|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 925 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 915
Issues involved: Adequacy of sentence imposed u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872.
The judgment pertains to a criminal revision application challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court on the respondent for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872. The respondent had borrowed a hand loan, and the cheque issued for repayment was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant demanded payment, but the respondent failed to comply, leading to the conviction. The trial court sentenced the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 and face imprisonment in default. The complainant argued that this sentence was inadequate, citing a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of proper sentencing in such cases.
The complainant contended that the unpaid amount covered by the dishonoured cheque justified a more substantial sentence than the one imposed by the trial court. The complainant highlighted the need to uphold the objectives of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1872, and referred to a Supreme Court case to support the argument for a stricter penalty. The complainant urged the court to correct the sentencing error through the criminal revision application.
The court examined the facts and submissions, noting the respondent's plea for leniency based on personal circumstances. The trial court had considered these factors and imposed a lenient sentence of Rs. 3,000 fine or two months' imprisonment. The complainant did not dispute the mitigating factors presented by the respondent, which influenced the trial court's decision. The court observed that the complainant's cordial relationship with the respondent also played a role in seeking a minimal sentence.
Considering the objectives of penal provisions for dishonour of cheques, the court emphasized the need for sentences that align with the legislative intent. The court highlighted the importance of cheque credibility and the assurance of payment to enhance trust in cheque usage. The court found that the trial court had overlooked these aspects in sentencing the respondent. Consequently, the court modified the sentence, ordering the respondent to pay a fine of Rs. 28,000, face four months' imprisonment in default, and directing Rs. 25,000 to be paid to the complainant upon fine realization. The court also canceled the respondent's bail bond and issued a warrant for the respondent's arrest, disposing of the criminal revision application accordingly.
-
2012 (6) TMI 914
Issues involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A) Durgapur for Assessment Year 2008-09; Confirmation of addition u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act.
Confirmation of addition u/s 40A(3) of the I.T. Act:
The AO added &8377; 31,34,142/- due to cash payments exceeding &8377; 20,000/- for fuel purchase, violating Sec.40A(3) provisions. The ld. CIT(A) upheld this, noting lack of bill numbers and non-acceptance of AR's arguments. Assessee contended payments were made through drivers acting as agents, falling under Rule 6DD(k) exemption. Tribunal found no individual bill exceeding &8377; 20,000/-, supporting assessee's explanation. Relying on Rule 6DD(k), the disallowance was deemed unsustainable, directing deletion of the amount from the assessee's income. The appeal was allowed, setting aside revenue authorities' orders.
-
2012 (6) TMI 913
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the entitlement for exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act and whether the activities of the assessee trust are attracted by the provisions of section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Entitlement for Exemption u/s.11 of the Income Tax Act:
The case involved a Jain Derasar Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim for exemption citing provisions of Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Act, alleging the activities of the Trust were limited to a particular Jain sect. The assessee contended that it was engaged in public charitable activities and had previously been allowed exemption under Section 11. The CIT(A) allowed a rectification application based on earlier Tribunal orders supporting the charitable nature of the trust's activities.
Activities of the Assessee Trust under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act:
The Tribunal relied on previous assessment years where the trust was considered a public charitable trust engaged in charitable activities beyond religious services. Citing the Supreme Court's observation in Chandra Charitable Trust case, the Tribunal emphasized that if a trust is engaged in charitable activities beyond religious services, it qualifies as a charitable trust and is not subject to Section 13(1)(b). The Tribunal found no reason to deny the trust the benefit of exemption under Section 11 for the assessment year in question, as the trust's character as a public charitable trust had been accepted in previous years.
Legal Precedent and Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's decision in Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT was referenced to highlight that when a fundamental aspect remains consistent across assessment years and is not challenged, it should not be changed in subsequent years. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the trust's entitlement to exemption under Section 11 was deemed appropriate, with no substantial question of law arising for consideration. Consequently, the Tax Appeal was dismissed by the High Court.
-
2012 (6) TMI 912
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA in relation to profits derived from Kakinada port, Jamnagar port, and Dahej port, despite not entering into agreements for operation and maintenance of infrastructure facilities with specified authorities.
