Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2012 2012 (3) 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 81 to 100 of 591 Records

• 2012 (3) TMI 653
  
  The High Court of Calcutta heard a case regarding pre-deposit directed by the Tribunal. The petitioner agreed to deposit Rs. 12 lakhs within eight weeks for the Tribunal to hear the appeal. If not deposited, the Tribunal will take appropriate steps. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs ordered.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 652
  
  Issues involved: Application for recall of Tribunal order regarding Capital Gains computation.
  
  Summary:
  The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee to recall the Tribunal's order dated 11.03.2011 concerning the computation of Capital Gains for the assessment year 2006-07. During the hearing, the assessee's representative highlighted that Ground No.4, which pertained to the adoption of value as of 01.04.1981, was not addressed by the Tribunal. The Revenue's representative argued that since the Tribunal had set aside the entire issue, Ground No.4 was also covered and not a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee's counsel contended that the Assessing Officer did not properly implement the Tribunal's orders despite the specific ground raised in the appeal. Consequently, they requested a fresh consideration of the ground and appropriate directions. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of specific instructions regarding Ground No.4 and, in the interest of justice, decided to recall the order to address this specific ground only. The case was scheduled for a merit hearing on 13.07.2012 without the need for fresh notices to the parties. Ultimately, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 16.03.2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 651
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Classification and categorization of remote and difficult areas.
  2. Validity and propriety of the notification dated November 23, 2011.
  3. Interim order passed by the learned single Judge.
  4. Competence of the Medical Council of India and the State Government.
  5. Discrimination and violation of constitutional provisions.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Classification and Categorization of Remote and Difficult Areas:
  The writ petitions challenged the classification and categorization of remote and difficult areas as unreasonable, arbitrary, and irregular. The notification dated November 23, 2011, by the Government of West Bengal categorized certain districts as remote and difficult areas, which was contended to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge found a prima facie case that the classification might create a "class within a class."
  
  2. Validity and Propriety of the Notification Dated November 23, 2011:
  The notification aimed to reserve 50% of seats in post-graduate diploma courses for Medical Officers who served in remote and difficult areas and provided weightage in marks as an incentive. The writ petitioners argued that the notification was not approved by the Executive Council and the General Council of the concerned University, and it was ultra vires the proviso to Articles 162 read with 154 and 14 of the Constitution of India and sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Medical Councils Act. The appellants contended that the notification followed the amended Regulations of the Medical Council of India and was within the competence of the State.
  
  3. Interim Order Passed by the Learned Single Judge:
  The learned single Judge admitted the writ petitions and stayed the impugned notification. The appellants, who were beneficiaries of the notification, argued that the interim order adversely affected their rights without hearing them. The court found that there was a prima facie case in favor of the writ petitioners and justified the interim order. The court held that the interim order did not grant final relief to the writ petitioners and was not ex parte.
  
  4. Competence of the Medical Council of India and the State Government:
  The Medical Council of India framed the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, and subsequent amendments. The appellants argued that the Medical Council of India was competent to issue the Regulations u/s 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the State followed these Regulations. The writ petitioners contended that the State Government's notification was discriminatory and arbitrary. The court found that the competence of the State Government to issue the notification and the propriety of the notification required consideration.
  
  5. Discrimination and Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
  The writ petitioners argued that the notification caused discrimination based on geographical lines and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the rationale behind choosing certain areas as remote and difficult needed to be considered. The contention that the notification conferred benefits retrospectively and was discriminatory was found to have some justification.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were dismissed, and the interim order granted by the learned single Judge was upheld. The court found that the writ petitioners had a prima facie case and an arguable one. The connected applications for stay were also dismissed. The court's observations were prima facie, and the learned single Judge would decide the writ petitions without being influenced by these observations.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 650
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of addition for unexplained investment in land purchase.
  2. Deletion of addition for undisclosed profit from land transactions.
  3. Admissibility of additional evidence under Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Deletion of Addition for Unexplained Investment in Land Purchase
  The Revenue challenged the deletion of an addition of Rs. 1,42,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained investment for land purchase. The AO alleged that the assessee purchased land from M/s Ambika Corporation and sold it to M/s Trimurti Associates, making payments of Rs. 5,00,000/-, Rs. 98,00,000/-, and Rs. 39,00,000/- without disclosing the source. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, noting that the payments were made from the sale proceeds received from M/s Trimurti Associates, except for an initial payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- which was contributed by co-owners and taxed in their respective hands. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming the deletion of the Rs. 1,42,00,000/- addition.
  
