based on the consistent findings across both cases.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities in dismissing the appeals due to the lack of substantiated evidence supporting the claimed gifts, emphasizing the importance of establishing the genuineness of transactions in tax assessments.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1123
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Deduction u/s 80IB(10)
2. Completion Certificate Requirement
3. Commercial Area Exceeding Limit
Summary:
1. Eligibility for Deduction u/s 80IB(10):
The assessee, an AOP engaged in construction, claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) for profits from the "Sun Shree" project, which was denied by the Assessing Officer (AO) on grounds of non-fulfillment of conditions regarding commercial area and completion certificate. The CIT(A) accepted that the assessee had two separate projects (Project A and Project B) but upheld the AO's denial of deduction due to non-receipt of the completion certificate before the stipulated date and excess commercial area.
2. Completion Certificate Requirement:
The AO and CIT(A) denied the deduction citing the lack of a completion certificate from the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) before 31-03-2008. The assessee argued that the project was completed before this date, and the delay in obtaining the certificate was due to technical reasons beyond their control. The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tarnetar Corporation, which held that substantial compliance should be considered, and minor deviations should not vitiate the purpose of the deduction. It was established that the assessee had applied for the completion certificate on 04-04-2006, and the delay in issuance by PMC was not attributable to the assessee.
3. Commercial Area Exceeding Limit:
The AO and CIT(A) also denied the deduction because the commercial area exceeded the limit prescribed u/s 80IB(10). The Tribunal noted that the project was approved before 31-03-2005, and as per the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Brahma Associates and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Manan Corporation Vs ACIT, the amendment restricting commercial area to 5% or 2000 sq.ft. is prospective and not applicable to projects approved before this date. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction despite the commercial area exceeding the limit.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction u/s 80IB(10) for both Project A and Project B. The completion certificate issued on 31-03-2010 was deemed to relate back to the application date of 04-04-2006, and the commercial area restriction was not applicable retrospectively. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had substantially complied with the conditions and should not be penalized for delays beyond their control.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1122
Utilisation of Cenvat credit of Basic Excise Duty for discharge of Education Cess - Held that:- The issue is decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Madura Industries Textiles [2013 (1) TMI 352 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that the benefit of utilization of credit of basic excise duty for payment of education cess is to be allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1121
Issues Involved:
1. Age relaxation for disabled persons in employment.
2. Applicability of the Disabilities Act over State Government Orders.
3. Interpretation of statutory terms "may" and "shall".
4. Validity of State Government Orders in light of the Disabilities Act.
Summary:
1. Age Relaxation for Disabled Persons in Employment:
The primary issue revolves around the employment of the Appellant and Respondent No. 1 in the Group 'D' staff of a high school. The Appellant, who suffers from a 60% hearing disability, contended that he was entitled to age relaxation. However, the Respondent No. 1 challenged this on the grounds that the Appellant had crossed the permissible age limit for recruitment. The Court noted that the Disabilities Act does not explicitly mandate age relaxation for disabled persons, which is a lacuna in the legislation.
2. Applicability of the Disabilities Act over State Government Orders:
The Court emphasized that the Disabilities Act, which came into force on 7th February 1996, should override any State legislation or Rules that are irreconcilable or repugnant to it. Despite this, the Appellant could not benefit from the Act due to the absence of a mandatory provision for age relaxation.
3. Interpretation of Statutory Terms "May" and "Shall":
The Court discussed the interpretation of the terms "may" and "shall" in Section 38 of the Disabilities Act. It concluded that the term "may" confers discretion and is not mandatory, especially when used in close proximity to "shall". This interpretation led to the conclusion that age relaxation for disabled persons is not compulsory under the Disabilities Act.
4. Validity of State Government Orders in Light of the Disabilities Act:
The Court examined various Government Orders from West Bengal, which initially provided age relaxation for physically handicapped persons but later withdrew this benefit. The Court found that the deletion of age relaxation post-1st November 1999 was a retrograde action but legally valid since the Disabilities Act did not mandate such relaxation. Consequently, the Appellant could not claim age relaxation based on the existing legal framework.
Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the Appellant failed to disclose any legislation, rules, or orders that would support his claim for age relaxation. The interim orders were recalled, and the Appellant was directed to pay costs to Respondent No. 1.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1119
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Ld.CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2006-07.
Issue 1: Provisional liability for expenses outstanding
- The assessee claimed a provisional liability of &8377; 40,81,730 for material procured, sales commission, electric stores, and repairs & maintenance.
- Ld.AO disallowed the claim as the assessee admitted non-payment of the liability.
- Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition based on the mercantile system of accounting and past acceptance by Revenue.
- The Ld.D.R. argued lack of crystallization of the expenditure during the year.
- The Ld.Counsel for the assessee emphasized the acceptance of similar claims in the past.
- Tribunal upheld the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision for consistency, as liabilities were discharged in the subsequent year.
- Ground dismissed in favor of the assessee.
Issue 2: Interest on late deposit of excise duty and trade tax
- First Appellate Authority allowed the interest payments based on a High Court decision.
- Tribunal found the payments compensatory in nature and hence allowable.
- No issues found with the decision.
- Revenue's appeal dismissed.
Judges: Shri A.D. Jain And Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, JJ.
This judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The first issue addressed in the judgment was the deletion of an addition of &8377; 40,81,730 claimed as provisional liability for various expenses by the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed this claim due to non-payment admitted by the assessee. However, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overturned this decision based on past acceptance and the mercantile system of accounting. The Tribunal upheld this decision citing consistency and the subsequent discharge of liabilities in the following year. Therefore, the ground was dismissed in favor of the assessee.
Moving on to the second issue, the Tribunal considered the allowability of interest on late deposits of excise duty and trade tax. The First Appellate Authority had allowed these payments, relying on a High Court decision. The Tribunal concurred, deeming the payments compensatory and hence permissible. No discrepancies were found in this decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 12th July, 2013, by Shri A.D. Jain And Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, JJ.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1118
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of block assessment without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time.
2. Scope of rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in Hotel Blue Moon.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Block Assessment Without Issuance of Notice u/s 143(2) Within Prescribed Time
The ITAT allowed the rectification application filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) against its earlier order dated 28.04.2006, holding that the completion of assessment u/s 158BC without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time was wholly without jurisdiction and void ab-initio. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon, which mandates the issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time for block assessments.
Issue 2: Scope of Rectification of Mistake u/s 254(2)
The revenue argued that the scope of rectification u/s 254(2) is limited and does not extend to upsetting the finality of orders. They contended that the rectification application was not maintainable based on the subsequent decision in Hotel Blue Moon, as it was not available at the time of the original order. However, the court held that a judicial decision acts retrospectively, and the ITAT was correct in applying the law as declared by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon.
Issue 3: Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in Hotel Blue Moon
The court emphasized that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon must be applied retrospectively. The ITAT's order dated 12.10.2010, which annulled the block assessment due to the failure to issue notice u/s 143(2) within the prescribed time, was in conformity with the Supreme Court's decision. The court dismissed the revenue's appeals, affirming that the required notice was not issued within the prescribed time, rendering the assessment void ab-initio.
Conclusion:
Both appeals (Nos. 347/2011 and 576/2011) were dismissed, confirming that the block assessment without timely notice u/s 143(2) was invalid, and the ITAT's rectification was justified under the law declared by the Supreme Court in Hotel Blue Moon.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1117
Maintainability of application for winding up the company on default of paying debts - applicability of limitation act - the petition is for winding up the Company on the ground that the Company is unable to pay its debts. The agreement was signed by the lenders, the Company as well as two personal guarantors, a Director of the Company, was one. The loan was for a period of three months. By orders of this Court Sarla Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., one of the present petitioners. On 28.11.2011, the petition for winding up the company was filed in this Court.
