|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 591 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 733
The Kerala High Court, in the case cited as 2012 (3) TMI 733, addressed an appeal by the State of Kerala under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal challenged an order refusing to grant leave to amend an application filed under Section 34 of the Act, which sought to set aside an arbitral award. The Court emphasized that Section 37(1) of the Act specifies the orders that are appealable, using the phrase "and from no others" to limit appeals strictly to those enumerated in clauses (a) and (b). The appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, as no appeal lies against an order refusing leave to amend applications under Section 34. The Court did not comment on the merits of the impugned order and left open the possibility for the appellant to pursue other legal remedies. Consequently, any interlocutory orders, including stays, were vacated, and the lower court records were ordered to be returned.
-
2012 (3) TMI 732
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal issues presented and considered in this judgment are: - Whether the whole time single member of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has the jurisdiction to cancel or withdraw recognition granted to a stock exchange under the principle that a delegate cannot further delegate its power.
- Whether the order of withdrawal of recognition by SEBI is without jurisdiction and thus invalid.
- Whether the functioning of the appellant's subsidiary, SKSE Securities Limited, and its sub-brokers is affected by the withdrawal of recognition of the appellant.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction of SEBI's Whole Time Member - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 5(1) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, which allows SEBI to withdraw recognition of a stock exchange. Section 29A of the same Act permits the Central Government to delegate powers to SEBI. Section 19 of the SEBI Act, 1992, allows SEBI to delegate its powers to its members.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court interpreted that the delegation of power to SEBI by the Central Government, and further delegation within SEBI, is within the legal framework. The Court found that the whole time member of SEBI acted within jurisdiction as per the statutory provisions.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court relied on the notification dated September 13, 1994, which allowed SEBI to exercise powers under various sections of the 1956 Act, including Section 5.
- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the delegation principles to conclude that the whole time member had the authority to withdraw recognition.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the delegation was unjust and arbitrary, but the Court rejected this, citing the statutory framework that permitted such delegation.
- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the withdrawal of recognition by SEBI's whole time member was lawful and within jurisdiction.
Issue 2: Functioning of Subsidiary and Sub-brokers - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue revolves around the legal distinction between the appellant and its subsidiary.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the subsidiary is a separate legal entity, and its operations are not directly affected by the withdrawal of recognition of the appellant.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The Court considered the counter affidavit by SEBI, which clarified that the subsidiary's functioning was not prohibited by the impugned order.
- Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle of separate legal entities to determine that the subsidiary could continue its operations independently.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant expressed concerns about the impact on its subsidiary, but the Court dismissed these concerns as unfounded based on SEBI's statements.
- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the subsidiary's operations were unaffected by the withdrawal of recognition of the appellant.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The withdrawal of recognition under Section 5 of the 1956 Act by the full time member of SEBI under Section 11 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 cannot be said to be de hors the provisions of the Act." This statement underscores the Court's reasoning that the actions taken were within the legal framework.
- Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory delegations of power, when properly executed, are valid. It also upholds the principle of separate legal entities in corporate law.
- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the whole time member of SEBI had the jurisdiction to withdraw recognition of the stock exchange, and the subsidiary's operations were not impacted by this withdrawal.
Overall, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the legality of the delegation of powers within SEBI and the implications of the withdrawal of recognition on the appellant's subsidiary. The Court upheld the actions taken by SEBI as being within its jurisdiction and aligned with statutory provisions, while also clarifying the unaffected status of the subsidiary's operations.
-
2012 (3) TMI 731
The Supreme Court ordered the release on bail of a petitioner who was made an accused in a fake encounter case. The petitioner had been in custody for almost four years but was not named as an accused in the charge-sheet submitted by the CBI. The Court directed the petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.30,000 with two sureties. The special leave petition was disposed of.
-
2012 (3) TMI 730
The Supreme Court granted leave and expedited the hearing in the case. Parties represented by multiple advocates. Citation: 2012 (3) TMI 730 - SC Order. Judges: H.L. Dattu and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
-
2012 (3) TMI 729
The Gujarat High Court admitted the Appeal based on substantial questions of law regarding the reversal of the Commissioner of Income Tax's order on deduction of expenses for Soda Ash and LAB Projects, interdivision transfer claim, and exclusion of sales tax and excise duty from turnover for deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act.