  Issue 2: Deletion of Addition for Undisclosed Profit from Land Transactions
  The Revenue also contested the deletion of Rs. 36,52,656/- as undisclosed profit from land transactions. The AO calculated the profit based on the difference between the purchase price of Rs. 605 per sq. yd. and the sale price of Rs. 801 per sq. yd. The CIT(A) found no transfer of land within the block period as possession was handed over only after a civil suit settlement in 2003. Consequently, the profit was declared in A.Y. 2003-04. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, confirming the deletion of the Rs. 36,52,656/- addition.
  
  Issue 3: Admissibility of Additional Evidence under Rule 46A(3)
  The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in contravention of Rule 46A(3). The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the evidence considered by the CIT(A) was already part of the Revenue record, including ledger accounts, cash books, and return filings. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's objection, confirming that the CIT(A) did not rely solely on new evidence but also on existing records and legal provisions.
  
  Conclusion
  The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions to delete the additions for unexplained investment and undisclosed profit, and rejecting the objection regarding the admission of additional evidence.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 649
  
  Issues involved:
  The judgment involves the quashing of a preliminary inquiry by the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Vigilance Department of the State Government into allegations of irregularities in the receipt of excess quota, recycling of rice, and distress sale of paddy by a rice mill.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Quashing of Preliminary Inquiry
  The High Court quashed the investigation initiated by the Vigilance Department on a petition u/s 482 of the Code. The State Government and its functionaries appealed against this decision, arguing that a preliminary inquiry should not be quashed at the threshold, especially when irregularities were reported. The Court emphasized that interference with an investigation should be sparing and only in cases where no offense is disclosed. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the necessity of completing an investigation to bring offenders to justice.
  
  Issue 2: Scope of High Court's Powers
  The Court discussed the wide powers of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code, emphasizing that these powers should be exercised sparingly and not arbitrarily. It noted that the High Court should prevent abuse of authority and ensure justice. The judgment cited legal principles to underscore that the High Court should generally not interfere with investigations where an offense is disclosed, allowing the process to collect evidence and establish the offense.
  
  Issue 3: Errors in High Court's Decision
  The Court found that the High Court's decision to quash the preliminary inquiry was unjustified. It noted that the enforcement certificate issued to the respondent did not absolve them of alleged irregularities. The Court also highlighted errors in the High Court's observation that the respondent had been exonerated in previous inquiries, clarifying that the nature and consequences of departmental inquiries differ from police investigations. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that an arbitration agreement could shield the respondent from criminal liability, citing legal precedent that criminal acts cannot be exempted from court jurisdiction due to arbitration agreements.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court concluded that the High Court's interference with the investigation was unwarranted. It allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and directed the Vigilance Cell to proceed with and complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with the law.
  
  This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the issues involved and the comprehensive details of the Court's decision for each issue.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 648
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Determination of undisclosed income based on breakage of bottles.
  3. Determination of undisclosed income based on the cost of bottles.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Validity of penalty u/s 158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act:
  The assessee contended that the entire addition was based on estimates and no concrete evidence was provided to establish concealment of income. The ITAT agreed, noting that the assessment was based on an undated and unsigned cost sheet, and that the books of accounts were not rejected. The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed when undisclosed income is determined purely on an estimate basis, referencing the ITAT Jaipur Bench decision in ACIT vs. Shanti Kumar Chabara and the High Court rulings in CIT Vs. Satyendrakumar Dosi and CIT vs. Dodsal Limited.
  
