|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 781 Records
-
2007 (3) TMI 814 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... t with properly, under the law, even penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall not stand. 3. Heard both sides and it is found that proposition of law submitted by the ld. Authorised Representative throws light on the quantum of penalty leviable. Therefore, considering that gravity of the offence not being so rigorous, imposition of penalty of ₹ 1146/- and ₹ 3,000/- was even hardship. When there was no compelling reason to levy penalty by the Appellate Authorities below, reduction is not considerable as mercy and an authority shall only act in accordance with law. There is no reason brought out in record even to impose a token penalty for the technical breach and there is no finding on intention of the assessee to evade tax or make a knowable breach of law. Keeping the token amount of penalty in view, Cross Objection is allowed and there shall be no penalty on the Respondents. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (3) TMI 813 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... transactions. All the purchases and sales were made in the account of assessee. It was assessee’s own infrastructure which was used in all the transactions. These being the facts on record, even if there is a second view possible on re-appreciation of evidence on record in preference to view taken by the Tribunal, we are unable to hold that the view expressed by the Tribunal was not possible view. The findings recorded are based on evidence and could not be regarded as perverse. In the appellate jurisdiction under Section 260-A of the Act, the appeal can be entertained only on a substantial question of law. No doubt perversity in the findings of the Tribunal would amount to substantial question of law but learned counsel for the assessee has failed to point out any material on record which could impell this Court to hold that the view expressed by the Tribunal was not at all possible. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 812 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... n in holding that the expression "admission" in Rule 12(5) of the Rules can be read to mean an admission both in the pleadings, in the proceedings as well as an admission of fact not in the proceedings and which is evidenced by any document or mode provided under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. That contention must, therefore, be rejected. 9. The issue pertaining to limitation, in our opinion, is merely an afterthought. It was open to the petitioner to raise such a plea in its reply to the respondent No. 1's application. That was not done. Even otherwise, the profit and loss account was signed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of the petitioner on 1-9-2000. The application was filed in June 2003. In other words, from the pleadings, it would be clear that it was within limitation. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
-
2007 (3) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... A. Nos. 34, 35 & 36/Delhi/84 filed against Tribunal order dated 30-11-1984 in respect of ITA Nos. 1222, 1223 & 1224/Delhi/82 upholding rectification by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act modifying deductions allowed earlier under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 respectively ?" 4. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that this is hardly a question of law which requires consideration. One application having been dismissed, the second application necessarily had to be dismissed if it was seeking the same relief. 5. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises for our opinion. 6. The reference is returned unanswered.
-
2007 (3) TMI 810 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... yment should be made. 6. In view of these findings of fact, it is quite clear that the assessee has not been able to show that there were some exceptional reasons for the assessee to make the payment in cash. 7. The ingredients of rule 6DD of the Rules read with section 40A(3) of the Act have not been satisfied by the assessee. 8. We may note that all the three statutory authorities have found that there was no special reason for the assessee to make the payment to P.C. Jain in cash. 9. We are not inclined to disturb this concurrent finding. 10. Under the circumstances, we answer the questions referred for our opinion in the following manner - (1) In the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (2) In the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. (3) In the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. (4) In the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 809 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Kabir, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 808 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irm. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. Respondent has not been charged with any fraudulent action. He had a probable defence. Appellant furthermore had not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the learned Trial Judge for enhancement of the sentence. It may be that quantum of compensation has been altered to that of the fine but in effect and substance the same did not matter. 16. In our opinion, therefore, interest of justice would be subserved, if the respondent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of ₹ 7,00,000/- in stead and place of a fine of ₹ 5,000/-, as has been directed by the High Court. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to get the aforementioned sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- by way of compensation. 17. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Respondent should pay the amount of compensation within a period of eight weeks, if not already deposited, failing which steps may be taken for recovery thereof in accordance with law.
