|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1840 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here the attempt to arrive at an agree settlement between the parties has failed. It is a clear case where the Lok Adalat converted itself into a regular Court and disposed of the claim of the Respondent on merits. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional errors and is liable to be set aside. The orders passed by the permanent Lok Adalat and as well as the High Court are, accordingly, set aside. 3. However, Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Corporation, readily responded to the suggestion made by the Court for the release of amount of Rs. 1 lakh claimed by the Respondent under the Policy. We appreciate the stand taken by the Appellant-Corporation in this regard. The amount, if not already released, may be released within eight weeks from today. 4. This grant of relief to the Respondent is confined to the facts on hand. It shall not be treated as a precedent. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no orders as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1839 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the decision on the ground that subsequently, the criminal court has acquitted him. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the punishment and directing reinstatement with back wages and consequential benefits. In fact, the order of the High Court directing back wages amounts to rewarding a person who has been found guilty of a misconduct. 11. However having regard to the fact that the proven charge did not involve either misappropriation or fraudulent conduct and the other circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment of dismissal should be substituted by compulsory retirement, which does not involve reinstatement. 12. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. We uphold the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority, but modify the punishment from 'dismissal' to 'compulsory retirement'. There is therefore no question of grant of any back-wages.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1838 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... Sivasamy. His statement was also recorded, he has confirmed the gift and also detailed the source of his income. Another gift of ₹ 75,000/- was made by Smt. Kuppathal. She also confirmed her gift along with the source thereof. The assessee also showed an amount of ₹ 2,50,000/- in the name of Moi account. A copy showing details of persons from whom Moi amounts were received was filed. The A.O. has accepted that the assessee received this amount on the occasion of his daughter s Puberty function. But, as per the A.O., the receipt of Moi amount was not fully proved. So, he has restricted it to 50% and has added an amount of ₹ 1.25 lakhs. 7.3 After hearing both sides, we are not convinced about the reason given by the Department in sustaining this addition. The entire amount has to be accepted. In the result, ground No.IV is also allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 25th March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1837 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee was with a corresponding obligation to use it for the agreed purposes and it was not an unfettered receipt in the hands of the assessee. The tribunal accordingly held that the receipts could not be viewed as income of the assessee. The tribunal also held that the receipts could also not be charged as business profit under Article-7 of DTAA as the assessee had no PE in India. The tribunal accordingly deleted the addition made. We also note that the AO in assessee s own case in A.Y.2006-07 in the scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) dated 18.11.2008 has held that marketing and reservation contribution fees received by the assessee from Indian hotels is not chargeable in India. Under these circumstances in our view the addition has been rightly deleted by the CIT(A). We see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and the same is therefore upheld. 4. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. The decision pronounced in the open court today i.e. 30.03.2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1836 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... which is no longer applicable to the assessment year under appeal. The order of the authorities below thus cannot be sustained in law. In the preceding assessment year 2005-06, it was noted that there were no fresh borrowings because the borrowings have gone down. Therefore, it was held that no disallowance was called for. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of the AO with direction to re-decide the same afresh as per the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT and Another (supra). The AO shall give reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Charging of interest is consequential in nature and mandatory. Penalty matter is pre-mature and calls for no findings. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29-03-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1835 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... , at the time of furnishing the original return. The said factual finding, as noted by the hon ble court at pg. 6 of its judgement, affirms the basis of its decision, and which is, thus, clearly inapplicable in view of the factual edifice of the present case which is founded on the twin factual findings, i.e., a) it being a case of conscious and deliberate omission to return the full income; and b) the second return(s) by the assessee being not voluntary, but on the default in not furnishing the full and correct income per the original return having come to the notice of the Revenue, and which, consequently, formed the basis of issue of notice/s u/s. 148 for each of the relevant years, though issued only later, and if fact is by itself of no moment. The said decision would have no bearing on the present case. We decide accordingly, confirming the levy the penalty and, accordingly, set aside the orders by the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, all the Revenue s appeals are allowed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1834 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... a contractor as held by the lower authorities. The developer is not working on remuneration for the landowners, but developer is working for himself in order to exploit the potential of its business in his own interest and, therefore, opted for all business risks associated with the business of development of real estate including developing and building of housing projects. As per the provisions of section 2(1)(g) of Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service Act (27 of 1996), the term Contractor means a person who undertakes to produce a given result for any establishment, other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture, by the employment of building workers or who supplies building workers for any work of the establishment; and includes a sub-contractor. Respectfully, following the above decision of the Tribunal, we treat these grounds as rejected. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 25/3/11.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1833 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n this issue. 12. The next ground of appeal is against the CIT(A) allowing the deduction of Rs. 31,752/-being employees contribution to P.F., which was paid beyond the due date but before the due date for filing . This issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alom Extrusions Ltd (319 ITR 306) and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v AIMIL Ltd (229 CTR 418) wherein it has been held that payment of employees contribution made before the due date for filing of the return ca not be disallowed u/s 43B. Respectfully following these decisions, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) allowing the deduction of Rs. 31,752/- being employees contribution paid before the due date for filing of the return and dismiss the revenue s appeal on this issue. 13. In the result the assessee s appeal in ITA No 2950/M/05 and the revenue s appeal in 3842/M/05 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 31st day of March, 2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1832 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ic Premises Act is an expeditious proceeding and that is something minimum in the circumstances. A Public Corporation from which a higher standard is expected, cannot refuse to follow this much minimum due process of law. 37. In the circumstances we have no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge. We, however, make it clear that the observations made above are for the purposes of deciding the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge and not on the merit of the rival claims. We make it very clear that in the event the Appellant takes the steps under the Public Premises Act, it will be open to the Respondent to plead their case before the competent authority on all counts, though it will also be open to the competent authority concerned to take its own decision on the merits of the rival contention on facts as well as on law. 38. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed though there will be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1831 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be the Managing Director of the company was specifically mentioned in the complaint. But the present case stands on a different footing and so the ratio in both these cases, in my opining, will not be applicable in this case. 9. Considering all these aspects I hold that further prosecution of the present Petitioner in all these cases will be mere abuse of the process of law and to prevent it all the four proceedings are hereby quashed as against the Petitioner accused who is discharged and released from his bail bond. The interim stay order granted earlier stands vacated. The cases, however, shall proceed against rest accused as per law. 10. All the revisional applications are thus disposed of. In view of above findings all the connected applications being registered as CRAN for extension of interim order will also be treated as disposed of. 11. Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, on compliance of all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1830 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ither in writing or orally, it is proved that appellant is having no grievance against this disallowance. Moreover, the 1/5th disallowance made by the AO can also not be considered as highly excessive. Therefore, the disallowance out of motor car expenses and depreciation allowance u/s. 38(2) of the I.T. Act 1961 by the AO is upheld. This ground is also decided against the appellant. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the 1/5th disallowance made by the AO out of the vehicle running and maintenance expenditure debited into the P L account and 1/5th of depreciation on motor cars and vehicles. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as the disallowance made on account of personal use of motor cars and disallowance of 1/5th of depreciation on motor cars seems to be reasonable. Hence we dismiss this ground raised by the assessee. 16. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 9th day of March, 2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1829 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Judge shall consider the bail application, if any to be filed uninfluenced by the observations if any made in the interim orders passed by us as those observations were confined only for the purposes of granting custody of the Respondent for his interrogation by the Directorate of Enforcement. 3. Likewise, liberty is granted to the Appellant also to move the Special Judge seeking further remand of the Respondent herein, if the law provides for the same, which shall also be considered by the Special Judge on its own merits. 4. The appeal and applications are, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1828 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ortionment of the total income so computed is to be made. If the agricultural part of the deductions is made application for deduction from the 60 per cent of the total income so computed, in that event, this 60 per cent would be again made assessable under the Agricultural Income-tax Act which is not permissible. In that event, the purpose of creating fiction would stand frustrated. It would then be a concept completely foreign to the fiction so created. Therefore, the entire amount paid as cess on green leaf seems to be eligible for deduction with regard to which we do not find any confusion. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substantial question of law involved in this case. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Respectfully following the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court decision, as the issue is exactly same on facts, we uphold the order of CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1827 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a person or for detaining a person. 