-
2012 (3) TMI 728
Issues:
1. Allocation of interest and foreign exchange loss to STP unit for deduction u/s 10A.
2. Addition of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund.
3. Addition of capitalization of leasehold improvement expenses.
Allocation of interest and foreign exchange loss to STP unit for deduction u/s 10A:
The case involved cross-appeals by the assessee and the revenue against the CIT(A)'s order related to the assessment year 2001-02. The assessee contested the apportionment of interest and foreign exchange loss to the STP unit while computing deduction u/s 10A of the Act. The CIT(A) had partly sustained the disallowance at the rate of 3.39% of the total interest and foreign exchange loss. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not established any nexus between the STP unit's fund requirements and the ECB loan. The CIT(A) had allocated expenses of 3.39% to the STP unit profits despite acknowledging the lack of nexus. The Tribunal concluded that without establishing a nexus, such disallowance could not be made, and thus deleted the allocation of expenses at 3.39% as made by the CIT(A).
Addition of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to provident fund:
The revenue's appeal focused on the addition of Rs. 805,267 on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to the provident fund. The CIT(A) had deleted this addition, and the Tribunal upheld this decision. It was noted that the employees' contribution to the PF had been deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing the return. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision on this issue.
Addition of capitalization of leasehold improvement expenses:
The second ground in the revenue's appeal concerned the addition of Rs. 490,414 on account of capitalization of leasehold improvement expenses. The CIT(A) had also deleted this addition, and the Tribunal found no infirmity in this decision. The Tribunal noted that the expenditure was necessary for the day-to-day smooth working of the business and facilitated the profit-generating apparatus. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order on this issue as well.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on both the issues raised by the revenue.
-
2012 (3) TMI 727
Issues:
1. Sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of two companies.
2. Approval of the scheme by the Central Government and Official Liquidator.
3. Resolution of query regarding fractional entitlement of shares.
4. Dissolution of the transferor company without winding-up.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to the sanctioning of the scheme of amalgamation between a Transferor Company and a Transferee Company. The petitions were filed for the transfer of assets and liabilities from the Transferor Company to the Transferee Company as per the terms outlined in the scheme of amalgamation.
2. The Court had previously allowed company applications without the need for shareholder and creditor meetings. Notices were duly served to the Central Government and the Official Liquidator, and publications were made in newspapers for the hearing of petitions. The Central Government raised a query regarding fractional entitlement of shares, which was resolved by the Transferee Company's clarification. The Official Liquidator's report confirmed that the company's affairs were not conducted prejudicially.
3. The Central Government, except for the fractional entitlement query, had no objections to the amalgamation scheme. The Court found no grounds to refuse approval and granted sanction for the scheme of amalgamation, directing the Registrar of Companies to dissolve the Transferor Company without winding-up.
4. The judgment also quantified costs to be paid to the Central Government Standing Counsel, the office of the Official Liquidator, and the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel. The fees were specified per petition and to be paid by the respective petitioner-companies, concluding the disposal of the petitions.
This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the key aspects of the scheme of amalgamation, approvals obtained, resolution of queries, and the subsequent dissolution of the transferor company.
-
2012 (3) TMI 726
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the dismissal of applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 294 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court, pertaining to summoning of documents for defense in a case where the petitioner is charged with offenses under Section 302/506/323/325/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act.
Details of the judgment:
1. The petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the Trial Court's order dismissing applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and Section 294 Cr.P.C. for summoning documents essential for defense. The petitioner, a security guard, is accused in a case involving the death of an individual at a petrol pump. The petitioner sought various documents including DD entries, registers, and call details for defense purposes.
2. The petitioner's applications sought the summoning of documents crucial for defense, including DD entries, registers, call details, and a witness statement in a CD for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. The petitioner also requested a correction in a witness statement. The Trial Court dismissed these applications, leading to the petitioner's revision petition.
3. The petitioner argued that the summoned documents were essential for defense and confronting witnesses in cross-examination. However, the State's counsel opposed, claiming the documents were not necessary at the prosecution evidence stage and were a delay tactic. The Court had to determine the necessity and relevance of the documents at the current stage of proceedings.
4. Section 91 Cr.P.C. allows the production of necessary documents for investigations or trials. The Court must assess the relevance and requirement of the documents at the stage they are sought. Section 294 Cr.P.C. deals with admission/denial of documents without proof of signature if genuineness is undisputed. The State argued that the petitioner's documents were not crucial at the current stage and were a delay tactic.