  2. Determination of undisclosed income based on breakage of bottles:
  The assessing officer found discrepancies between the number of bottles issued and sold, attributing the difference to breakage. The breakage percentage recorded ranged from 6.92% to 54%, but the assessing officer adopted a 6% breakage rate based on a seized cost sheet, resulting in an addition of Rs. 4,35,60,320/-. The CIT (A) justified the 6% rate but restricted the disallowance to Rs. 3,84,09,408/-. The ITAT, however, directed the assessing officer to adopt a 15% breakage rate, considering the various sizes of bottles and the lack of concrete evidence for the higher breakage claimed by the assessee.
  
  3. Determination of undisclosed income based on the cost of bottles:
  The assessing officer observed that the assessee inflated the cost of bottles purchased from connected concerns, adopting a cost of Rs. 1.50 per bottle against the assessee's Rs. 1.90 per bottle, resulting in an addition of Rs. 3,22,29,886/-. For other suppliers, the cost was also restricted to Rs. 1.50 per bottle, adding Rs. 2,62,61,621/-. The CIT (A) upheld the addition for connected concerns but deleted the addition for other suppliers. The ITAT directed the assessing officer to adopt a rate of Rs. 1.80 per bottle, noting the lack of concrete evidence for inflated purchases and the absence of any fault in the books of accounts or purchase vouchers.
  
  Conclusion:
  The ITAT concluded that the undisclosed income was determined on an estimate basis and thus, no penalty u/s 158BFA(2) could be imposed. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty imposed was deleted.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 647
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus gifts treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. The assessee, an individual engaged in cloth trading, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 1,77,350. The AO found discrepancies in gifts totaling Rs. 11,25,000 claimed by the assessee, treating them as bogus and adding the amount to the total income u/s 68. The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 6,25,000 on account of bogus gifts and Rs. 62,500 as premium. Subsequently, a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,71,250 was imposed by the AO for inaccurate income particulars.
  
  2. The AO's penalty was upheld by the CIT(A), who observed an attempt to introduce a large capital amount through sham gifts. The Tribunal sustained the penalty only to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000 related to the addition of bogus gifts. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal challenging this decision.
  
  3. The Tribunal noted that the gifts were supported by gift deeds and relevant donor details. Despite the AO's claim of arranging gifts with premium, no evidence supported this. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in this case and canceled the penalty imposed by the AO.
  
  4. Considering the legal position and case facts, the Tribunal found no grounds to uphold the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the alleged bogus gifts treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. The penalty imposed by the AO was canceled, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
  
  5. Decision: The Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 646
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Timeliness of Legal Notice
  2. Vicarious Liability
  3. Territorial Jurisdiction
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Timeliness of Legal Notice

  By the present petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 26th October, 2010 summoning the Petitioner for offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and the consequential proceedings in Complaint Case No. 612/1A/11. The primary issue argued was that the legal notice for demand was not issued by the Complainant within 30 days of the knowledge of dishonor of the cheque. The Petitioner contended that as per the complaint and affidavit, the Complainant was aware of the cheque dishonor on 10th July, 2010, but the legal notice was sent on 10th August, 2010, which exceeds the 30-day period mandated by Section 138(b) of the NI Act. The Court noted that the admitted position was that Respondent No.2 received the intimation of dishonor on 10th July, 2010, and issued the legal notice on 10th August, 2010. Therefore, the demand was made beyond the 30-day period, rendering the complaint not maintainable. The Court relied on precedents such as Shivakumar vs. Natarajan and Munoth Investments Ltd. v. Puttukola Properties Ltd., emphasizing that the notice must be issued within 30 days of receipt of information about the dishonor.

  Issue 2: Vicarious Liability

  The Petitioner argued that the complaint was filed against him individually, although the cheque was issued on behalf of the company. In the absence of the company being impleaded, the Petitioner could not be vicariously held liable. However, this issue was not elaborated upon in the judgment as the primary focus was on the timeliness of the legal notice.

  Issue 3: Territorial Jurisdiction

  The Petitioner also contended that the Court at Delhi had no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. This issue was not discussed in detail in the judgment, as the petition was primarily confined to the first ground regarding the timeliness of the legal notice.

