Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (12) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 1251 Records

• 2012 (12) TMI 1238
  
  Issues involved: Appeal by Revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot regarding the deletion of addition of Rs. 14,35,000/- made by the AO for disallowing expenditure incurred by the bank towards welfare of the members.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: The AO disallowed the expenditure of Rs. 14,35,000/- claimed by the Co-operative Bank for welfare activities of its members, stating it does not fall under expenses allowable u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was voluntary and not wholly and exclusively for business purposes.
  
  Decision 1: The ld. CIT(A) held that the welfare expenditure on members is essential for the business of the bank as members invest and borrow from the bank. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the expenditure was considered allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act as it appreciates the members' contribution and motivates their support to the bank.
  
  Issue 2: The Revenue contended that the expenditure should not be allowed as it was personal in nature and not directly related to the business activities of the Co-operative Bank.
  
  Decision 2: The Tribunal found that the expenditure on welfare activities for members is integral to the business purpose of the bank, as supported by the precedent set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in similar cases. The gifts and welfare activities for members were deemed as serving the business purpose, making them allowable u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  
  Final Decision: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the order of Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Rajkot, and confirming the allowance of the expenditure of Rs. 14,35,000/- for welfare activities of the members of the Co-operative Bank.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1237
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Addition u/s 68 for share application money.
  2. Ignoring submissions and evidence by CIT(A).
  3. Applicability of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
  4. Applicability of Lovely Export case.
  5. Right to amend grounds of appeal.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Addition u/s 68 for share application money:

  The assessee received share application money of Rs. 5,00,000/- from three companies: M/s Shimmer Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,00,000/-), M/s Onyx Exim & Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 1,00,000/-), and M/s Shivam Softech Ltd. (Rs. 2,00,000/-). The AO added this amount u/s 68, citing failure to establish the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions. The AO noted that the bank statements of these companies showed meager balances, and the directors were not produced for examination.

  2. Ignoring submissions and evidence by CIT(A):

  The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition, stating that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) emphasized that mere payment by account payee cheque does not make a transaction genuine. The CIT(A) relied on various case laws, including CIT v Durgaprasad More and ITO v K. Jayaraman, to support the decision.

  3. Applicability of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.:

  The assessee argued that the decision in CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. should apply, where the Supreme Court held that if the assessee provides full particulars of creditors, the onus shifts to the Revenue. However, the CIT(A) distinguished this case, noting that the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors.

  4. Applicability of Lovely Export case:

  The CIT(A) also distinguished the Lovely Export case, stating that it involved a public issue, whereas the present case involved private placement. The CIT(A) noted that in Lovely Export, the details were furnished to the AO, who failed to investigate further, whereas in the present case, the assessee did not provide sufficient details or produce the directors of the investing companies.

  5. Right to amend grounds of appeal:

  The assessee mentioned the right to make, add, delete, modify, or alter any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. However, no additional grounds were raised during the hearing.

  Conclusion:

  The appeal was dismissed as the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions related to the share application money. The CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the addition u/s 68 was found justified based on the evidence and case laws cited.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1236
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Depreciation on goodwill.
  2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on packing material expenses.
  
  Summary:
  
  Depreciation on Goodwill:

  The Department appealed against the deletion of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) had disallowed the depreciation claim on the grounds that goodwill is not a depreciable asset u/s 32(1)(ii). However, the CIT(A) allowed the depreciation following the ITAT Delhi Bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT vs. Smifs Securities Ltd., which held that goodwill falls under "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" in Explanation 3 to section 32(1). The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue had been settled by the Supreme Court and the valuation issue had been resolved in earlier years.

  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) for Non-Deduction of TDS on Packing Material Expenses:

  The AO disallowed the assessee's claim for packing material expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C, arguing that the packing material involved job work and required TDS deduction. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the expenses were for the purchase of packing material, which constituted a contract of sale, not a works contract. The CIT(A) relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in CIT vs. Deputy Chief Account Officer, Markfed, which held that the purchase of packing material, even if printed, is a contract of sale and not subject to section 194C. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the predominant object was the sale/purchase of goods, and the provisions of section 194C were not applicable.

  Conclusion:

  The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeals for all assessment years involved, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both issues.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1235
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to the legality and validity of the order of trial Court framing preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 16th December 2001.
  