5. The Court analyzed the petitioner's application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and found the documents sought were for defense purposes. The petitioner's vague submission regarding the necessity of the documents for cross-examination was insufficient. The Court noted the petitioner's attempt at a roving inquiry and intrusion into privacy with the requested call details, deeming them irrelevant at this stage.
6. Regarding the witness statement in a CD, the Court found the authenticity unproven, making it inadmissible for confrontation. The petitioner's plea for typographical corrections in a witness statement was deemed vague, lacking specific details. The Court emphasized the importance of not conducting a roving inquiry during trial.
7. The Court concluded that the summoned documents were not relevant or necessary for the prosecution evidence stage. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, with costs imposed on the petitioner for delaying the trial. The Court emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and avoiding unnecessary delays in the judicial process.
-
2012 (3) TMI 725
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the trial court's dismissal of the application u/s 91 Cr. PC.
2. Relevance and necessity of the documents sought for cross-examination.
3. Judicial discretion in summoning documents u/s 91 Cr. PC.
Summary:
1. Legality of the trial court's dismissal of the application u/s 91 Cr. PC:
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order dated 19/12/2011, which dismissed an application u/s 91 Cr. PC for summoning certain documents. The petitioner, along with co-accused, faced trial for offences u/s 120B IPC read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, related to the allotment of UAS Licenses and Spectrum by the DoT. The trial court dismissed the application, viewing it as a fishing expedition intended to delay proceedings.
2. Relevance and necessity of the documents sought for cross-examination:
The petitioner argued that the documents were necessary for the effective cross-examination of PW7, Mr. Aseervatham Achary, to demonstrate his involvement in official work and impeach his credibility. The petitioner cited judgments emphasizing the necessity and relevance of documents u/s 91 Cr. PC. However, the learned Standing Counsel for CBI contended that the documents were vague and irrelevant for cross-examination purposes.
3. Judicial discretion in summoning documents u/s 91 Cr. PC:
The trial court relied on the Apex Court's judgment in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi [AIR 2005 SC 359], which held that Section 91 Cr. PC does not confer a right on the accused to produce documents to prove their defense at the stage of framing charges. The court must determine the necessity and desirability of documents based on the stage of the trial and the party requesting them. The petitioner sought various documents, including letters, visitor registers, and call records, which the court found to be an attempt at a roving inquiry into PW7's activities. The court concluded that the documents lacked specific necessity or relevance to the testimony of PW7 or the trial.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the trial court's discretion, finding no relevancy or necessity for the documents sought by the petitioner. The petition was dismissed as frivolous, with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 724
Issues involved: Delay in filing and refiling special leave petitions, condonation of delay in review petition.
Delay in filing and refiling special leave petitions:
The Appellants were Defendants in a suit regarding partition of property, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The Appellants filed a Review Petition which was delayed by 53 days. The Appellants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was not opposed by the Respondents. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application, touching upon the merits of the case. The Supreme Court held that the delay of 53 days was not exorbitant and should have been condoned. The Court criticized the practice of touching upon merits while rejecting delay condonation applications and emphasized on advancing substantial justice by giving a liberal construction to the term "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to be heard on merits.
Condonation of delay in review petition:
The Supreme Court found that the delay of 53 days in filing the Review Petition was satisfactorily explained by the Appellants. The Court emphasized that rules of limitation should not foreclose the right of parties to seek remedies promptly and that delay should generally be condoned unless malafide is proven. The Court held that the Appellants had shown sufficient cause for the delay, and the impugned order was set aside, remitting the matter to be heard on merits. The Court directed the parties to appear before the learned Single Judge for further proceedings.
-
2012 (3) TMI 723
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) regarding disallowance of royalty u/s AY 2008-09.
Summary:
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order regarding the disallowance of royalty amounting to Rs.70,09,183. The issue was settled in favor of the assessee by a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case for AY 2004-05. The Tribunal found that the royalty was not of enduring nature and was payable based on sales volume, hence no enduring benefit accrued to the assessee. The Tribunal followed a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and set aside the order of the authorities below, deciding the issue in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the royalty was not of enduring nature as it was based on sales volume and would cease upon termination of the agreement. The Tribunal found that the training expenses for employees under the agreement could not be considered capital expenditure. Relying on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal decided the issue in favor of the assessee, setting aside the lower authorities' order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, concluding that the disallowance of royalty was not justified based on the nature of the agreement and the previous decisions in similar cases. The decision was pronounced in open court on 21st March 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 722
Issues involved: Appeal against order of CIT(A) confirming addition of excessive interest u/s 40A(2)(b) for Assessment Year 2005-06.