-
2007 (3) TMI 807 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt erred when it rejected the application of the appellant filed under Sections 8 and 5 of the Act. In such a situation, refusal to refer the dispute to arbitration would amount to failure of justice as also causing irreparable injury to the appellant. For the said reason, we are of the opinion that the High Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the relief under Section 115 CPC. 19. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this revision succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the learned trial Court is hereby directed to refer the parties concerned to arbitration. 20. Considering the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed that the parties shall appear, in Money Suit No. 73/2003, on 10-04-2007 and on that day, the learned Court below shall pass appropriate ord ers. 21. With the above observations and directions, ths revision shall stand di sposed of with costs. 22. Send back the LCRs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 806 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... hese circumstances, passport will be issued to him without any limitation to enable the petitioner to pursue his studies and travel abroad. This is subject to the condition that in case the activities of the petitioner are later found to be prejudicial to the interest of the State, the respondent will be at liberty to reconsider the matter. It is stated by the learned ASG that the passport will be issued within four weeks from today. This Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2007 (3) TMI 805 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tentions of the assessee and noted that in the event the assessing officer was not convinced with the available material; he should have examined the matter further but instead of doing so he merely disbelieved the assessee. 5. We find that the assessing officer glossed over certain facts which had been taken note of by both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. The assessee had provided the bank statement of the creditor which had shown sufficient balance at the relevant point of time and given all material particulars to the assessing officer with regard to her creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. On the facts of the case, both authorities held that the transaction was a genuine transaction. We cannot find any fault with the view taken by both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. 6. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in this appeal. Dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 804 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he conclusion. They have misread Ex.D1, the registered mortgage deed which clearly show the enjoyment of Sy.No.197 by three brothers in different parts. In the light of this evidence on record, it is not possible to hold that the plaintiff is a member of the joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and there was no partition in the family end that he is entitled to half share in the properties. Therefore the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. In the light of these findings, it is totally unnecessary to look into the amendment application, application filed for additional evidence and without which it is possible to da complete justice to the parties and pronounce the judgment. In the circumstances, I pass the following order. 12. Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are hereby set asides. Plaintiff's suit is dismissed. Parties to hear their own costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 803 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , documents records of the Resulting Company. 81.1 Company Petition No. 9 of 2006 is filed by Nirma is disposed of with the following directions (i) The modified composite Scheme of Arrangement referred to in paragraph-15 of the petition which shall be an integral part of this order is sanctioned and it would be binding on all equity and preference shareholders of the petitioner-Company and on the petitioner-Company. (ii) Within 30 days from the date of sealing of the order, the petitioner-Company shall serve a certified copy of the order sanctioning the Scheme of Arrangement with the Registrar of Companies (Gujarat), Ahmedabad for registration and upon such certified copy of the order being so delivered, the Registrar of Companies (Gujarat), Ahmedabad shall consolidate all relevant files, documents, records, relating to the demerged Company maintained by him with the files, documents records of the Resulting Company. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 802 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r of Income Tax v. Devi Dass Malhan (ITA No.155/2007), no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
-
2007 (3) TMI 801 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y choice decided not to participate in the proceedings and therefore application under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte Order was dismissed. 22. The Appeal is accordingly allowed and Order dated 11th December, 2006 dismissing IA 1784/2006 is set aside. Ex-parte order dated 23rd April, 2004 is also set aside subject to payment of costs of ₹ 50,000/- by the appellant to the respondent. Costs will be paid within two weeks. 23. The appellant will file written statement within three weeks from today. Replication, if any, will be filed within three weeks thereafter. Parties will file documents/additional documents along with written statement/replication within the period stipulated therein. List before the Joint Registrar for admission/denial of documents on 10th May, 2007. The above time schedule shall be strictly adhered to by both the parties. 24. List the matter before the learned Single Judge for compliance and payment of costs, etc. on 17th April, 2007.
-
2007 (3) TMI 800 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... shan, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT
Deliberate and Willful Violation of the Prohibitory order passed by the High Court - Guilty of contempt of Court - Plea of mistake of understanding - Contempt Petition - Applications for Grant of licenses for excise shops - HELD THAT:- The High Court in that view of the matter committed a grave mis-carriage of justice by not taking into consideration another most important fact that if actually the lottery was held by mistake or by misunderstanding of the orders, then the respondent would have immediately rectified it and would have cancelled the lottery but in the instant case, instead of canceling the lottery, the respondents have justified their conduct from which the determined declination of obeying the order is clearly proved
It is settled law that a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take an unfair advantage by committing breach of an interim order and escape the consequences thereof by pleading misunderstanding and thereafter retain the said advantage gained in breach of the order of the Court. Such violations should be put an end with an iron hand.