  Comprehensive details of the judgment:
  
  1. The Petitioner filed a suit in 2011 for specific performance of an agreement dated 16th December 2001. The Respondent objected to the suit's maintainability on the ground of limitation by filing a say to the Petitioner's application for interim relief. The trial Court framed a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction under section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the State of Maharashtra. The Court's decision to frame the preliminary issue was upheld as it was deemed necessary in the circumstances of the case.
  
  2. The Petitioner relied on a decision of the Apex Court to argue against the framing of a preliminary issue in a suit for specific performance. However, the Court distinguished the cited case where both parties had agreed not to lead evidence on the preliminary issue. In the present case, no such agreement existed, and it is a settled position of law that parties are allowed to lead evidence in support of their contentions when deciding a preliminary issue. Therefore, the Court found the Apex Court decision inapplicable to the present case. The Court concluded that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner as both parties would have an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of maintainability before a final decision is made. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the trial Court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the writ petition was dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1234
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Award of interest on claims under the arbitration award.
  2. Interpretation of contractual clauses prohibiting interest payments.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Award of Interest on Claims

  The majority award dated October 10, 2010, addressed two claims and the interest thereon. Claim No.1 for reimbursement due to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates was partially allowed at Rs. 18,59,377/- against the prayed amount of Rs. 38,75,887/-. Claim No.2 related to the supply of Micro Silica, with Rs. 6,13,160/- awarded against the claimed Rs. 35,17,760/-. Interest was awarded at 10% per annum from the arbitration invocation date (October 9, 2007) until 60 days post-award, and thereafter at 18% per annum until payment.

  Issue 2: Interpretation of Contractual Clauses Prohibiting Interest Payments

  Objections u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, were filed by Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd., now THDC India Ltd., focusing solely on the interest awarded. The impugned order dated November 15, 2011, set aside the majority award concerning the interest awarded.

  Clauses 50 and 51 of the General Condition of Contract were scrutinized. Clause 50 prohibits interest on any guarantee or payments in arrears, while Clause 51 prohibits interest or damages for delayed payments due to disputes or omissions by the Engineer in charge.

  The majority arbitrators relied on the Supreme Court decision in Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta v. Engineers-De-Space-Age (1996) 1 SCC 516. However, the respondent cited subsequent Supreme Court decisions distinguishing this precedent, including Sayeed Ahmed & Co. v. State of U.P. (2009) 12 SCC 26 and UOI v. Saraswati Trading Agency (2009) 16 SCC 504.

  The learned Single Judge, referencing Sub Section 7 of Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, concluded that if a contract prohibits interest on claims, arbitrators cannot award pendente lite or future interest. Clause 50 was interpreted as applicable only to ascertainable sums, while Clause 51 was found to broadly prohibit interest on any unpaid amounts due to disputes or delays.

  The appellant argued that Clause 1.9 in State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra & Co. (1999) 1 SCC 63 is pari materia with Clause 51 of the instant contract. However, the respondent highlighted that similar clauses in another contract were interpreted by the Supreme Court in Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2012) 4 Arb.LR 88 (SC) as prohibiting interest.

  The court contrasted the clauses in the instant contract with those in Jai Prakash Associates' case, concluding that the latter's interpretation governs the instant contract. The rule of ejusdem generis was applied, affirming that the prohibition on interest extends to all types of claims, not just specific categories.

  Thus, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge's conclusion that the contractual clauses prohibit the award of interest on the claims.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1233
  
  Issues involved: Suit for recovery, application for attachment, failure to furnish security, legality of attachment order, compliance with Order XXXVIII Rule 5.
  
  Summary:
  The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 95,278/= and also applied for attachment of the property of the revision petitioner under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, alleging an attempt to alienate property to defeat creditors. The court directed the revision petitioner to furnish security, which was not done, leading to an order of attachment. The revision petitioner challenged this order.
  
  The revision petitioner argued that the court passed a conditional order without proper consideration, citing a judgment in support. The respondent contended that the court had discretion under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 and acted appropriately based on the affidavit. The court noted a serious error in ordering attachment without proper appreciation of the affidavit.
  
  Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted the need for a prima facie opinion before ordering attachment. It emphasized that the power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 is drastic and should not be used mechanically. The court found that the lower court erred in ordering attachment without forming a prima facie opinion and without considering the schedule of properties to be attached, which could adversely affect the business of the revision petitioner. The order of attachment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for further consideration.
  
  In conclusion, the civil revision petition was allowed, no costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1232
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the Trial Court's acquittal.
  2. Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence.
  3. Establishment of sexual intercourse and link between the accused and the crime.
  4. Reliance on the sole testimony of the victim.
  5. Harshness of the punishment awarded.
  
  Summary:
  
  Jurisdiction of the High Court:
  The appellant contended that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the well-reasoned acquittal of the Trial Court. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court can interfere with an acquittal if there is compelling rationale and cogent evidence ignored by the Trial Court. The High Court's interference was justified as the Trial Court had ignored material evidence and failed to appreciate the prosecution's case correctly.
  
  Contradictions between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
  The appellant argued that there was a serious conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence, creating doubt in the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court found no material contradiction between the medical and ocular evidence. The medical evidence indicated an attempt to rape, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of semen, which corroborated the victim's testimony.
  
  Establishment of Sexual Intercourse:
  The appellant claimed that no sexual intercourse occurred and no link was established between the accused and the crime. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence, including the victim's testimony, medical reports, and FSL findings, established that the accused committed rape. The presence of semen in the victim's private parts and on her clothes was sufficient to prove the offence.
  
  Reliance on Sole Testimony of the Victim:
  The appellant argued that the case was based solely on the victim's testimony, which was unreliable. The Supreme Court held that the victim's testimony was credible and trustworthy. The testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and evidence, making it sufficient to convict the accused. The Court emphasized that a victim's testimony in sexual assault cases holds significant weight.
  
  Harshness of the Punishment:
  The appellant contended that the punishment awarded was too harsh. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's sentence, which included rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 363 IPC and ten years u/s 376 IPC, along with fines. The Court found the punishment appropriate given the gravity of the offence.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment of conviction and sentence, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1231
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of addition on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09.
  2. Validity of additions based on statements and documents obtained during search and survey operations.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of Addition on Account of Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68
  
  The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of additions of Rs. 8.5 crore and Rs. 5 crore for assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, respectively, made on account of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the IT Act. The AO made these additions based on share application money received from companies deemed non-genuine. The AO relied on the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta, CA, recorded during a survey, where he admitted to providing bogus accommodation entries in the guise of share application money. The AO also considered entries in a black diary impounded during the survey, which allegedly pertained to the assessee.
  
  Issue 2: Validity of Additions Based on Statements and Documents Obtained During Search and Survey Operations
  
  The CIT(A) deleted the additions, noting that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The assessee submitted share application forms, bank statements, IT returns, balance sheets, share allotment certificates, and board resolutions of the share applicants. The CIT(A) observed that the AO did not point out any discrepancies in these documents. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO heavily relied on the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta, which was not confronted with the assessee, violating the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the entries in the black diary pertained to assessment year 2005-06 and not the years under consideration.
  
  The CIT(A) held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents, and the AO failed to bring any contrary evidence on record. The CIT(A) relied on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which held that if the share application money is received from alleged bogus shareholders whose names are given to the AO, the department is free to proceed against them, but the amount cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the assessee company.
  
  In conclusion, the CIT(A) deleted the additions, and the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeals. The ITAT emphasized that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the share application money and that the AO's reliance on the statement of Shri Aseem Gupta and the black diary was not justified.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1230
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Acceptance of book results and invocation of provisions of section 145(3).
  2. Deletion of disallowed expenses.
  3. Deletion of addition of interest income.
  4. Compliance with provisions of section 250(6).
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Acceptance of Book Results and Invocation of Section 145(3)
  The Assessing Officer (A.O.) invoked section 145(3) of the Act, rejecting the books of account on the grounds that the assessee did not produce proper bills/vouchers. However, the CIT(A) held that the invocation of section 145(3) was not lawful as the A.O. failed to point out any specific defects in the books of account. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that section 145(3) cannot be invoked merely on vague observations without identifying specific defects.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of Disallowed Expenses
  The A.O. made ad-hoc disallowances out of various expenses citing unverifiability. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that the A.O. did not provide specific reasons or point out inadmissible items. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that disallowances must be based on concrete evidence rather than arbitrary percentages.
  