Summary:
The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the addition of excessive interest u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act for Assessment Year 2005-06. The counsel of the assessee argued that the issue was similar to the one in the preceding Assessment Year 2004-05, where the addition made by the AO was deleted by the CIT(A) and no further appeal was filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that in the previous year, the addition u/s 40A(2)(b) was deleted by the CIT(A) for similar facts. The Tribunal found that the interest rate of 18% paid to depositors was not excessive considering various justifications such as no need for security, loan period, and purpose of the loan. It was also observed that other persons not covered by section 40A(2)(b) were also paid interest at the rate of 18%. The Tribunal held that the addition of excessive interest u/s 40A(2)(b) was not justified and thus deleted the same, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, and the addition of excessive interest u/s 40A(2)(b) was deleted based on the findings and reasoning provided in the judgment.
-
2012 (3) TMI 721
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 33,65,154/- for corporate service charges.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 26,47,252/- for reimbursement of salary of staff.
3. Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for service charges paid to Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd.
4. Deletion of addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- for service charges paid to Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs. 32,31,270/- for interest disallowance on interest-free advance.
6. Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,56,56,380/- for unaccounted production and sale of Streptomycin and Tetracycline.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 33,65,154/- for corporate service charges
The AO disallowed Rs. 33,65,154/- paid as corporate service charges to the holding company, citing lack of evidence for services rendered. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, referencing earlier years' decisions. The Tribunal found that the computation of expenses needs examination and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh decision.
Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 26,47,252/- for reimbursement of salary of staff
The AO disallowed Rs. 26,47,252/- for reimbursement of salary to the holding company's staff, due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance based on earlier decisions. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to verify the deputation and services rendered by the staff.
Issue 3: Deletion of addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for service charges paid to Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd.
The AO disallowed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- from the total service charges of Rs. 8,12,33,688/- paid to Sarabhai Common Services, citing lack of details. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the charges were based on actual usage. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO to examine the basis of rates charged.
Issue 4: Deletion of addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- for service charges paid to Sarabhai Chemicals Ltd.
The AO disallowed Rs. 50,00,000/- from the total expenses of Rs. 4,74,67,883/- paid to Sarabhai Chemicals, citing lack of basis for charges. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, stating that the charges were as per Government rates. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the rates and reversed the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the AO's decision.
Issue 5: Deletion of addition of Rs. 32,31,270/- for interest disallowance on interest-free advance
The AO disallowed Rs. 32,31,270/- as interest on an interest-free advance to a subsidiary. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, referencing earlier years' decisions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting no difference in facts from earlier years.
Issue 6: Deletion of addition of Rs. 4,56,56,380/- for unaccounted production and sale of Streptomycin and Tetracycline
The AO added Rs. 4,56,56,380/- for unaccounted production and sales. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, accepting the assessee's explanation of captive consumption. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh decision, noting that the explanation was given for the first time before the CIT(A) without AO's verification.
Conclusion:
The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes, with several issues remanded to the AO for fresh decision and examination.
-
2012 (3) TMI 720
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of directors of a company for outstanding electricity dues.
2. Interpretation of the term 'consumer' in the context of electricity supply agreements.
Summary:
Issue 1: The judgment addressed the liability of directors of a company for outstanding electricity dues. The petitioner, a director of a public limited company, entered into an agreement for electricity supply on behalf of the company. The company failed to pay the bills, leading to a demand notice issued to the petitioner under the U.P. Government Electricity Undertaking (Recovery of Dues) Act 1958. The petitioner contended that as a director, he was not personally liable for the company's dues. The court referred to relevant legal provisions and held that directors cannot be made personally liable for the company's electricity dues unless they provide personal guarantees or undertakings.
Issue 2: The judgment also delved into the interpretation of the term 'consumer' in electricity supply agreements. The petitioner argued that as per the Electric Supply (Consumers) Regulations 1984 and the Electricity Act 2003, the 'consumer' should be the company and not the directors personally. The court analyzed the definitions of 'consumer' under various laws and regulations, concluding that the company, not the directors, should be considered the consumer in this case. The court highlighted that directors can only be held personally liable if they act beyond their powers or make negligent misrepresentations.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition partly, quashing the recovery citation against the petitioner's personal assets. The respondents were restrained from recovering dues from the petitioner personally, emphasizing that recovery proceedings should be directed towards the company in accordance with the law.