HELD THAT:- The Company Petition is held maintainable. As, the orders of this Court under which the amalgamation was sanctioned were filed by the petitioners, accompanied by an affidavit of the authorised signatory of petitioner no. 1. The Registrar of Companies was also duly intimated about the amalgamation in the prescribed form which was acknowledged and the merger was approved by him. The present petition was filed on 28.11.2011 after the amalgamation. the amount borrowed from Surabhi Sindhu, the Company had repaid and the balance of was transferred to the "share application money account". The shares, however, have not been allotted. The balance sheet was signed by the Directors as well as the Chartered Accountants on 1.9.2010 and if this date is taken as the date of acknowledgment of the debt, as it ought to be in the light of the settled legal position in this behalf, the period of limitation gets extended up to 31.08.2013.
Petitioners are entitled to costs of ₹ 25,000/- from the respondent-company.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1116
Issues involved: Interpretation of the definition of 'urban land' u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and the applicability of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in determining the tax liability of agricultural lands.
Summary:
1. The petitioner, owner of agricultural land, filed a return for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming exemption from wealth tax based on the exclusion of agricultural lands from the definition of 'urban land' u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The respondent Wealth Tax Officer disagreed, citing the possibility of converting the land for urbanization purposes. The assessment order was challenged in a writ petition.
2. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, restricts construction on agricultural lands unless permitted u/r Section 95, which allows diversion of land use from agriculture to non-agriculture with Deputy Commissioner's approval. Without such permission, the land retains its agricultural classification and is not liable for wealth tax as 'urban land'.
3. The Court found the respondent's conclusion erroneous as the petitioner's ability to convert the land did not automatically classify it as 'urban land' for wealth tax purposes. The decision was deemed flawed and required intervention.
4. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the assessment order that classified the agricultural land as 'urban land' for wealth tax. The matter was remitted to the respondent for reevaluation excluding the agricultural land from taxation consideration.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1115
Termination of service - temporary government servant - removed without holding any inquiry - advertisement published for the 250 posts of Constables - appointment by misrepresentation - involved in a criminal case - concealment of fact while giving information in regard to clause 4 and clause 7 of Proforma of Affidavit - HELD THAT:- We do not find any force in the submission made by Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that the clause 4 and 7 have to be read together and such information was required to be furnished only and only if the person faced the trial and not otherwise.
It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.”
In the instant case, the High Court has placed reliance on the Govt. Order, relating to verification of the character of a Government servant, upon first appointment, wherein the individual is required to furnish information about criminal antecedents of the new appointees and if the incumbent is found to have made a false statement in this regard, he is liable to be discharged forthwith without prejudice to any other action as may be considered necessary by the competent authority.
The purpose of seeking such information is not to find out the nature or gravity of the offence or the ultimate result of a criminal case, rather such information is sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the job seeker or suitability to continue in service. Withholding such material information or making false representation itself amounts to moral turpitude and is a separate and distinct matter altogether than what is involved in the criminal case.
The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide: Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav [1996 (3) TMI 472 - SUPREME COURT] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.,[2000 (5) TMI 1045 - SUPREME COURT].
The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant suppressed material information sought by the employer as to whether he had ever been involved in a criminal case. Suppression of material information sought by the employer or furnishing false information itself amounts to moral turpitude and is separate and distinct from the involvement in a criminal case.
Thus, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1114
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
2. Absolute privilege in civil proceedings.
3. Limitation period for filing the suit.
Summary:
Issue 1: Rejection of plaint u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPC
The Defendant sought rejection of the plaint on the grounds that it did not give rise to any cause of action. The Plaintiff had filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 25 lakhs for defamation, based on statements made by the Defendant during a previous civil suit. The Court concluded that the plaint failed to disclose any cause of action to support the present suit for libel and defamation against the Defendant. Consequently, the Defendant's application u/r Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed, and the plaint was rejected with costs of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the Plaintiff.