  Conclusion:

  In view of the legal position that the notice of demand has to be issued within a 30-day period, the Court held that the complaint of Respondent No. 2 against the Petitioner is not maintainable. Thus, the impugned order of summoning and the proceedings pursuant thereto were quashed. The petition and application were disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 645
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of the renewal of lease by the Corporation.
  2. Legality of the State Government's sanction u/s 70(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.
  3. Rights of the respondents based on previous resolutions and assignments.
  4. Application of the doctrine of equality in the alienation of public property.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Validity of the renewal of lease by the Corporation
  The Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court's decision to quash the Corporation's Resolution dated 28.8.1991, which renewed the lease in favor of the appellant for 30 years. The Court noted that the previous Resolution dated 29.10.1975, which renewed the lease in favor of Parmanand Mundhada, had not been canceled or rescinded. Therefore, during the subsistence of that resolution, the Corporation could not have renewed the lease in favor of the appellant. The Court emphasized that the Corporation did not obtain the necessary sanction from the State Government before passing the resolution, making it ex facie illegal.
  
  Issue 2: Legality of the State Government's sanction u/s 70(5) of the Act
  The Court found that the State Government's sanction u/s 70(5) of the Act for the renewal of the lease was legally unsustainable. The Corporation's action of forwarding a proposal for post facto sanction and the State Government's accord of such sanction without following a procedure consistent with the doctrine of equality was impermissible. The Court highlighted that the alienation of public property must comply with the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
  
  Issue 3: Rights of the respondents based on previous resolutions and assignments
  The Court rejected the respondents' claim based on the renewal granted to Parmanand Mundhada in the 1975 resolution. It was noted that there was no evidence that Parmanand Mundhada or his heirs took any action in furtherance of the resolution, such as executing a fresh lease deed. The respondents' assertion that an appeal was filed against the increased ground rent and penalty was not substantiated with any details about the outcome of the appeal.
  
  Issue 4: Application of the doctrine of equality in the alienation of public property
  The Court reiterated that the State and its agencies cannot arbitrarily transfer public property or interest therein to private entities without following a transparent and non-discriminatory process. The Corporation failed to issue any advertisement or follow a procedure that would allow public participation in the process of alienation of the plot. The Court emphasized that the Corporation holds property as a trustee of the public, and any alienation must be consistent with the principles of fairness, equality, and reasonableness.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeals were dismissed, and the appellant was directed to hand over possession of the plot to the Corporation within three months. The Corporation was instructed to alienate the plot by auction or inviting tenders, ensuring compliance with Article 14 of the Constitution. The Corporation was also directed to pay the market value of the structure to the appellant.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 644
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against the levy of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for asst. yr. 1994-95 based on unexplained cash credits introduced by the assessee.
  
  Summary:
  The assessee introduced cash credits during assessment, leading to addition of &8377; 2,94,874. The penalty was imposed despite explanations and confirmations provided for the loans. The Tribunal found that the credits were genuine, supported by documents and statements, and the penalty was unjustified. The appeal of the assessee against the penalty levy was allowed.
  
  1. Unexplained Cash Credits and Penalty Imposition:
  During assessment, cash credits were introduced by the assessee, leading to an addition of &8377; 2,94,874. The penalty of &8377; 1,32,667 under s. 271(1)(c) was imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) due to non-production of creditors, despite explanations and confirmations provided by the assessee.
  
  2. Assessee's Appeal and Tribunal's Consideration:
  The assessee appealed before the Tribunal, presenting written submissions and case laws to support their case. The Departmental Representative relied on the CIT(A)'s order during the proceedings.
  
  3. Tribunal's Decision and Reasoning:
  After reviewing the orders of the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal found that the penalty imposition was unwarranted. The Tribunal noted that during fresh assessment proceedings, the identity of cash creditors was proven through various documents and statements. The Tribunal observed that the credits were genuine, supported by evidence such as certificates, voter lists, and confirmations.
  
  4. Justification for Cancelling Penalty:
  The Tribunal emphasized that the non-production of creditors did not imply the credits were bogus, as genuine details and confirmations were provided. The Tribunal found no evidence of concealed income, as all necessary details were submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty levy was unjustified and cancelled it, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 643
  
  Issues Involved: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07.
  