  Issue 3: Deletion of Addition of Interest Income
  The A.O. added Rs.19,35,849/- as unexplained interest income based on AIR information. The CIT(A) deleted this addition after the assessee provided a satisfactory explanation and reconciliation of interest income. The Tribunal upheld this deletion, noting that the addition was based on incorrect information from the bank and not substantiated by the A.O. in the remand report.
  
  Issue 4: Compliance with Section 250(6)
  The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) ignored the provisions of section 250(6). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had duly considered the points raised by the A.O. and decided the issues point-wise, thus complying with section 250(6).
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed both appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s orders on all issues.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1229
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Grant of regular bail u/s 439 of CrPC.
  2. Allegations of bribery u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
  3. Consideration of voice recordings as evidence.
  4. Impact of the petitioner's personal circumstances on bail decision.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Grant of Regular Bail u/s 439 of CrPC:
  The petitioner sought regular bail pending trial under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail application was previously declined by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh.
  
  2. Allegations of Bribery u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
  The case involves allegations against the petitioner, a Superintendent of Police, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 1 lakh from the complainant, an Inspector/SHO. The complainant alleged that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5 lakhs, later reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs, for not harassing him and helping in a departmental inquiry. A trap was laid, and the petitioner was allegedly caught red-handed.
  
  3. Consideration of Voice Recordings as Evidence:
  The prosecution relied on voice recordings of conversations between the petitioner and the complainant, recorded in three phases: on the complainant's mobile, on two Soni Digital Voice Recorders at the pre-trap stage, and during the trap. The petitioner contended that the authenticity of these recordings is yet to be tested and cannot be appreciated at the bail stage. The petitioner also argued that the recovery of the bribe from the drawer in the camp office does not conclusively prove the bribe, suggesting possible tampering.
  
  4. Impact of the Petitioner's Personal Circumstances on Bail Decision:
  The petitioner highlighted the medical condition of his minor daughter, who requires regular treatment, as a ground for bail. The court considered the petitioner's argument that he is the only male member in the family who can accompany his daughter for treatment.
  
  Court's Decision:
  The court emphasized the principle that bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial and is not punitive. It noted that the petitioner, being a senior police officer, is unlikely to tamper with evidence, especially since the main evidence is in the form of voice recordings. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, which underscores the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence.
  
  Conclusion:
  The petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions, including furnishing bail bonds, not making any inducements or threats, remaining present at court hearings, surrendering his passport, and allowing the CBI to apply for modification/recalling of the order if conditions are violated. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1228
  
  The Bombay High Court ordered the respondents to return expired bank guarantees within two weeks and not to invoke the remaining guarantee, returning it to the petitioners upon expiry without renewal. The notice of motion was disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1227
  
  The Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave petition, as the commercial area developed by the respondent was less than 10% of the total area developed for housing.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1226
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Conviction and Sentence under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
  2. Legal sustainability of the conviction without framing charges under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code.
  3. Appropriateness of the High Court's handling of the appeal focusing solely on the sentence.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Conviction and Sentence under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code
  The Supreme Court reviewed the appeal against the High Court of Chattisgarh's judgment, which affirmed the appellant's conviction under Sections 147 and 327/149 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence from three years to one year for the second offence and maintained three months for the first offence, with both sentences to run concurrently. The case originated from an FIR lodged by Aarif Hussain, alleging that the accused demanded Rs. 500 for liquor, assaulted him, and took him to Awanti Vihar railway crossing. The trial court found the accused guilty of the mentioned offences and sentenced them accordingly.
  
  Issue 2: Legal Sustainability of the Conviction without Framing Charges under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code
  The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction under Section 327 was unsustainable as no charge was framed under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt was also highlighted. The respondent's counsel contended that framing a charge under Section 383 was not necessary for proving an offence under Section 327 and that the material on record sufficiently proved the offences.
  