9. I also consider that the action of the officers in taking the Respondent from hotel to the office for inquiry and thereafter arresting him after the inquiry were within the scope of duties and the officers enjoyed protection of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and it cannot be said that their act was not done in good faith merely on the complaint of the complainant and at the most they could be charged under Section 20 of Central Excise Act, by the Court where trial of excise case was going on. 10. It is observed that learned ACMM had acted illegally in entertaining complaint under provisions of IPC and instead he should have been taken action only under Section 20 of Central Excise Act in view of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and in any case, if he had to take cognizance of the offences under IPC, sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was must. 11. The petition is allowed. The order dated 1st December 2009 is hereby set aside.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1826 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... deception is on the date of issue of the cheque and not on the date of entering into the agreement for trading in commodities. While issuing the cheque, there was no allegation of any representation or deception and the 2nd Respondent did not part with any property or valuable security either thereunder or thereafter in pursuance of the alleged representation or deception. In the absence of any such basic ingredients of inducement by fraud or deception at the inception of the transaction, mere giving of cheque for the amount due without there being sufficient funds in the account of the accused, cannot attract liability under Section 420 I.P.C. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution could not make out any ingredients for maintaining the charge sheet under Section 420 I.P.C. against the accused. 5. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC. No. 862 of 2009 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1825 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... l investment. 8.1. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated by the CIT(Appeals), we do not find any merit in assessee's appeal.” 7. Since the facts obtaining in the year under consideration are admittedly similar to the facts & circumstances in the AY 2002-03, following the view taken by the ITAT in their aforesaid decision in the assessee’s own case, we have no hesitation in upholding the findings of the ld. CIT(A) that the profit on sale of plot has to be taxed as business income, especially when the ld. AR did not place any material before us so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter nor made any submissions. Therefore, ground nos. 2 to 7 in this appeal are rejected. 8. No additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground no.8 in the appeal , accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the court today on 1-3-2011
-
2011 (3) TMI 1824 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he liquidator and was to be set off according to the priority order as enshrined in the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. All rights, claims, liabilities etc. upto the date of execution of conveyance deed was to be of the liquidator of the mill. It would sound unfair and strange that claims would be that of the liquidator, whereas liability, though agreed to be taken by the liquidator, could be fastened on to the petitioner. This approach would neither be fair nor legally justified. There is, thus, merit in the writ petition and the same, therefore, deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders, dated 3.8.2009 and 4.9.2009, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-6, are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. This would not be a bar for the respondent-Provident Fund Commissioner to recover this amount due from the liquidator or M/s Goindwal Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1823 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ion can be claimed in computation of income from house property are exhaustive. If a particular type of expenditure is not specifically provided to be deductible, deduction thereof cannot be claimed from out of the annual value. Neither s.23 nor s.24 provides for the deduction of the expenses incurred towards stamp duty or registration in respect of the lease of the house property. Held accordingly, that the assessee-firm was not entitled to deduction of a half share of the stamp duty and registration charges borne by it in respect of a lease of its house property for a period of five years, in computing its income for the house property.” 19. Since no deductions for occupancy charges were provided u/s.24, the same is not allowable. In these circumstances, we find nothing wrong with the order of Learned CIT(A) and confirm the same. 20. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1822 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ed reported in 191 ITR 626. In view of the said judgment, we answer the above question in the negative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” Therefore, the A.O. is directed to examine the dates and allow interest. Incidentally, the refund seems to have been adjusted to some other demands. The A.O. is directed to examine the respective dates and grant the interest, bearing in mind the above judicial principles by determining the starting date and the period for which the interest is to be granted, clearly mentioning the dates and how they were arrived at in a detailed order. The assessee has a right to know the period for which the interest was granted. The assessee should be given an opportunity before deciding the issue so that the disputes if any can be examined at the threshold itself. A.O. is directed accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1821 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... away by a number of decisions relied on by him rather than the basic frame of the facts of the case. We do not have any quarrel with the observation of the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) regarding the nature of income defined by various pronouncements relied on by him. But the fact is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(A) has not collected or compared the facts of the present case in the light of those judicial pronouncements. 09. We find that there is no reason on record to reject the claim of the assessee that the surplus earned by the late assessee was in the nature of long-term capital gains. Accordingly, the assessing authority is directed to redo the assessment treating the surplus on sale of land as long-term capital gains in accordance with law including the benefit of indexation and determine the ultimate total income liable for taxation. 10. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 07th day of March, 2011, at Bangalore.
........
|