We are unable to accept the argument advanced by learned Addl. Solicitor General that the respondents did not understand the implication and consequences of a prohibitory order passed by the High Court. We have already explained their conduct and the refusal to cancel the order when they were advised to do so by the High Court during the pendency of the contempt proceedings. The act of the respondent is not only willful but also deliberate and contumacious. The High Court committed a grave error of law by not holding that if there was a doubt about the implication of the order of the Court, the alleged contemnors should have approached the Court and have clarified their alleged confusion.
Likewise, this Court while ordering notice in the present appeal @ SLP have clearly directed on 18.09.2006 that no license shall be granted on the basis of the lottery and pursuant to the circular dated 20.01.2004. Even after the receipt of the order, the respondents have not cancelled the license, but allowed them to continue the business. The reason is obvious. The respondents though tendered unqualified apology before the High Court, the High Court was not inclined to go into the question of apology in view of the observations made by it in the order impugned in this civil appeal. Even before us no apology whatsoever was tendered by respondent Nos.1-4. We, therefore, hold them guilty of willful and deliberate act of contempt.
As it is evident that respondent Nos.1-4 have no regard for the orders passed by this Court on 4, 19 and 20.01.2005 and have scant respect for the Court’s orders and have deliberately and willfully and with utter disregard violated all the 3 orders and are thus guilty of contempt of Court. However, taking a lenient view and taking into consideration of the future prospects of the officers, respondent Nos. 1-4 we are not imposing any punishment for their willful violation of the order of the High Court and accept the unqualified apology filed before the High Court.
We, therefore hold them guilty of contempt of Court and do hereby censure their conduct - Civil appeal stands allowed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 798 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only sentence in Para 7 by way of explanation is, 'However, there is some delay in serving the order by the assessing authority'. 6. Nowhere the explanation has been given as to why it took ten months for the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner to serve the order. Therefore, this Court would be just in believing that the order had not been passed on 23-01-2006 and it had been passed much later. Such a presumption can be drawn in the absence of any explanation on behalf of the respondent-authorities for not serving the order. Earlier, this Court has taken the same view in a judgment reported in Sanka Agencies v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad (2005) 142 STC 496 and the same view was taken by the Supreme Court also in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Ramakishtaiah & Co. (1994) 93 STC 406. 7. Following those judgments, we allow the Writ Petition and quash the order passed by the second respondent in RC. No. 3442/2000-01/APGST, dated 23.01.2006. No costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 797 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court is directed to remit the amount of ₹ 3,50,000/-, deposited by respondent No. 1- Bank in this Court, to the Controlling Authority. The Controlling Authority is directed to hold this amount in fixed deposits and deal with the same subject to the result of the application. 28. It is needless to mention that pending consideration of the substantive application the Controlling Authority shall permit withdrawal of the amount to the petitioner- employee, subject to his vacating bank premises allotted to him for his residence when he was in service. In the event petitioner- employee refuses to vacate the premises, then, this factor should be taken into account at the time of final disposal of the application so as to adjust equities between the parties. All rival contentions on merits are kept open. Order accordingly. 29. In the result, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (3) TMI 796 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s. 11. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the findings of the Tribunal that the assessee could not be held to be in default of short deduction of TDS under section 201 read with section 192 of the Act and as such the question of charging interest under section 201(1A) of the Act does not arise. 12. The above being the position, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal does not give rise to a question of law, much less a substantial question of law, to fall within the limited purview of section 260A of the Act, which is confined to entertaining only such appeals against the order which involves a substantial question of law. 13. So, under these circumstances, the question of penalty under section 271C of the Act for deduction of tax does not arise, the Tribunal, thus, rightly cancelled the penalty imposed by the assessee. 14. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the revenue are, hereby, dismissed.
-
2007 (3) TMI 795 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondents, its affiliates or associates from participating, negotiating, engaging in or being financially interested, directly or indirectly in any other project for the manufacturing of Float Glass, or for the fabrication of products made from Float Glass, or for the sale, import/export of Float Glass or related products made from Float Glass in India. The respondent shall also stand restrained from taking any steps in setting up a wholly owned subsidiary in India for manufacturing in the same field as GGL. So far as prayer (c) and (d) are concerned, the same shall abide adjudication in the writ proceedings which are stated to have been initiated by the petitioner. This order shall operate till making of the Award by the Arbitral Tribunal. It is made clear that this Court has only taken a prima facie view in the matter and nothing herein contained shall be considered as an expression of opinion or a finding on the merits of the dispute pending before the Arbitral Tribunal.
........
|