  Issue 3: Appropriateness of the High Court's Handling of the Appeal Focusing Solely on the Sentence
  The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the legal sustainability of the conviction but only considered the quantum of the sentence based on the counsel's submission. The Court emphasized that an appeal against conviction requires the appellate court to examine the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. The Supreme Court cited precedents, including Dagadu v. State of Maharashtra and Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, to underline that the appellate court must provide reasons for its decisions and cannot rely solely on plea bargaining or concessions by counsel.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court failed to satisfy its conscience and accepted the counsel's concession in a routine manner, which is impermissible in law. The Court emphasized the duty of the appellate court to decide appeals on merits and not merely on concessions regarding the sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remitted the case to the High Court for a decision on merits in accordance with the law. The appellants were ordered to be released on bail pending the final decision in the appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1225
  
  Issues involved: Cross appeals by Revenue and assessee regarding interest on NCDC loan under sec.43B and set off of brought forward losses under sec.72 and sec.80P.
  
  Issue 1 - Interest on NCDC loan under sec.43B:
  The Revenue contended that interest on NCDC loan is hit by sec.43B as it was not paid before the due date. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) found that the loan was from the Government of Tamilnadu, not NCDC, and thus not covered by sec.43B. The Tribunal noted the loan was availed from the Government of Tamilnadu, not NCDC, as per Government approvals. The privity of contract was between the assessee and the Government of Tamilnadu, making any amount payable to the Government not hit by sec.43B. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee.
  
  Issue 2 - Set off of brought forward losses under sec.72 and sec.80P:
  The assessee argued that brought forward losses should be set off against business profits under sec.72, not against gross total income. The assessing authority's method of adding income from other sources to business income affected the claim of deduction under sec.80P. The Tribunal disagreed with the method followed, stating that sec.80P should be applied first to reduce income from other sources before considering set off of business losses against business profits. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the assessment accordingly. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee succeeded.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the correct application of sec.43B for interest on NCDC loan and sec.80P for set off of brought forward losses. The orders were pronounced on December 14, 2012, at Chennai.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1224
  
  Issues involved: Interpretation of provisions u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society engaged in banking activities and providing credit facilities to members and non-members.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Eligibility for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & 80P(2)(a)(iv)
  The Appellate Tribunal considered the case of a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society engaged in banking activities and providing credit facilities to members and non-members. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the society had declared a net profit and claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO required the society to bifurcate income and expenditure related to members and non-members to restrict the deduction claimed u/s 80P. The society argued that it provided credit facilities to members only and accepted deposits from non-members as part of banking activities. The AO concluded that accepting deposits from non-members made the society ineligible for 100% deduction u/s 80P. However, the CIT(A) allowed the deduction, stating that the society provided credit facilities and supplies only to its members, and deposits from non-members did not affect the revenue generated for members. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the source of funds utilized for income generation should not impact the eligibility for deduction u/s 80P.
  
  Issue 2: Interpretation of business activities under Section 80P
  The Tribunal clarified that the business of banking for a cooperative society is not restricted to activities with members only, as there is no such limitation under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The direct source of income for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iv) is from providing credit facilities to members or selling agricultural products to members. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order based on the understanding that income generation for deduction purposes is linked to activities benefiting members, regardless of the source of funds.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal, affirming the eligibility of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) & 80P(2)(a)(iv) based on the nature of business activities benefiting members, irrespective of the source of funds utilized.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1223
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against disallowances of staff salary and service tax made by Assessing Officer and sustained by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
  
  Staff Salary Disallowance:
  The assessee, a firm of CAs, filed its return declaring income for AY 2006-07. The Assessing Officer disallowed 60% of staff salary claimed as an expense, citing excessive payment to a partner's wife and lack of evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance. The ITAT observed that the assessee provided evidence of salary genuineness, including employee affidavits and employee examination. Notably, S.40A(2)(b) was not invoked. The ITAT found the adhoc disallowance unjustified, as the assessee substantiated staff salary expenses adequately. The ITAT allowed this ground of the assessee.
  
  Service Tax Disallowance:
  The Assessing Officer disallowed 100% of service tax paid without verification, which was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the ITAT noted that the assessee presented challans as evidence of service tax payment. The ITAT criticized the lack of verification by the authorities and deemed the payment evidenced by challans to be legitimate. Consequently, the ITAT allowed this ground of the assessee.
  
