|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1319 Records
-
2012 (11) TMI 1333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r interference. 41. It was contended that possession of the land is not taken and no developmental activity has been done. In these circumstances, it is open to this Court to set-aside the acquisition and restore the land to the petitioners. That question would have arisen if, the petitioners had not alienated the property, or they were cultivating the lands as rightful owners or they were living there with their family members. If they have executed a sale deed and received the consideration under the sale deed and have parted possession to the purchaser, the possession of the purchaser cannot be treated as the possession of the owner and that would not enure to their benefit to any extent whatsoever to contend that the acquisition is to be quashed. In the facts of this case, we do not find any justification to quash the acquisition proceedings on that score. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any merit in this batch of writ appeals and accordingly, they are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1332 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... affidavit in lieu of chief examination, this right given to the complainant cannot be extended to an accused. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I think that the Trial Court committed an error in accepting the affidavit filed by the respondents in lieu of chief examination and as there is an inherent defect in procedure adopted, the impugned orders will have to be set aside. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment and order acquitting the respondents for the charge under Section 138 of N.I. Act are set aside. The matters are remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity to the respondents (accused) to give evidence by entering into witness box instead of accepting affidavit and dispose of the case in accordance with law. As the matter is of the year 2006, the Court below is directed to expedite the matter and dispose of the case preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1331 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Order granting anticipatory bail to them, therefore, deserves to be confirmed. We feel that if the conditions imposed by learned Sessions Judge are confirmed, it would be possible for the investigating agency to interrogate the accused effectively. 10. In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the impugned orders. Anticipatory bail granted to the Appellants-accused 6 and 7 by learned Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 23/01/2012 is hereby confirmed. The Appellants-accused 6 and 7 shall cooperate with the investigating agency and abide by the conditions imposed on them. Needless to say that it will be open to learned Additional Sessions Judge seized of the case to vary the conditions if necessary in accordance with law. Needless to say further that all observations made by us touching the merits of the case are prima facie observations and the trial court shall decide the case without being influenced by them. 11. The appeals are disposed of in the afore stated terms.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1330 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on the nature of the allegation made against the petitioner having any nexus with official duty. Sanction will be required where offence alleged has connection with his official duty and the same can be considered when evidence of witnesses would be recorded during the trial. The same view has been reiterated in subsequent judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. So far the issue, no case is made out against the petitioner, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or by the Sessions Judge as statement made in the FIR constitutes prima facie case against the petitioner. The recovery of money by the Federation will not wipe out the act of the petitioner, while working as Administrator. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. Petitioner will have liberty to raise all point at the appropriate stage and the court will decide the case on its merit on all points even the point of applicability of sanction.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1329 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion nos. 1 and 2 are answered in the light of the decision given in Tax Appeal No. 14/1999R dated 13th June, 2012. 4. So far as question no. 3 is concerned, it is with respect to deletion of disallowances in respect of expenditure incurred on community development for the assessment year 199394/199495 under the head of expenditure for sports, recreation and Game expenses. 5. In view of the reasons given in two judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. ( 1978 115 ITR 659 (Delhi)) and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( 1986 158 ITR 64 (Delhi)), we are of the considered opinion that the issue has already been answered by the Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee and we are in full agreement with reasons given by Delhi High Court in the above two judgments. The question no.3 is answered in favour of the assessee. Thus, these appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1328 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erent opinions on the question by different Judges. That is why the matter was referred to a Larger Bench and the Larger Bench rendered the decision in Aneetha Hada's case (supra). In the above circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner should be given another opportunity to continue the prosecution before the Magistrate, after arraigning the company also as an accused in the three cases. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ernakulam for fresh disposal of C.C Nos. 1667, 1668 & 1669 of 2009. 