  Issue 1: Addition of Short Term Capital Gains
  
  The assessee sold agricultural land and claimed exemption u/s 54B. Subsequently, the new asset was sold within 36 months. AO treated the entire consideration as short term capital gains. The Revenue defended this invoking section 54B extensively. However, the AR argued that the new asset does not fall u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act as it falls beyond the M.C. limit of the town. The CIT(A) upheld the AR's contention, stating that the land sold was not a capital asset as per the Act's provisions. The AR referred to a notification stating that the area under the municipality was not notified. The CIT(A) relied on a previous ITAT decision and deleted the addition of &8377; 18,03,522/-.
  
  Decision:
  
  The findings of the CIT(A) were upheld, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed on 07.03.2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 642
  
  Issues involved: Appeal against order dated 16.02.2011 passed by CIT(Appeals)-3, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
  
  Grounds of Appeal:
  1. The appellant contested that the order of the ITAT for the Assessment Year 1996-97 should be applicable for determining the Income from House property for the present appeal.
  2. Discrepancy noted in the application of Rent Control Act for the Assessment Year 1996-97.
  3. Applicability of The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 for the present assessment year.
  4. Objections raised by the appellant for estimating the Annual Letting Value at Rs. 15,000/- per month for each house property.
  5. Challenge against the Assessing Officer's arbitrary estimation of Annual Letting Value at Rs. 15,000/- per month without scientific basis.
  
  Facts:
  The appellant, a Senior Advocate, declared income from various properties including office at Brightland Building, Mumbai, residential flats at different locations. The Assessing Officer estimated rent at Rs. 15,000/- per month for each property, leading to a dispute.
  
  Assessing Officer's View:
  Based on judicial precedents, the Assessing Officer determined the rent for the properties at Rs. 15,000/- per month, considering market rates and municipal valuation.
  
  CIT(Appeals) Decision:
  The CIT(Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision, citing a change in the Self Occupied Property status and the need to apply Rent Control Act provisions. The appellant's contentions were not accepted.
  
  Appellant's Argument:
  The appellant argued for following the ITAT's order for the Assessment Year 1996-97, as there were no material changes in facts or law provisions. The municipal valuation remained consistent.
  
  ITAT Decision:
  After reviewing the orders and precedents, ITAT found that the municipal valuation remained the same as in the previous assessment year. The ITAT order for the Assessment Year 1996-97 was deemed applicable, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer under the head income from house property was deleted. The income declared by the appellant was accepted.
  
  Judges:
  - Shiri G.E. Veerabhadrappa, Hon'ble President
  - Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 641
  

  Award of interest on interest from the date of award - The High Court considered the diverse provisions of the Act including Section 31(7)(a) and (b) of the Act and few decisions of this Court and ultimately held that the Respondent was entitled to post- award interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till the date of the actual payment. It is this order which is in appeal before us.

  HELD THAT:- The appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part. The impugned order of the High Court is modified and it is directed that the Appellants shall be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. for the post-award period from the date of award until May 24, 2001. After May 24, 2001, the Appellants are not liable to pay any interest on the award amount under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. the amount as per the impugned order dated March 5, 2009 was deposited by the Appellants which has been withdrawn by the Respondent. In light of this, court observe that the High Court shall now re-determine the amount due and payable to the Respondent under the award and the post- award interest as indicated above. The excess amount, if withdrawn by the Respondent shall be refunded to the Appellants within two months of re-determination by the High Court.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 640
  
  Title: Supreme Court of India Judgment on Limitation
  
  Case: 2012 (3) TMI 640 - SC
  
  Judges: Chief Justice, Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik, and Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
  
  Representation:
  - Petitioner: Mr. V. Giri, Sr.Adv., Mr. V. Balaji, Adv., Mr. Vinod Mehta,Adv., Mr. Asai Thambi,Adv., Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma,Adv.
  - Respondent: Mr. Gourab Banerjee, ASG., Mr. Sahil Tagotra, Adv., Mr. Vikas Malhotra, Adv., Ms. Anita Sahani, Adv., Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
  
  Key Points:
  - High Court focused on limitation, not merits.
  - Assessee will not press grounds on merits in special leave petition.
  - Leave granted on the question of limitation.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 639
  
  Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue against CIT(A) order for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, cross objections by assessee, deduction u/s 10A, depreciation on UPS, disallowance u/s 40(a)(i), applicability of section 14A, telecommunication expenses u/s 10B.
  