-
2012 (3) TMI 719
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the treatment of foreman's dividend as income of the assessee, disallowance of expenses under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act, deletion of disallowed bad debts, and treatment of royalty payment as revenue expenditure.
Treatment of Foreman's Dividend:
The assessee, engaged in chit fund business, filed its return showing total income at NIL. The Assessing Officer brought foreman's dividend of Rs. 3,32,50,750/- to tax, considering it as income of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing a previous Tribunal decision against the assessee for a similar issue. The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal on this issue.
Disallowance under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A:
The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 5,13,800/- under Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A for expenses related to earning dividend income. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance, stating lack of justification by the assessee for a lower amount. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order and confirmed the disallowance.
Deletion of Disallowed Bad Debts:
The Assessing Officer disallowed bad debts of Rs. 21,45,81,730/- claimed by the assessee. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, citing a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee for a similar issue. The Tribunal, following precedent, dismissed the appeal of the Department on this issue.
Treatment of Royalty Payment:
The Assessing Officer treated royalty payment of Rs. 85,81,955/- as capital expenditure, while the assessee claimed it as revenue expenditure under section 37 of the Act. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal, following a previous Tribunal order in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal, in line with precedent, confirmed the order of the CIT(A) regarding the treatment of royalty payment as revenue expenditure.
In conclusion, both the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the above decisions and findings.
-
2012 (3) TMI 718
Issues involved: Cross appeals filed by Revenue and assessee regarding computation of eligible deductions u/s 80HHC and 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1962.
For Revenue: Revenue aggrieved that CIT(A) directed A.O. to compute deduction u/s 80HHC without first deducting available deduction u/s 80-IB. Revenue argued that deduction u/s 80HHC should be calculated only on profits after allowing deduction u/s 80-IB, citing decision in General Optics (Asia) Ltd. v. DCIT (315 ITR 400). However, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. MRF Ltd. held that deduction u/s 80-IB should not be reduced before calculating deduction u/s 80HHC, following the decision in SCM Creations v. ACIT (304 ITR 319). The court also referred to DCIT v. Chola Textiles P. Ltd. where a similar view was taken for the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, the appeal of Revenue was dismissed.
For Assessee: Assessee aggrieved that income from DEPB sales and interest on margin money deposit were held ineligible for deduction u/s 80-IB. The court referred to Liberty India v. CIT where it was held that DEPB and Duty Drawback receipts are not considered income from industrial undertaking. Thus, CIT(A)'s decision to exclude these incomes while calculating deduction u/s 80-IB was upheld. The court also cited CIT v. K. Ravindranathan Nair to support the decision. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was also dismissed.
In conclusion, both appeals filed by Revenue and assessee were dismissed as the court found no merit in either argument.
-
2012 (3) TMI 717
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demand and penalties u/s Finance Act, 1994.
The Appellants, a clearing and forwarding agent, filed Appeals against Order-in-Original confirming Service Tax demand and penalties u/s Finance Act, 1994. The demand was for Rs. 99,32,373/- and Rs. 58,36,043/-, imposed on the Appellant No. (1) and its Director u/s various provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant Firm was registered as a service provider falling under Chapter 5 of the Finance Act, 1994. Proceedings were initiated for not paying Service Tax on the actual value received. Two show cause-cum-demand notices were issued, proposing penalties as well. The learned Commissioner confirmed the proposals, leading to the Appeals.
The contention of the Appellants' Advocate was that the demand lacked statutory support, the Commissioner exceeded the show cause notices' scope, and did not consider the time limitation. They also mentioned not being able to attend the hearing despite being granted one. They believed the deductions claimed were allowable based on conflicting decisions.
The Department's AR argued that the deductions denied were addressed in various case laws. They highlighted that subsequent decisions were made after the Order-in-Original, including guidelines on reimbursement charges by a Larger Bench in a specific case.
In response, the Appellants' Advocate argued that the reimbursement aspect was already clarified in earlier decisions before the Larger Bench's ruling. They requested to keep all issues open if the matter is remanded.