8. If the petitioners file applications for arraigning the company also as an accused in the three cases, the Magistrate shall consider and pass orders on the same in accordance with law and continue the prosecution. 9. The amounts already deposited by the petitioner before the Magistrate will continue to be in deposit until the C.Cs are disposed of afresh. 10. The Criminal Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1327 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... aking a claim u/s 37(1) as expenditure or u/s 36(2) as a bad debt. This expenditure cannot be allowable under this provision where this expenditure is not an expenditure incurred for the purpose of assessee's own business and also this is loss of capital and cannot be allowed as a bad debt as discussed in earlier paras. Accordingly, these grounds of the appeal are dismissed.” 29. Since the issue is materially identical to the one decided by the coordinate bench in the case of VST Industries Ltd. (supra), respectfully following the same, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the claim of write off of Rs. 2,27,52,698 as ‘bad debt’ or as ‘expenditure’ and dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the assessee in this regard. 30. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 31. To sum up, both the appeals of the revenue as well as assessee are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 27/11/2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1326 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... machinery. Therefore, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) and this ground is also liable to be rejected. 4. Now, coming to the appeal filed by the Revenue, the ground is that the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in allowing the depreciation claim of the assessee on project assets at the rate of 10% applicable to buildings. It is the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled for any amount of depreciation, as the assessee is not the owner of the asset built in by it. But, as already pointed out by the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), the Tribunal has held in similar cases that the assessee is entitled for depreciation at the rate of 10%. This ground of the Revenue, therefore, fails. 5. In result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Orders pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 22nd of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1325 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and A.O. 13. We have perused the rival contentions and submission and heard the arguments from both the sides. It is fact that the assessee had not charged any interest in case of Pranjee Properties P. Ltd. on Rs.30 lacs and Impact Impex on Rs. 11 lacs, which were advanced during the year. Remainings were advanced in earlier years. The appellant had various interest free funds available in form of share capital, reserve surplus, share application money substantially. Further, the unsecured loan had been gone down by Rs.40 lacs compared to preceding year. There is no direct nexus has been established by the A.O. that interest free advances given out of loan taken on interest. Thus, we have considered view that the addition made by the A.O., confirmed by the CIT(A) is not warranted. Accordingly, we delete the addition. 14. In the combined result, Assessee’s appeals are partly allowed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 09.11.2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1324 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er). 35. A reading of the Order clearly displays that submissions of both parties were considered, relevant material was placed on record, and a decision reached consequent thereto. The fact that no specific violations of a particular Section of the Companies Act or the DIP Guidelines are mentioned does not vitiate the order; as the first stage of investigation is only preliminary and based on reasoning provided by the SEBI, it was advised to appoint an Investigating Authority to further determine the veracity of these claims. Indeed, it is not for the High Court to second-guess the reasoning of the SEBI, as long as a deferential review does not reveal any extraneous circumstances. On this aspect too, this Court is of opinion that the findings of the learned single judge do not call for interference. The result of the above discussion is that all the three points are held against the Appellant, DLF. The appeal has to therefore fail; it is dismissed without any order on costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1323 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case has conducted an enquiry prior to issuance of summons as envisaged by Section 202 Cr. P.C. 10. This Court is also of the view that the Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Joseph (supra) upheld the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the summoning order as in that case, the Magistrate had specifically stated that he was not considering the sworn statements of the witnesses at the pre-cognizance stage. 11. Consequently, this Court sees no merit in the present petitions. 12. However, as this Court has been informed that Mr. Krishna Murari Lal, petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 3937/2012, is 72 years old retired IAS Officer, this Court grants him exemption from personal appearance before the trial court subject to his appearing through counsel provided his counsel does not dispute the identity of the accused and does not seek any adjournment in the trial court proceedings. With the aforesaid observations, the present petitions and pending applications stand disposed of.