Issue 2: Absolute privilege in civil proceedings
The Defendant argued that statements made by witnesses in civil proceedings are protected by 'absolute privilege' and thus no defamation case can be made out. The Court referred to Section 132 of the Evidence Act and various precedents, including K. Daniel v. T. Hymavathy Amma and Kamalini Manmade v. Union of India, to affirm that the common law rule of absolute privilege applies to civil actions for defamation in India. The Court noted that the statements made by the Defendant were relevant to the context of the previous suit and were made in his official capacity, thus protected by absolute privilege.
Issue 3: Limitation period for filing the suit
The Plaintiff contended that a fresh cause of action arose when the trial court pronounced its judgment on 26th July 2010, including the Defendant's statements. The Court, however, held that the limitation period began when the statements were made during cross-examination in 2005. Since the suit was filed more than five years after the alleged defamatory statements, it was barred by limitation. The Court emphasized that the Defendant's statements were not relied upon to decide the previous case, and no fresh cause of action arose at the time of judgment pronouncement.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1113
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of directors who resigned before the issuance of cheques.
2. Applicability of Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Admissibility and relevance of Form No.32 as evidence.
Summary:
Issue 1: Liability of Directors Who Resigned Before the Issuance of Cheques
The petitioners, accused 4 to 7, sought to quash the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.1290, 1292, and 1293 of 2007, arguing that they had resigned from their directorships of the first accused Company before the alleged transactions and issuance of cheques. The court noted that the certified copies of Form No.32, issued by the Registrar of Companies, confirmed their resignation dates as 03.01.2007, 15.11.2003, 31.10.1999, and 31.12.2003, respectively. The court held that the petitioners could not be held responsible for the cheques issued on various dates in May and July 2007, as they were not in charge of the company at the relevant time.
Issue 2: Applicability of Sections 138, 141, and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The court examined Section 141(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which states that every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed shall be deemed guilty. The court emphasized that vicarious liability arises only if the person was responsible for the company's business at the time of the offence. Since the petitioners had resigned before the alleged transactions, they could not be held vicariously liable.
Issue 3: Admissibility and Relevance of Form No.32 as Evidence
The court considered the certified copies of Form No.32 as public documents under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These documents were deemed admissible and genuine, proving that the petitioners had resigned from their directorships before the alleged transactions. The court also referred to precedents, including K.K.Ahuja vs. V.K.Vora and Anita Malhotra vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council, which supported the petitioners' case.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners were not responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the time of the alleged offence. Therefore, the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.Nos.1290, 1292, and 1293 of 2007 were quashed in respect of the petitioners alone. The petitions were allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1112
Issues involved: Refund of service tax by insurance company to insured and intermediaries, verification of refund claims, adjustment of service tax liability, interpretation of Service Tax Rules.
Summary:
The case involved the appellant, an insurance company providing general insurance services through intermediaries like banks and insurance brokers. The appellant refunded service tax along with insurance premium to insured individuals who rejected policies, adjusting these amounts against their service tax liability as per Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Revenue raised concerns about the correctness of these adjustments for the period Oct. '09 to Sept. '10, leading to a Show Cause Notice and demand of Rs. 2,83,97,950/-, with Rs. 1,03,86,098/- related to refunds directly paid to insured and Rs. 1,80,11,854/- related to refunds paid through intermediaries.
In the case of refunds directly to insured, the Revenue disallowed the adjustments as the appellant failed to produce verification of Bank Reconciliation Statements and vouchers for 47 selected cases. The appellant explained the difficulty in tracing old vouchers due to the volume of records but later located them. For refunds through intermediaries, the appellant argued that credits in intermediary accounts constituted refunds, allowing for future premium and service tax payments. The Revenue contended that unless service tax was proven to be refunded to insured, adjustments under Rule 6(3) could not be allowed, expressing concerns about potential revenue loss.