Summary:
Issue 1: Eligibility for deduction u/s 80IA without agreements for operation and maintenance:
The appeal by the Revenue was against the order of the CIT(A) V, Hyderabad for the assessment year 2008-09. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the issue was covered by the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own cases for assessment years 2005-06 to 2007-08. The CIT(A) had held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under S.80IA for profits from Kakinada, Jamnagar, and Dahej ports. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders for those years, relying on earlier orders. The Tribunal clarified that the services rendered by the assessee are integral to the operation and maintenance of the port infrastructure, even if not the entire operation. The Tribunal also noted that the requirement of an agreement with specified authorities is not mandatory u/s 80IA(4). The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the benefit u/s 80IA is available for even a part of a project. Therefore, the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80IA was allowed for the assessment year 2008-09.
Issue 2: Deduction claimed in respect of Dahej Port:
Regarding the deduction claimed for Dahej Port, the Tribunal had previously held that the case fell outside the purview of section 80IA(4) as the operation and maintenance had commenced before 1.4.1999. However, the Tribunal allowed the claim to be considered u/s 33AC and set aside the matter to the assessing officer. The assessee submitted that a new contract had been entered into after 1.4.1999, making them eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. The Tribunal, consistent with its earlier decisions, allowed the claim u/s 80IA instead of u/s 33AC for Dahej Port.
Conclusion:
In line with the Tribunal's previous decisions and the interpretation of the provisions of section 80IA, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) regarding the deduction u/s 80IA and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s orders and upheld the same.
This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting tax laws in a manner that allows for the intended benefits to be availed by taxpayers, even in cases where strict compliance may not be met.
-
2012 (6) TMI 911
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order dated 9th April, 2012 by the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB).
2. Validity of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Determination of Network Tariff for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks and Compression Charge for CNG) Regulations, 2008.
3. Validity of Regulation 17(5) of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorizing Entities to Lay, Build, Operate or Expand City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2008.
4. Validity of Regulation 7 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Code of Practice for Quality of Service for City or Local Natural Gas Distribution Networks) Regulations, 2010.
5. Validity of the Scheme for Consumer Welfare Fund 2011.
6. Power of the PNGRB to fix network tariff and compression charges.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the order dated 9th April, 2012 by the PNGRB
The court examined the impugned order dated 9th April, 2012, where the PNGRB determined the Network Tariff and Compression Charges for CNG for the petitioner's Delhi City Gas Distribution Network and directed the petitioner to recover these charges separately through an invoice. The court found that the PNGRB Act does not confer any power on the Board to fix or regulate the maximum retail price at which gas is to be sold by entities to consumers. The court held that the Board is also not empowered to fix any component of Network Tariff or Compression Charge for an entity having its own distribution network. Thus, the order dated 9th April, 2012, to the extent it fixed the maximum retail price or required the petitioner to disclose the Network Tariff and Compression Charges to its consumers, was struck down and quashed.
Issue 2: Validity of the Tariff Regulations, 2008
The court noted that the PNGRB Act does not specifically provide the Board with the power to fix the price to be charged by a marketeer of gas from its consumers. The court emphasized that price fixation is a legislative function and must be expressly conferred by the statute. Since the PNGRB Act lacks such express provisions, any regulation empowering the Board to fix prices is beyond its competence and ultra vires the Act.
Issue 3: Validity of Regulation 17(5) of the Network Regulations, 2008
The court did not specifically address Regulation 17(5) in detail but implied that any provision in the regulations that empowers the Board to fix prices or tariffs beyond transportation rates is invalid.
Issue 4: Validity of Regulation 7 of the Quality Regulations, 2010
Similar to the Network Regulations, the court implied that any provision in the Quality Regulations that empowers the Board to fix prices or tariffs beyond transportation rates is beyond the Board's competence and invalid.
Issue 5: Validity of the Scheme for Consumer Welfare Fund 2011
The court did not specifically address the Scheme for Consumer Welfare Fund 2011 in detail but focused on the broader issue of the Board's power to fix prices, implying that any related provisions would also be invalid if they overstep the Board's statutory authority.
Issue 6: Power of the PNGRB to fix network tariff and compression charges
The court concluded that the PNGRB does not have the power to fix or regulate the maximum retail price of gas or any component of Network Tariff or Compression Charge for entities with their own distribution networks. The court emphasized that the Board's power is limited to regulating transportation rates for common carriers or contract carriers as provided in the PNGRB Act.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the PNGRB is not empowered to fix or regulate the maximum retail price of gas or any component of Network Tariff or Compression Charge for entities with their own distribution networks. The provisions of the regulations construed by the Board to empower it to fix prices were held to be illegal and the order dated 9th April, 2012, was struck down to the extent it fixed the maximum retail price or required the petitioner to disclose the Network Tariff and Compression Charges to its consumers.