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1322 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee so as to invoke Explanation 1 to section 41(1). In our opinion, it is just a case of capitalizing the interest expenditure to comply with the monetary requirements of AS-10 by passing the necessary entries in the books of account which has not resulted in any advantage or benefit to the assessee either by way of remission or cessation of any liability or in any other manner. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) on this issue thus is not sustainable and deleting the same, we allow ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 1994-95. 30. In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for assessment years 1994-95, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2002-03 are dismissed. The appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2001-02 is partly allowed. The appeal of the assessee for assessment year 1994-95 is partly allowed and all the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced Court on this 23rd day of Nov., 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1321 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e benefit of deduction under sec.80IA treating the windmill as a separate and independent business unit. 6. Once the above stand is upheld, the next question is whether the income from carbon credit is to be assessed under other sources or under the head business. There is no basis to treat such income as income from other sources. It is not an income from other source. On the other hand, it is the income coming from the business of running the windmill. The income from sale of carbon credits is earned by the assessee in the course of carrying on the business of running the windmill. Therefore, this is business income. Accordingly the income from sale of carbon credits would form part of eligible profits in the hands of the assessee for the purpose of working out the deduction available under sec.80IA. 6. In result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Thursday, the 29th of November, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1320 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eedings are initiated before two separate courts, it may result in conflicting of decisions, duplication of evidence, waste of time etc. There is no legal bar for the Special Court (Economic Offence) to try for the offences punishable under IPC which are interlinked with the offences under the provisions of the Companies Act. On the other hand the proceedings before the Special Court cannot be transferred to the regular Magistrate. In the circumstances, it is necessary in the interest of both the parties to transfer the proceedings in C.C.No.6906/2012 to the Special Court (Economic Offence) to be tried together with C.C.No.28/2012. Accordingly the following ORDER i) Petition is hereby disposed of. ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.6906/2012 pending on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby transferred and assigned to Special Court (Economic Offence) Bangalore to be tried together with C.C.No.28/2012 in accordance with law. iii) Ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1319 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... izens. Appellant No. 1 who happens to be the father-in-law of the complainant-wife has been a Major General, by all means, a respectable position in the Army. But the nature of the allegations made against the couple and those against the husband, appear to be much too specific to be ignored at least at the stage of framing of charges. The Courts below, therefore, did not commit any mistake in refusing a discharge. 18. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Keeping, however, in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand exempted from personal appearance before the trial Court except when the trial Court considers it necessary to direct their presence. The said Appellants shall, however, make sure that they are duly represented by a counsel on all dates of hearing and that they cooperate with the progress of the case failing which the trial Court shall be free to direct their personal appearance. No costs.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1318 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m computed as per para 56(i). 57. The respondent would be entitled to proportionate costs in the suit and as regards the appeal the parties shall bear their own costs. Noting that the appellant was required to deposit the decretal amount as a condition of stay of the decree and that the appellant has deposited the same out of which the respondent has received 50% of the decretal amount by furnishing an indemnity bond that the amount would be refunded with interest @ 9% should the decree be reversed, since the sum decreed by us would be much less than 50% by the sum decreed by the learned Single Judge, we direct that amount lying in deposit pursuant to orders passed in the appeal be returned to the appellant with interest and that after the decree is drawn in the appeal the learned Registrar (Appellate) shall invoke the guarantee bond in such amount which has to be refunded by the respondent to the appellant and on receiving the amount shall pay over the same to the appellant.