|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 583 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 684 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Assessing Officer shall arrive at a finding as to which expenses are not allowable and for what reason. For this purpose the Assessing Officer may also refer to the past history of the assessee as well as subsequent years assessment records to find out the profitability of the assessee. The assessee may also place other comparable cases on record. The assessee is also required to justify allowability of expenses claimed.” 7. We find that facts of the present case are analogical to the one discussed above by the tribunal. Adhering to doctrine of stare decisis, we also remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer shall consider the issue in light of the directions as given in the aforesaid Tribunal’s order. Needless to add that the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23/3/2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 683 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... by him before the revenue authorities and further pointed out that the AO has not disputed the transactions entered with M/s.Atishay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The ld. Counsel for assessee relied on various decisions of the Tribunal. In supported of this he has filed copies of the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore he requested to set aside the orders of the revenue authorities and allow the appeal of assessee. 5. On the other hand the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied on the orders of the revenue authorites. 6. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record, keeping in view of the fact that the AO has not disputed the fact of entering into transactions with M/s.Atishay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. The revenue is not justified to disbelieve the contention of the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 15.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 682 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... transaction pleaded by him is true and acceptable. Since the amount was admittedly not paid, the conviction must necessarily follow. 12. The Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused submits that at least four months time may be granted to the respondent to pay the amount. This request is resisted by the Learned Counsel for the complainant stating that the case was filed in the year 2004 and so that much time may not be granted. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed; while reversing the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused/respondent is found guilty of the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act and he is convicted thereunder. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay ₹ 60,000 (Rupees Sixty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and in default the respondent/accused will undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner is granted four months time to pay the amount.
-
2012 (3) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nsel for the petitioner made a request that his client may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition filed before the High Court with liberty to avail other appropriate remedies. Though unusual, we accept the request of the learned senior counsel and grant leave to the petitioner to withdraw Writ Petition No. 27867 of 2011 with liberty in terms of the prayer made. Consequently, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 680 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed the order passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. dated 25.1.2011 in paragraph 16 hereinabove. We wish to reiterate, that the order dated 25.1.2011 shall be enforced in letter and in spirit. In case of breach thereof we would expect the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad, U.P. to take appropriate steps including coercive measures if necessary, to enforce the same. The majesty of law must be maintained at all costs. We have no doubt, that the basis on which the Petitioners are seeking transfer of proceedings are just speculative and unjustified apprehensions based inter alia on vague and non-specific allegations. The instant Transfer Petitions are accordingly dismissed. We also wish to caution the Petitioners, from making any irresponsible insinuations with reference to court-proceedings. The proper course would be, to assail before a superior court, any order which may not be to the satisfaction of the Petitioners, in accordance with law.
-
2012 (3) TMI 679 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and both the substantial questions of law raised herein are answered against the Revenue.” It was the further submission that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court the assessee was entitled to be registered u/s 12AA of the Act 4. In reply, the ld. D.R. vehemently supported the order of the DIT. It was the submission that the assessee trust had religious clauses in its objects and consequently was not entitled to registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue in this appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Arulmigu Kamakshi Amman Trust supra , the DIT is directed to grant registration u/s 12AA of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 15th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 678 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he first question, the Tribunal has followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Laxmi Machine Works 2007 290 ITR 667 (SC) and has remitted the proceedings back to the Assessing Officer to reduce from the profit only the net income from lease rent and to compute the deduction under section 80HHC. No substantial question of law would arise. 3 As regards the second and third questions, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee state that the judgment delivered today by this Court in Income Tax Appeal No.129/2011 in relation to the Assessee for Assessment Year 199495 would govern the matter in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise in respect of second and third questions of law. 4 Question No.4 does not, in the circumstances, fall for separate consideration. 5 The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Respondent(s) Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv. Mr. F.A. Ayyubi, Adv. Ms. Anil Katiyar, Adv. for Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Hearing expedited. No stay.
-
2012 (3) TMI 676 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aid firm as its sole proprietor and the mere averments in the complaint to this effect as reiterated on oath in his deposition as CW-3, which is vehemently contested on behalf of the convict is not sufficient to establish such nexus or connection, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Milind Shripad Chandurkar, supra. 15. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgment/order dated 17.11.2005/23.11.2005 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicting and sentencing the convict for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, as upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment dated 3.6.2006, cannot be sustained and are accordingly set aside, leading to acquittal of the convict for the said offence. The amount of fine, if realized, shall be liable to be refunded to the convict after the time prescribed for filing appeal against this judgment and in case of appeal orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court shall prevail.