  Deduction u/s 10A:
  The Revenue challenged CIT(A)'s direction to recompute deduction u/s 10A by excluding telecom expenditure from export turnover. The Revenue appealed against a Special Bench decision. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld as it followed the Special Bench decision.
  
  Depreciation on UPS:
  The Revenue disputed CIT(A)'s allowance of 80% depreciation on UPS instead of 25%. The co-ordinate Bench's decision in a similar case was cited, and the CIT(A)'s decision was confirmed based on this precedent.
  
  Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i):
  The Revenue objected to CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance for payments to a UK company without TDS. The CIT(A) considered the non-taxability of the UK company's income in India and relied on a Supreme Court decision, leading to the confirmation of the CIT(A)'s decision.
  
  Applicability of section 14A:
  The Revenue contested CIT(A)'s restriction of expenditure for earning exempted income to 2% under section 14A. The case was to be re-adjudicated by the Assessing Officer following a Bombay High Court decision, resulting in partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal.
  
  Telecommunication expenses u/s 10B:
  Assessee's cross objections challenged the reduction of telecommunication expenses from export turnover u/s 10B. The issue was dismissed as it was covered by a Tribunal decision, confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
  
  The Revenue's appeal for 2005-06 was dismissed, while the appeal for 2006-07 was allowed for statistical purposes. The cross objections by the assessee were dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 638
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in Raniwala Oil Mills.
  2. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in Krishna Mills, Alwar.
  3. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in property situated at Rishikesh.
  4. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in property situated at Station Road, Alwar.
  5. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in property situated at Kush Marg, Alwar.
  6. Deletion of addition of wealth on account of share in property situated at Nagli Khora, Alwar.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Raniwala Oil Mills:
  The Tribunal confirmed the order of the ld. CIT (A) by referencing its previous detailed decision, which concluded that the land in question was industrial and not urban land. The Tribunal emphasized that the valuation should be based on the factual position as on the valuation date and not on hypothetical future uses. The Tribunal also noted that the valuation difference exceeded the limit prescribed u/s 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, necessitating a reference to the Valuation Cell.
  
  2. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Krishna Mills, Alwar:
  The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the property was under civil litigation and the assessee had a disputed right over it. The Tribunal agreed that such an asset is not includible in the wealth chargeable to tax.
  
  3. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Property Situated at Rishikesh:
  The Tribunal confirmed the ld. CIT (A)'s order, agreeing that the land was agricultural as per the purchase deed and revenue records. There was no evidence to suggest that the land was urban, and thus it was not liable to Wealth Tax.
  
  4. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Property Situated at Station Road, Alwar:
  The Tribunal referenced its previous decision in the case of a co-owner, Smt. Nirmala Devi Data, and confirmed the ld. CIT (A)'s order. It was noted that the property was not commercial land on the valuation dates and that the valuation should consider the constructed area plus 70% of the aggregate area u/s 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act.
  
  5. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Property Situated at Kush Marg, Alwar:
  The Tribunal upheld the ld. CIT (A)'s decision, noting that the property was in the name of the assessee's daughters, who were major. The property had been accepted as belonging to the daughters in income tax proceedings, and there was no finding that the assessee held the land in benami.
  
  6. Deletion of Addition of Wealth on Account of Share in Property Situated at Nagli Khora, Alwar:
  The Tribunal confirmed the ld. CIT (A)'s order, noting that the land was reserved for a park and open space as per the Master Plan, and no construction was permissible. Thus, the land was not includible in the Wealth Tax Act.
  
  Conclusion:
  The appeal of the department was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 07.3.2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 637
  
  The Supreme Court of India issued an order to issue notice in the application seeking condonation of delay and in the special leave petition. The case is tagged with C.A. No. 10612 of 2011.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 636
  
  Issues involved: Assessment of interest income as "income from other sources" for the A.Y. 2008-09.
  