-
2012 (6) TMI 910
Issues Involved:
1. Reopening of assessment u/s 147.
2. Denial of exemption u/s 11 due to lack of registration u/s 12A.
Summary:
Reopening of Assessment u/s 147:
The first issue raised by the assessee was that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have considered the reopening of the assessment as bad and against the principles of natural justice, as the reasons for reopening were not supplied until the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening of assessment u/s 147 to the assessee, referencing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO & Others [259 ITR 19]. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in accordance with the law, ensuring the assessee is provided with adequate opportunity to be heard.
Denial of Exemption u/s 11:
The second issue was the denial of exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee contended that it had been registered u/s 12A since 1973 and had been claiming exemptions accordingly. However, due to the loss of the registration certificate, the exemption was denied for the assessment year 2002-03. The Tribunal observed that the assessee trust had been filing returns and claiming exemptions under section 11 since 1973, which were accepted by the Department until the assessment year 2001-02. The Tribunal referenced a similar case, M/s. Sadras Venkatarama Chetty's Charities vs. DDIT(E), where it was held that the absence of a formal registration order under section 12A did not justify denying the exemption if the trust was recognized and assessed as a charitable trust in previous years.
The Tribunal noted that the provisions of section 12AA, which came into effect from 01.04.1997, required a written order for granting or refusing registration, but no such requirement existed under section 12A prior to this date. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have verified earlier records to ascertain the registration status of the trust before denying the exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter afresh, ensuring compliance with the law and providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination in accordance with the Tribunal's observations and legal provisions. The order was pronounced on Tuesday, the 12th of June, 2012, at Chennai.
-
2012 (6) TMI 909
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the property at Worli, Mumbai, owned by the assessee, falls within the definition of "assets" u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
2. Whether the property can be subjected to wealth tax for the assessment year 1996-97.
Summary:
Issue 1: Definition of "Assets" u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957
The core issue was whether the property at Worli, Mumbai, owned by the assessee, falls within the definition of "assets" u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Tribunal held that the property was a commercial asset and not a non-productive asset, thus it could not be valued as an asset under the Wealth Tax Act. The court noted that prior to 01.04.1997, the definition of "assets" did not include buildings used for commercial purposes. It was only with effect from 01.04.1997 that the words "commercial purposes" were inserted in clause (i) of section 2(ea) of the Act. Therefore, a building used for commercial purposes was not considered an asset under section 2(ea)(i) of the Act before this date.
Issue 2: Subjecting the Property to Wealth Tax for Assessment Year 1996-97
The assessee filed its return of wealth for the assessment year 1996-97, showing the value of the Worli property as Rs. 73,756/-. However, the Special Audit Report estimated its market value at Rs. 1,24,42,237/-. The assessment was reopened u/s 17 of the Act, and the market value was reassessed at Rs. 1,24,42,237/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this valuation, stating that the property was not a business asset and thus not exempt from wealth tax. However, the Tribunal found that the property, being a commercial asset, was outside the purview of "assets" as defined u/s 2(ea)(i) of the Act for the relevant assessment year. The court agreed with the Tribunal, stating that the property was a commercial property and not included in the definition of "assets" as it stood prior to 01.04.1997.
The court also referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in Maynak Poddar (HUF) Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, which held that buildings used for commercial purposes were not taxable under section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act until the amendment in 1997. The court concluded that the property in question was outside the purview of "assets" as defined u/s 2(ea)(i) of the Act and thus could not be subjected to wealth tax for the assessment year 1996-97.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the property at Worli, Mumbai, was not an "asset" u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment year 1996-97, and thus could not be subjected to wealth tax.
-
2012 (6) TMI 908
Issues involved: Appeal against addition u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act for treating amount received in normal course of business against remuneration/business expenses as deemed dividend.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(Appeals)-II, Surat, challenging the addition u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
2. The assessee received an amount of &8377; 3,33,550 from M/s. Foremost Finvest Pvt. Ltd. for advance to Director's remuneration and other expenses, which was later treated as a loan by the Assessing Officer.