The Tribunal, considering both arguments, disagreed with the Revenue's stance on intermediary refunds, stating that credited amounts were part of advance deposits available for future payments. The Tribunal emphasized that the Service Tax Rules did not mandate specific refund methods and remanded the matter for re-verification, following a previous order in a similar case. The Tribunal highlighted the need for evidence of revenue loss due to malpractices and directed disclosure of such evidence to the appellant for defense.
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remitting the case for de-novo adjudication in line with previous orders and ensuring the opportunity for the appellant to present a defense. The stay application and appeal were disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1111
The Supreme Court of India in 2013 (7) TMI 1111 - SC Order, heard counsel for both parties. Delay was condoned, notice issued on the prayer for interim relief, and leave granted. The case was tagged with C.A. No. 724/2013.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1110
Issues involved: Misappropriation of CENVAT credit on iron ore and coal, lack of corroborative evidence for receipt and consumption, disallowance of credit by the Commissioner, need for remand and fresh adjudication.
In the judgment, the Appellate Tribunal found that a significant portion of the demand for CENVAT credit was contested due to the lack of corroborative evidence regarding the receipt of iron ore and coal by the appellant. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant was ineligible for the credit as they failed to provide sufficient evidence, including discrepancies in the filing of RG 23 Part-I. The appellant's failure to submit ER-5 and ER-6 returns further hindered the verification of raw material consumption, leading to the disallowance of the credit.
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal determined that a remand was necessary in this case. They decided to waive the pre-deposit requirement and proceed with the appeal. The appellant's counsel informed the Tribunal that they now possess all necessary invoices and documents demonstrating the receipt of raw materials, both purchased independently and on behalf of another entity. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate for the original adjudicating authority to verify the voluminous documents provided by the appellant, leading to the decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a thorough examination of the evidence presented and granted the appellants a reasonable opportunity to present their case during the fresh adjudication process. It was clarified that all issues were to be reconsidered, ensuring a well-reasoned order is issued in accordance with the law.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1109
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Singapore regarding the tax treatment of gains on cancellation of Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts.
Issue 1: Interpretation of DTAA provisions
The Department filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) granting relief under Article 13 of India-Singapore DTAA to the assessee for gains on cancellation of Forward Foreign Exchange Contracts as 'Capital Gains'. The Department argued that the relief should be restricted to income remitted to Singapore, which was not shown to have been complied with in this case.
Comprehensive Details:
1. The assessee, an Investment Company incorporated in Singapore, claimed exemption under section 10(38) for capital gains on shares, stating they were not taxable in India under the DTAA.
2. The assessee also declared a loss on foreign exchange contracts, seeking to carry it forward as a capital loss for future years, consistent with treatment in preceding years.
3. The Assessing Officer disagreed, classifying the loss under 'other sources' due to a challenge by the department in the ITAT regarding the treatment in the preceding year.
4. The CIT(A) relied on previous orders and held the loss on foreign exchange contracts to be on a capital account, following the Mumbai Tribunal's judgment in a similar case.
5. The Department appealed to the ITAT, arguing against the capital treatment of the loss.
6. The Senior Counsel for the assessee highlighted that previous ITAT orders supported treating income from forward exchange contracts as capital gains, maintaining consistency in the treatment of such transactions.
7. The ITAT, considering the consistency in treatment and lack of contrary precedents, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, rejecting the Department's appeal.
8. The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, affirming the capital gains treatment for the loss on foreign exchange contracts.
This judgment clarifies the application of DTAA provisions in determining the tax treatment of specific types of income, emphasizing the importance of consistency in interpreting tax laws and judicial precedents.
-
2013 (7) TMI 1108
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed appeals against the Tribunal's judgment on profit estimation for the assessment year 2008-09. The Tribunal's discretion in estimating profit at 3% was upheld, based on individual case facts and previous decisions. No costs were awarded, and pending petitions were closed.
............
|
9911796707