  Comprehensive details of the judgment:
  
  Issue 1: Assessment of interest income
  The appellant challenged the order of the Ld. CIT (A) regarding the assessment of interest income of Rs. 11,21,361/- as "income from other sources." The appellant, engaged in Electronics Design Automation, had credited interest income in its profit and loss account. The A.O. assessed this income as 'income from other sources,' which was contested by the appellant before the Ld. CIT (A) without success. The appellant argued that the loan obtained from the Technology Development Board, invested in fixed deposit pending utilization, should be treated as 'income from business.' The Tribunal noted that the temporary parking of the borrowed amount of the loan, on which the interest was earned, should not be considered as 'income from other sources.' The Tribunal found that both the A.O. and Ld. CIT (A) erred in not treating the interest earned on the temporary parking of the loan amount as business income. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the ground taken by the appellant and directed the A.O. to treat the 'interest income' as 'business income' of the assessee.
  
  Decision:
  The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, directing the A.O. to treat the interest income as business income.
  
  Order Date: 28th March, 2012.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 634
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Applicability of amended section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to transactions concluded before the amendment.
  2. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.
  3. Levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Applicability of Amended Section 94(7)
  The assessee challenged the disallowance of loss under "short-term capital gains" amounting to Rs. 4,69,15,726/- by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the amended section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the law applicable on the 1st day of April of the assessment year governs the assessment. The CIT(A) referenced several judicial decisions, including CIT vs Graigmore Plantations India Ltd. and Sedco Forex International Drill Inc vs. CIT, to support the view that the amended provisions of section 94(7) apply from 01.04.2005, affecting transactions in the previous year relevant to AY 2005-06. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for re-adjudication in light of the outcome of the assessee's writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment.
  
  Issue 2: Disallowance u/s 14A
  The AO disallowed Rs. 25,26,726/- on account of portfolio management fees and an estimated Rs. 5 lacs out of administrative expenses under section 14A of the Act. The CIT(A) directed the AO to recompute the disallowance following the ITAT Special Bench decision in the case of Daga Capital Management Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. provided that the AO must determine the quantum of disallowable expenditure by a reasonable method if not satisfied with the assessee's claim. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with these judicial pronouncements.
  
  Issue 3: Levy of Interest u/s 234B and 234D
  The assessee did not make any submissions regarding the levy of interest u/s 234B and 234D of the Act. The Tribunal cited the mandatory nature of these provisions as affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs Anjum M. H. Ghaswala And Others and other cases, and dismissed this ground. The AO was directed to allow consequential relief, if any, while giving effect to the Tribunal's directions.
  
  Conclusion
  The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with directions for re-adjudication on specific issues.

  ---

• 2012 (3) TMI 633
  
  Issues involved:
  The petitions seek sanction of a Scheme of Amalgamation between Vini Sales and Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.
  
  Company Application No. 434 of 2011 - Dispensation of Meetings:
  - Vini Sales and Distribution Pvt. Ltd., the transferor company, sought dispensation of meetings of equity shareholders and unsecured creditors, as consents were obtained.
  - The Court ordered dispensation of meetings for equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the transferor company.
  
  Company Application No. 435 of 2011 - Dispensation of Meetings:
  - Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd., the transferee company, also sought dispensation of meetings for equity shareholders and unsecured creditors, as consents were obtained.
  - The Court ordered dispensation of meetings for equity shareholders and unsecured creditors of the transferee company.
  
  Company Petitions for Sanction of Scheme:
  - Following the dispensation orders, the present Company Petitions were filed seeking sanction of the Scheme of Amalgamation.
  
  Orders and Directions:
  - The Court made orders of admission for both petitions and directed notice issuance to the Regional Director and Official Liquidator.
  - Notices of the petitions were published in specified newspapers.
  - Affidavits confirmed no objections received against the scheme.
  
  Reports and Recommendations:
  - The Official Liquidator confirmed no prejudicial conduct by the transferor company but requested preservation of records and payment of costs.
  - The Regional Director made observations, to which the petitioner responded satisfactorily.
  
  Final Decision:
  - After considering all submissions, the Court sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation with directions for record preservation.
  - Costs were quantified for the Central Government Standing Counsel and the Official Liquidator, to be paid by the respective companies.
  

  ---

123456789........ 30