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1317 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Writ petitions Challenging the liability of Nalco (Project) on non-compliance with the provisions of Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act), 1948 and Regulations framed therein until the ESI Dispensary functions effectively and starts parallel service to such Contract Labourers - The petitioner (NALCO) manages some of its work in the Project establishment through Contractors by way of tender works and at present its project establishment has contract labourers. Such works are generally conducted through tender process to different Contractors and as per conditions the Contractors used to have their own E.S.I. Code as well as P.F. Code and under the terms of contract they are bound to follow the statutory provisions and responsibility of NALCO comes only when such contractors fail in undertaking such statutory obligations. NALCO has its own hospital at all its units. The hospitals of NALCO are providing the hospital benefits only to its regular employees and providing medical facility to the Contractors' workers as per the settlement, the Management of NALCO entered into a settlement with the Contractors Association representing the Contractors working and the Alumina Mazdoor Sangh representing such workmen on 26.02.2007. Under Clause-3 of the said settlement the NALCO Management has agreed to provide medical allowance @ 4.75% of the earned wages to the contract labourers w.e.f. 01.02.2007 and to continue such facilities till the workmen are covered under the E.S.I. Scheme. The said settlement even though was operative up to 25.02.2008, but the condition as narrated above is allowed to continue as on date and all the contractors workers are being paid by their employer the aforesaid benefits every month and their employer used to get the same reimbursed from NALCO.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner-employer has not paid his own contribution and the employee's contribution. This is a clear case of violation of statutory provision. The plea of the management that the ESI authorities have not established the ESI Hospital providing facilities to the contractor labourers cannot exonerate the employer from discharging its statutory obligation of payment of the employer's contribution and employee's contribution which has no relation with the benefit to be provided by the Corporation to the employees under the Employees' State Insurance Act. all the pleas taken by the petitioners not to discharge its statutory obligation are not legally sustainable. Therefore, The petitioner-employer is bound to discharge its statutory obligation under the E.S.I. Act and cannot impose any condition which is not provided under the statute to discharge its statutory obligation.
To insist implementation of the provisions of ESI Act and scheme framed therein until the ESI Dispensary functions effectively and starts parallel service to such Contractor Labourers cannot be granted to the petitioner. It may be noted that the benefit provided under the ESI Act is not confined to hospital facility; the benefit covers to sickness, maternity, employment injury etc.
The notices challenged by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, are all show cause notices. It does not appear that show cause notices have been issued by opposite parties without having authority of law or without having jurisdiction.the petitioners have approached the Employees' State Insurance Court under Section 75 of the ESI Act, 1948. In the above premises, it is not a fit case where interference of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for.
Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1316 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... de to treat the same as deemed concealment of income. It is a settled law that every addition of income by the A.O. will not automatically attract levy of penalty. From the reading of explanation 1(B) to sec. 271(1)(c) it is clear that while computing the total income of an assessee, if the assessee fails to prove that the explanation is bonafide then there will be a deemed concealment by the assessee. Seen in the background of the provisions of Sec. 271(1)(c) and the aforesaid decisions of the High Court, in the present case, the explanation of the assessee cannot be said to be not bonafide. The decision relied by the Revenue is distinguishable on the facts and therefore cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. In view of the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that no penalty is leviable in the present case. We thus direct the deletion of penalty. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 9 - 11 - 2012.
-
2012 (11) TMI 1315 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ettled legal position, we consider it fair and appropriate to vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) as also set aside the reassessment order and remit the matter to the file of the AO with the directions to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. The AO shall dispose of the preliminary objections by passing a speaking order and only thereafter proceed with the reassessment in accordance with law. With these observations, ground nos.1& 2 in the appeal are disposed of. As a corollary, the other ground nos. 3 & 4 raised in the appeal do not survive for adjudication at this stage and are, therefore, treated as infructuous. 8. Ground no.5 in the appeal being general in nature, does not require any separate adjudication and is, therefore, dismissed. 9. No other plea or argument was made before us. 10. In the result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open Court
-
2012 (11) TMI 1314 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... nafide and inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return, failed to add the provision for gratuity to its total income. This can only be described as a human error which one is prone to make. Absence of due care does not mean that the assessee is guilty of either furnishing of inaccurate particulars or attempting to conceal its income. 11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances in the present case and seen in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers (supra) since all the necessary facts with respect to the claim of disallowance and deductions were furnished in the tax audit report the fact that the disallowance has been made of expenditure reported in tax report does not call for levy of penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c). We thus cancel the penalty levied by the A.O. Therefore, this ground of assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 23-11- 2012.
........
|