-
2012 (3) TMI 675 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... demned unheard and there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice/maxim "audi alteram partem/fairness in administrative action and statutory provisions. The decisions cited by Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel, for respondent No. 4 are of no avail. Hence, we answer point Nos. (iii) & (v) in the negative and point Nos. (iv) & (vi) in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner. 31. For the reasons said supra, we pass the following ORDER Writ Petition is allowed. The complaint dated 22.8.2011 (at Annexure A) FIR registered in Crime No. 36/2011 for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (at Annexure-A1) on the file of respondent No. 3 the Order of Sanction dated 2.8.2011 (at Annexure-B) on the file of respondent No. 4 and the relevant portion of the Report at Chapter-XXII of the Karnataka Lokayukta dated 27.7.2011 (at Annexure-C) on the file of the Karnataka Lokayukta are quashed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 674 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ferent altogether. The learned Magistrate has also noticed the fact that according to the document produced by accusedrespondent, he has proven the fact that the amount of loan given to him was repaid by different cheques, which were encashed by the complainant. Therefore, through the documentary evidence, the accused-respondent had rebutted the presumption under Section 139. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that once a presumption is rebutted by the accused, the burden to prove shifts back to the complainant. Thus, it was for the complainant to establish his case beyond a reasonable doubt thereafter. However, the complainant has failed to do so. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Act. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. This criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 673 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and not acquire a placid approach indicating an eloquent acquiescence to the violation of the 1995 Act, Periphery Control Act and the Periphery Policy. 26. We thus conclude on the aforesaid note by holding and observing that the provisions of the Periphery Control Act and the 1995 Act are complementary to each other and the provisions of the two statutes would apply to the housing project in question. The respondents, therefore, will have to comply with all the requirements spelt out by both the aforesaid statutes. As the requirement of clearances under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Environment (Protection) Act is not a contentious issue, and as we have already held that the process of grant of such clearances is pending before the appropriate authorities under the respective Acts, the same will now have to be brought to its logical conclusion keeping in mind our observations and directions contained hereinabove. 27. Accordingly, we dispose of the PIL in the above terms.
-
2012 (3) TMI 672 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ……………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. b. ₹ 15/- per share is to be assessed as income under the head ‘business’ as per section 28(va)” 5.11. Since we have kept in abeyance the above observations of the Tribunal for want of fresh hearing on non compete fee of ₹ 15/- per share we direct the Registry to fix the case in due course in order to dispose of the issue in respect of non-compete fee of ₹ 15/- per share. 6. In the result the Miscellaneous applications of all the assessee are allowed in part as indicated above. Order pronounced in the court on 28.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 671 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s also not tenable. A perusal of the chart on page 3 of the impugned order shows that operating income, profit/loss are of the other companies viz. ‘AMBURTEC’ and ‘VANITEC’ and not that of the assessee. It is the assessee which is seeking registration under section 12AA and not other companies which are separate legal entities and have been roped in by the assessee to manage and maintain common effluent treatment plants. As regards the observations of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) with regard to principle of mutuality is concerned, we are of the opinion that the said principle does not apply to the present case for the reasons aforementioned. In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) and hold that the assessee is entitled for registration under section 12AA of the Act. Ordered accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. O rder pronounced in the open court on 28th March, 2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 670 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... uments, if any, may be filed by the parties. Tag with Civil Appeal No.8390 of 2011.
-
2012 (3) TMI 669 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f considering application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the defences of the accused are not required to be considered, more particularly, in light of Section 139 r/w 118 of the N.I. Act. 6.4. Under the circumstance, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and / or illegality in issuing the process / summons for offence under Section 138 r/w 141 of the N.I. Act, which deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, application fails and same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. However, it is observed that all the defences which might be available to the applicants under law are kept open, which be considered by the learned trial Court at the time of trial in accordance with law and on merits.
-
2012 (3) TMI 668 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eyond any reasonable doubt. Such is not the burden on the accused. The High Court has acted on certain legal and factual presumptions which cannot be sustained on the basis of the record before us and the principle of laws afore-noticed. The case of the prosecution, thus, suffers from proven improbabilities, infirmities, contradictions and the statement of the sole witness, the Police Officer, PW1, is not reliable and worthy of credence. 48. For the reasons afore-recorded and the view that we have taken, it is not necessary for us to deal with the legal question before us as to what would be the effect in law of the acquittal of Govardhan attaining finality, upon the case of the present Appellant Govindaraju. We leave the question of law, Point No. 7 open. 49. For the reasons afore-stated, we allow the present appeal acquitting the Appellant of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. He be set at liberty forthwith and his bail and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
-
2012 (3) TMI 667 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... el appearing for the respondents. 3. Having regard to the submission made by both the counsel, there is no option but to accept the writ petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the 1st respondent - Assessing Officer. 4. The petitioner shall take these proceedings as notice to them and shall appear before the 1st respondent on 21st March 2012. The petitioners are not entitled for any fresh notice. Needless to say all contentions are left open. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (3) TMI 666 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... bed for TDS or the assessee has credited the accounts of the sub-contractors with commensurate amounts. 9. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the only anchor of the Commissioner of Income-tax is the provision made by the assessee for TDS payable. As already stated, the provision for TDS is not relevant in deciding the liability under TDS provision. 10. In fact, the assessment order has examined the question of TDS and it is after examining those details that the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that it was in respect of ₹ 30,64,000/- that TDS was not made by the assessee. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the revision order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax is erroneous and not sustainable in law. It is set aside. 12. As the appeal filed by the assessee itself is decided, the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on Friday, the 16th of March, 2012 at
-
2012 (3) TMI 665 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s on the basis of orders of the ITAT in the preceding years, no interference is warranted. The ld. DR, on the other hand, did not oppose these submissions of the ld. AR while contending that matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. 5 We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case . As is apparent from the aforesaid findings of the ld. CIT(A) on each of the three issues, he merely followed the decisions of the ITAT in the preceding assessment years and decided in favour of the assessee. The ld. DR did not place before us any contrary decision nor any other material in order to controvert the findings of the ld. CIT(A) so as to enable us to take a different view in the matter. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to reject ground nos. 1 to 3 in the appeal. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no.4 in the appeal, accordingly this ground is dismissed. 7. In result, appeal is dismissed.
........
|