3. The first appellate authority upheld the addition, considering the transaction as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, despite the explanation provided by the assessee.
4. The assessee contended that the amount received was against salary and trade advances, supported by relevant decisions such as CIT vs. Creative Dyg. & Printing (P) Ltd. and others.
5. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, citing various court decisions to support that the advance received was not in the nature of a loan but a business transaction, hence not falling under the definition of deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(e) of the Act.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal directed to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 907
Issues Involved:1. Whether the National Book Trust (NBT) is a "State" or "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of Writ PetitionThe learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that NBT is not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. This decision was based on the precedent set by the Division Bench in J.S. Shamim Vs. National Book Trust, which relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Chander Mohan Khanna Vs. NCERT. Issue 2: Validity of PrecedentThe appellant's counsel argued that the judgment in J.S. Shamim is no longer valid law due to the Constitution Bench judgment in Pradeep Kumar Biswas & Ors. Vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology & Ors., which overruled Chander Mohan Khanna. The Division Bench did not independently assess NBT's status and merely followed the Supreme Court's ruling on NCERT. Issue 3: Parameters for "State" under Article 12The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas established parameters to determine whether an entity is a "State" under Article 12. These include financial, functional, and administrative control by the government. The mere autonomy of a body, as held in Chander Mohan Khanna, is not sufficient to exclude it from being a "State". Issue 4: Application of Tests to NBTApplying the tests from Ajay Hasia and Pradeep Kumar Biswas, the court examined NBT's formation, objectives, and control mechanisms. NBT was established by a government resolution, receives significant funding from the government, and is subject to pervasive administrative control by the government, including appointment of its members and oversight of its functions. Issue 5: Deep and Pervasive ControlThe court found that the government exercises "deep and pervasive" control over NBT, from its creation to its functioning and financial management. This includes the appointment of the Chairman and other members, approval of regulations, and mandatory submission of reports to the government. Such control indicates that NBT is an instrumentality of the government. Issue 6: Implications for NBT EmployeesThe court dismissed concerns that declaring NBT a "State" would automatically entitle its employees to benefits available to government employees, clarifying that such employees are not governed by Article 309 of the Constitution. Conclusion:The court concluded that NBT is an "other authority" and thus a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the case was remitted for a decision on merits. The court appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. Ashish Mohan as Amicus Curiae.
-
2012 (6) TMI 906
Issues involved: The judgment involves appeals related to assessment years 1999-2000, 1997-98, 2000-01, and 2001-02 concerning the computation of profits earned from export business u/s 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
ITA 793 of 2006: The issue was whether conversion charges could be treated as income of the assessee from business and if such income should be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. The tribunal's decision was questioned.
ITA 794 of 2006: Similar to ITA 793, the question was whether conversion charges could be considered as part of eligible profit for deduction under section 80HHC of the Act. Additionally, it was debated if other income received by the assessee should be included in the computation of eligible profits.
ITA 795 of 2006: This appeal also focused on the treatment of conversion charges as income of the assessee from business and whether such charges should be excluded for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act.
ITA 796 of 2006: The issue in this appeal mirrored the previous ones, questioning the treatment of conversion charges as income of the assessee from business and their exclusion for the purpose of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act.
The Court clarified that the reference to Section 41(1) of the Act was unnecessary and reframed the common question for all appeals regarding the treatment of conversion charges for deduction under section 80HHC.
During the hearing, the revenue argued that previous court judgments supported their stance on the treatment of conversion charges, while the assessee's counsel referenced relevant case law to support their position.
The Court noted that the computation of profits for deduction under section 80HHC should consider conversion charges based on the law declared by the Supreme Court, necessitating a re-computation by the assessing officer.
Despite objections from the revenue, the Court held that conversion charges fell within the purview of Explanation(baa) to section 80HHC, requiring application of the Supreme Court's principles for computing such profits.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeals, overturned the tribunal's orders, and directed the assessing officer to recompute the deduction amount under section 80HHC by considering the profits attributable to conversion charges in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment.