The Tribunal noted that the decisions cited were not before the Commissioner. The Larger Bench's guidelines on reimbursement charges were considered, emphasizing that costs for inputs services cannot be treated as reimbursable. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration based on the guidelines, with all issues kept open for both parties to produce supporting documents. A reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be provided to the Appellants. The Appeals were allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (3) TMI 716
Issues Involved:
1. Allowance of interest on sticky loans (NPA) transferred to suspense account.
2. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT versus Keshav Ji Ravji & Co. Vs. CIT.
Summary:
Issue 1: Allowance of Interest on Sticky Loans (NPA) Transferred to Suspense Account
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision allowing interest on sticky loans (NPA) transferred to suspense account and not accounted for in the P&L account. The AO had taxed the interest on sticky loans credited to the suspense account, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT, which mandated that interest on sticky loans should be taxed under the mercantile system of accounting. However, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, citing the Supreme Court's later decision in UCO Bank Vs. CIT, which held that interest on sticky loans transferred to a suspense account should not be included in the income if not received for three years, as per the CBDT circular dated 9th October 1984.
Issue 2: Applicability of Supreme Court Decisions
The CIT(A) distinguished the case from State Bank of Travancore Vs. CIT, noting that subsequent changes in the Act and RBI guidelines, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in UCO Bank Vs. CIT, were more applicable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the AO's reliance on the overruled decision in State Bank of Travancore was misplaced. The Tribunal noted that the issue of accrual of interest on sticky loans is debatable and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings u/s 154 of the Act, which is meant for rectifying apparent mistakes.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the CIT(A) correctly applied the Supreme Court's decision in UCO Bank Vs. CIT and the relevant CBDT circular, which support the exclusion of interest on sticky loans from taxable income if not realized for three years. The Tribunal also highlighted that debatable issues cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act.
-
2012 (3) TMI 715
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging deletion of addition u/s 68 made by Assessing Officer.
Summary:
The High Court of Gujarat heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the addition of Rs.1,92,50,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The main contention was whether the Tribunal erred in law by deleting the said addition. The deposit in question was received by the assessee from a private limited company, M/s.G.M.P.L., through an account payee cheque, with confirmation and PAN details provided to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer doubted the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction without verifying with the Assessing Officer of M/s.G.M.P.L. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal found the transaction genuine based on the creditor's profit and loss account and balance sheet. The High Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer should have first verified with the coordinating Assessing Officer of the lender before disputing the genuineness of the transaction. Since there was no evidence that the transaction was disbelieved by the lender's Assessing Officer or not reflected in their account, the Court concluded that there was no basis to question the transaction's credibility. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was involved.
-
2012 (3) TMI 714
Issues involved: Alleged default on a Promissory Note, applicability of Bombay Money Lenders Act, limitation period, authenticity of signature on the Promissory Note, compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions.
Alleged default on Promissory Note:
- Plaintiff filed a summary suit for recovery of Rs. 94,432.87 with interest based on a Promissory Note dated 23rd March, 2008.
- Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to repay the sum of Rs. 80,000 as per the Promissory Note despite receiving a notice demanding payment.
- Defendant denied any transaction with the Plaintiff, alleging the Promissory Note was forged and no notice was received.
- Court considered the conflicting claims and found disputed questions of facts, granting Defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Applicability of Bombay Money Lenders Act:
- Defendant argued that the suit is not applicable for summary procedure due to the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946.
- Court referred to previous judgments and held that if the Money Lenders Act applies to a suit filed under Order XXXVII, unconditional leave must be given to the Defendant.
- Both parties presented arguments on the applicability of the Act, with Defendant ultimately granted unconditional leave to defend the suit.
Limitation period and authenticity of signature:
- Defendant contended that the suit was barred by limitation and disputed her signature on the Promissory Note.
- Plaintiff claimed to have served a notice demanding payment, which Defendant denied receiving.
- Court noted the conflicting claims regarding the authenticity of the signature and the notice, concluding that triable issues were raised by the Defendant.
Compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions:
- Plaintiff argued compliance with Money Lenders Act provisions, while Defendant raised concerns about non-compliance.
- Court examined the arguments and found that the provisions of the Act had been complied with, allowing the Defendant to defend the suit on the grounds raised.
- Defendant directed to file a Written Statement within four weeks, and the suit was transferred to the list of Commercial Causes for further proceedings.
........
|
9911796707