  In conclusion, the ITAT, in the appeal against disallowances of staff salary and service tax, ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. The ITAT found the disallowances to be unjustified and lacking proper verification, thereby allowing both grounds of appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1222
  
  The High Court of Punjab and Haryana suggested mediation in the case, to be conducted by the Ex-chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes along with an expert mediator. The matter was adjourned to 31.01.2013 to give the parties time to seek instructions.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1221
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Maintainability of the Complaints.
  2. Rebuttal of the Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act.
  3. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability.
  4. Filing of Multiple Complaints in Different Jurisdictions.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Maintainability of the Complaints:
  The first issue was whether the Complaints were maintainable. The learned Magistrates held that the Complaints were not maintainable as there was no averment in the Complaint that accused nos. 2 and 3 were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the partnership firm's business. The Complainant's counsel argued that the dismissal was erroneous, citing "S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another" [(2005) 8 SCC 89], which states that the signatory of the cheque can be proceeded against. The court concluded that the Complaints could proceed against accused nos. 1 and 3 but not against accused no. 2 due to missing averments.
  
  2. Rebuttal of the Presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act:
  The next issue was whether the accused had rebutted the presumption arising out of Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The Complainant argued that the presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, citing "Rangappa V. Mohan" (AIR 2010 SC 1898). The accused contended that the accounts were not finalized and the cheques were issued under pressure as security, not for an existing debt. The court found that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption by showing that the accounts were disputed and not finalized, thus shifting the burden back to the Complainant.
  
  3. Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability:
  The court examined whether the debt or liability existed on the date the cheques were issued. The Complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- including interest, but the accused argued that the actual liability was much less and disputed. The court noted discrepancies in the Complainant's evidence and found that the accounts were not settled, and the debt was not ascertained. The court concluded that the Complainant failed to prove the existence of the claimed consideration beyond reasonable doubt.
  
  4. Filing of Multiple Complaints in Different Jurisdictions:
  The Complainant filed one case in Panaji Court and four separate cases in Ponda Court for the same transaction. The court referred to "Damodar S. Prabhu V/s Sayed Babalal H" [2010 (2) BCR (Cri) 257], which discourages filing multiple complaints in different jurisdictions. The court found this practice to cause harassment and prejudice to the accused.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed all the criminal appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the lower courts. The judgments were found to be in accordance with the settled principles of law, and no interference was warranted.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1220
  
  Issues involved: Appeal u/s 378(1) and (3) of CrPC against acquittal in S.C.No.678/2005 for offences u/s 364(A) r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Prosecution's case of kidnapping for ransom
  
  The prosecution alleged that accused persons kidnapped a minor boy for ransom, demanding Rs. 30,00,000 from the father and threatening to harm the child. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
  
  Details: The prosecution relied on evidence of witnesses and exhibits to prove the kidnapping and ransom demand. The Sessions Court found the evidence insufficient to establish guilt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
  
  Issue 2: Appeal against acquittal
  
  The State appealed the acquittal, arguing that the Sessions Court erred in disbelieving crucial evidence and not considering the testimony of key witnesses.
  
  Details: The State contended that the Sessions Court's reasoning for acquittal was flawed, especially regarding the evidence of the minor boy and the identification parade. The defense countered these arguments, asserting that the evidence was rightly disbelieved by the Sessions Court.
  
  Judgment:
  
  After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court considered whether the prosecution had proved the kidnapping beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court found that the evidence, including the minor boy's testimony and identification parade, was credible and supported the prosecution's case.
  
  The High Court upheld the Sessions Court's decision, noting that the prosecution witnesses did not sufficiently corroborate the case, leading to doubts about the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the appeal against the acquittal was dismissed.
  
  This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, highlighting the key issues, arguments, and the final decision of the High Court in the appeal against the acquittal in the mentioned case.

  ---

• 2012 (12) TMI 1219
  

  Quashing of order by HC - Entitlement for Profit of the Hotel business and its Ownership - False and fabricated Documents - In this case the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership.it was also alleged by the respondent, that false and fabricated documents was used by appellant suit claiming tenancy of the shop.

  HELD THAT:- While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. Therefore, The High Court has quashed the complaint as it discloses civil dispute and same has been filed by the Appellant making similar grievance and is pending.

  The entire proceedings of Criminal Case including false and fabricated documents are also quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law and the order passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is also set aside.

  ---

123456........ 63