-
2012 (6) TMI 905
Double murder - offence(s) Under Section 302/201 Indian Penal Code - Seeking further investigation - Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure and issuing process u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure - whether the Magistrate was justified in issuing the process to the Petitioner and her husband by her order dated 09.02.2011 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the High Court has not examined whether there were materials before the Magistrate to take a view that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioner and her husband, but while hearing the Review Petition, we have perused the relevant materials collected in the course of the investigation and we cannot hold that the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure was not a plausible view on the materials collected in course of investigation and placed before her along with the closure report.
As we have seen, Sub-section (1) of Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. provides that the Magistrate shall issue the process (summons or warrant) if in his opinion there was sufficient ground for proceeding and therefore so long as there are materials to support the opinion of the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the persons to whom the processes have been issued, the High Court in exercise of its revisional power will not interfere with the same only because it forms a different opinion on the same materials.
The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the order dated 09.02.2011 of the Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure. and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband u/s 204 Code of Criminal Procedure. could not have been interfered with by the High Court in the Revision filed by the Petitioner. Moreover, once the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the Petitioner and her husband was sustained, there is no scope for granting the relief of further investigation for the purpose of finding out whether someone other than the Petitioner and her husband had committed the offences in respect of the deceased persons Aarushi and/or Hemraj. As has been held by this Court in Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) [1996 (12) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT], once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence u/s 190 Code of Criminal Procedure., he cannot order of his own further investigation in the case u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure. but if subsequently the Sessions Court passes an order discharging the accused persons, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which may also result in submission of fresh charge-sheet.
Thus, I agree with my learned brother Khehar, J. that this Review Petition has no merit and should be dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 904
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT u/s 263 for AY 2007-08.
Details of the judgment:
1. The assessee, engaged in construction and maintenance of a golf course, held a lease for 235 acres of land from APIIC. The lease required the assessee to develop various facilities and pay lease rent based on gross annual revenue. Due to global recession, residential development plans were delayed. The assessee transferred its business to Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
2. The assessee reported a loss in its return after claiming depreciation. The Assessing Officer accepted the business had commenced and did not disallow certain expenses. However, the CIT u/s 263 found the AO's order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests, directing verification of depreciation claim, capitalization of expenses, treatment of prior period expenditure, and allowability of expenses without revenue receipts.
3. The assessee contended that even without revenue, the business had commenced as the infrastructure was in place. The CIT's revision was challenged, arguing that the AO's decision was correct based on the business setup. The DR supported the CIT's order.
4. The ITAT noted discrepancies in the assessee's income computation and upheld the CIT's order u/s 263. The CIT's application of a previous apex court judgment was deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT's decision.
5. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the CIT's order u/s 263.
-
2012 (6) TMI 903
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
2. Application and interpretation of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Cause of action and its implications on jurisdiction.
Summary:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The primary issue in this case is the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta to try the suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a holder of 1000 Equity shares in the defendant company, filed a suit for declaration of ownership over these shares, claiming non-receipt of the shares sent for transfer. The defendant company argued that the registered office is in Punjab, and therefore, the Calcutta court lacks jurisdiction. The court, however, found that the cause of action, including the non-receipt of shares and the plaintiff's residence, arose in Calcutta, thus conferring jurisdiction to the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
2. Application and Interpretation of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC:
The defendant company filed an application u/s Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, requesting the court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. The court considered the amended provision of Order 14 Rule 2, which allows the court to try an issue of law first if it relates to the jurisdiction of the court or a statutory bar to the suit. The court referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors., which held that mixed issues of law and fact cannot be tried as preliminary issues. Despite this, the court noted that the defendant company had invited the court to decide the jurisdiction issue first and thus could not later contest the court's decision.
3. Cause of Action and its Implications on Jurisdiction:
The court examined the concept of 'cause of action,' emphasizing that it consists of every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their right to judgment. The court cited several precedents, including Laxman Prasad vs. Prodigy Electronics Ltd. & Anr., which defined 'cause of action' as a right to sue. The court concluded that the cause of action in this case, including the plaintiff's purchase and non-receipt of shares at Calcutta, conferred jurisdiction on the City Civil Court at Calcutta. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the suit should be filed where the company's registered office is located, referencing the broader interpretation of 'cause of action' and the plaintiff's right to seek relief in Calcutta.
Conclusion:
The court found no infirmity in the order of the City Civil Court at Calcutta and dismissed the revisional application, affirming the court's territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The application of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC and the interpretation of 'cause of action' were pivotal in this decision. The revisional application failed, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 902
Issues Involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) regarding interest u/s 244A.
Summary:
The appellant contested the order of the CIT(A) which confirmed the Assessing Officer's decision to grant interest u/s 244A at a lower amount than claimed. The appellant argued that as per section 244A, interest on refund is due from the 1st day of April of the Assessment Year to the date of refund. The appellant cited the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Sandwik Asia Limited case and a favorable Chennai Tribunal ruling in a previous case. However, the CIT(A) upheld the decision based on the Wheels India Ltd case, stating that interest on interest is not applicable when refunds are granted promptly.
During the hearing, the appellant's representative acknowledged that the issue was unfavorable due to the Wheels India Ltd case. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions. The Tribunal noted the disparity between the amount claimed and granted as interest u/s 244A. The CIT(A) had based the decision on the Wheels India Ltd case, emphasizing that interest on interest is not applicable for prompt refunds. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, as the issue was deemed unfavorable to the appellant based on the Wheels India Ltd case.
Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal on the grounds related to interest u/s 244A.
(Order pronounced on Friday, the 29th of June, 2012, at Chennai.)
-
2012 (6) TMI 901
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the addition of expenses under three heads, namely Khadi, Labour, and Vehicle-fuel expenses, disallowance of house-hold expenses, and the charge of interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Khadi, Labour, and Vehicle-fuel expenses:
The assessee, engaged in civil contracting, contested the addition of expenses totaling &8377; 7,84,256, out of which &8377; 4,50,000 was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The disallowances were based on lack of proper bills for stone/khadi purchased, self-made vouchers for labour expenses, and vehicle fuel expenses. The Commissioner partially allowed the appeal, considering the nature of the business and the difficulty in procuring bills. The Appellate Tribunal decided to allow the full expenses claimed for khadi and sustained a disallowance of &8377; 1,00,000 for labour and vehicle fuel expenses to prevent revenue leakage.
House-hold expenses:
The Assessing Officer disallowed &8377; 48,000 for low house-hold withdrawals, considering family size and standard of living. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, suggesting that the household expenses were funded by undisclosed income. However, the Appellate Tribunal found no reasonable basis for the disallowance and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of &8377; 48,000, stating that no further addition was necessary.
Interest under section 234B:
The charge of interest under section 234B of the Act was deemed consequential and did not require further adjudication.
In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, with decisions made regarding the disallowance of expenses under different heads and the deletion of the addition for low house-hold expenses.
-
2012 (6) TMI 900
Issues Involved
1. Deletion of Addition u/s 69B of the IT Act.
2. Justification of the addition based on seized documents.
3. Validity of statements recorded during post-search inquiry.
4. Acceptance of additional supporting evidence.
Summary of Judgment
Issue 1: Deletion of Addition u/s 69B of the IT Act
The department objected to the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,00,19,492/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 69B of the IT Act. The AO had added this amount as undisclosed investment in land. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted this addition, concluding that the AO's decision was based on assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision, stating that the AO failed to prove the actual investment with positive material.
Issue 2: Justification of the Addition Based on Seized Documents
The AO relied on a seized document (Page 37 of Annexure A-57) which allegedly indicated the actual cost of the land. The AO interpreted the figures in the document as representing the cost of the land, but the Ld. CIT (A) found this interpretation unsubstantiated. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the document lacked any clear indication of whether the figures represented cost, market value, or another metric. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not provide a logical explanation for the figures in the other columns of the document.
Issue 3: Validity of Statements Recorded During Post-Search Inquiry
The AO rejected the affidavit filed by Shri Pawan Lashkary, which explained the figures in the seized document as estimates for a joint venture. The Tribunal found that the AO had not provided any positive evidence to disprove the affidavit's contents. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had rejected the post-search statements made by Shri Pawan Lashkary, which further weakened the AO's case.
Issue 4: Acceptance of Additional Supporting Evidence
The department sought to introduce additional supporting evidence, including statements from original landowners, to justify the addition. The Tribunal refused to accept this additional evidence, noting that it was not considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that any evidence used against the assessee must be confronted to the assessee, and the assessee must be given an opportunity for cross-examination, which was not done in this case.
Conclusion
The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT (A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 2,00,19,492/-. The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on unsubstantiated assumptions and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also refused to accept additional supporting evidence introduced by the department at a later stage. The appeal by the department was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the assessee was treated as infructuous.
-
2012 (6) TMI 899
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the interpretation of section 54 of the Income Tax Act 1961 regarding the eligibility for exemption when multiple residential units are sold under a single agreement.
Details of the judgment:
Issue I: Entitlement for relief u/s 54 of the IT Act
The Assessing Officer denied exemption u/s 54 as the assessee sold four flats under a single agreement, contrary to the requirement that only one residential house used for residence should be sold for exemption.
The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) allowed the claim based on CBDT instructions and a Tribunal decision in a similar case.
The ld DR argued that since the flats were purchased under separate agreements, the assessee was not eligible for exemption u/s 54.
The AR of the assessee contended that the four flats were used as one residential house, fulfilling the requirements of section 54.
The Tribunal held that if multiple units are used as a single residential house, they qualify for exemption u/s 54, as per CBDT circular and Tribunal precedent.
The decision in a previous case cited by the ld DR was deemed inapplicable as the present case involved the use of all four flats as one residential house.
Issue II: Purchase of separate flats and eligibility for exemption
The ld DR argued that since the assessee purchased the flats under separate agreements, they were independent units and not eligible for exemption u/s 54.
The AR contended that the four flats were used as one residential house, meeting the criteria for exemption u/s 54.
The Tribunal clarified that as long as the multiple units are used as a single residential house, they are eligible for exemption under section 54, supported by CBDT circular and Tribunal precedent.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision to allow the exemption under section 54 of the IT Act.
-
2012 (6) TMI 898
Issues: The judgment involves the following issues: 1) Whether unutilized MODVAT credit is part of closing stock, 2) Applicability of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Issue 1: Unutilized MODVAT Credit
The controversy revolved around whether the un-utilized Modvat credit should be added to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer (A.O) observed that the assessee had shown an amount towards un-utilized Modvat credit in the Balance Sheet. The A.O believed that this amount should have been included in the closing stock or added to the computation of total income. The A.O made an addition in this regard. However, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition, citing the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT V/s. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) emphasized that the assessee had consistently followed the exclusive method for valuation, and even if the inclusive method was applied, the profit would remain the same. The Tribunal concurred with the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the revenue's appeal, stating that adjustment to closing stock should also reflect in the opening stock, as per the decision in CIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Glass Pvt. Ltd.
Issue 2: Applicability of Section 145A
The A.O had raised the question of whether Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was applicable in this case. However, the Ld. CIT(A) determined that Section 145A was not applicable. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the assessee's consistent application of the exclusive method for valuation rendered the profit unaffected by the method used. The Tribunal also referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, which supported the assessee's position regarding the treatment of Modvat credit.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Pune, in the cited judgment, dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision regarding the treatment of unutilized MODVAT credit and the inapplicability of Section 145A. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of consistent valuation methods and the consequential adjustments required in stock valuation.
-
2012 (6) TMI 897
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act without establishing the identity, capacity, and genuineness of the creditors.
Issue 1: Addition of Share Application Money
The Assessing Officer added Rs. 20,48,500 to the income of the assessee company for the Assessment Year 2003-04, as share application money received from 15 agriculturists. The AO found the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors, except for two, and invoked section 68 of the Act for the addition. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed it, citing that once the applicants admitted to making the payment, further inquiry was unnecessary. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. The assessee provided names and 7/12 extracts of the creditors, showing their agricultural land holdings, which was deemed sufficient by the Tribunal.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, emphasizing that the assessee had fulfilled the necessary requirements regarding the share application money, as per legal precedents.
-
2012 (6) TMI 896
Issues involved:
The issue involves the deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of unaccountable share application money.
Summary:
The Tax Appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 23,50,000 on account of unaccountable share application money. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had deleted the additions stating that without establishing the identity of the depositors, the share application money could not be considered as the income of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld this decision. The High Court, referring to the decisions in CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd. and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., emphasized that if the identity of the persons investing in the shares is established, such income cannot be added to the assessee's income. The Court found the Tribunal's reasoning to be a concluded finding of fact. Even if the share application money was taxed, the identification of the persons through ration cards, election cards, etc., renders the addition made by the assessing officer under Section 68 as unjustified. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal.
........
|
9911796707
