|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 865 Records
-
2012 (5) TMI 852 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... above principles, it was expected of the accused to render proper explanation for his injuries and his conduct. However, he opted to deny the same and in fact even gave false replies to the questions posed to him. 51. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court can draw an adverse inference against him. 52. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the accused has not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but had even given incorrect and false answers. In the present case, the Court not only draws an adverse inference, but such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case in favour of the prosecution. 53. For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the judgments under appeal. There is no merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the accused. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 851 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ictional High Court in the case of Ignifluid Boilers (P) Ltd. (supra) or, in other words, Revenue has filed the appeal before us only to keep the matter alive in view of its pending SLP before Hon’ble Apex Court. In our view, irrespective of whether SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court or not, the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has to be followed in letter and spirit by all the authorities below unless a contrary decision is given by the Hon’ble Apex Court or a stay has been obtained by the Revenue. Just because an SLP is pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it will not be correct not to follow the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, We are, therefore, of the opinion that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction of retention amounts. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 2nd May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e taken up in due course. However, in the meantime, we direct the Lokayukta, Karnataka; State of Karnataka and Customs Department to preserve documents, which are specifically referred and relatable to the CEC Report dated 27th April, 2012. The Central Empowered Committee will furnish the list of documents to the these Authorities. In Re. Rehabilitation and Reclamation In continuation of this Court’s Order dated 20th April, 2012, we clarify that, with regard to the implementation of Rehabilitation and Reclamation Plan, liberty is given to the Central Empowered Committee to take all requisite necessary steps. In Re. Response in I.A. No.7/2011 in W.P. (C) No.562/2009 Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we grant the following prayer "(d) Alternatively to (c) above, the Manganese Ore mined by SANDUR in Mining lease Nos.2580 and 2581 be sold through e-auction but the captive consumption and supply to its subsidiary companies may be exempted from e-auction."
-
2012 (5) TMI 849 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s etc. who want to appear in the examination conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, but these classes are not held for coaching or for appearance in an examination conducted by some other entity/ body. Conducting of coaching classes is with the predominant object of maintaining and upholding the standards of the accountancy profession and in furtherance of the object and purpose for which the institute is established, i.e., professional excellence and promotion of accountancy as a preferred profession. Members of petitioner Institute attend courses/lectures etc. to sharpen their skill and knowledge. These are ancillary activities to the main activity performed and the object for which the institute has been established. We may also note that there is no finding by the assessing officer that predominant object was to generate profit from holding classes etc. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, and the same is dismissed in limine.
-
2012 (5) TMI 848 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Delay condoned. The appeals are admitted.
-
2012 (5) TMI 847 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... sallowed 20% of the expenses. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was also not very co-operative during the assessment stage and during the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority also the assessee had not come out with any further material to substantiate its claim and therefore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the learned AO. Even before us, no further materials were produced to substantiate the claim of the assessee. However, looking at the nature of business in the present circumstances, we are of the considered view that disallowance of 10% of the gross karigars mazdoori expenses of ₹ 1,37,46,363/- would suffice and accordingly we confirm disallowance of ₹ 13,74,636/- as against disallowance of ₹ 27,49,273/- made by the learned AO which was further confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-05-2012
-
2012 (5) TMI 846 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch shows that the order was passed on extraneous considerations and the offences under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are made out, they are at liberty to file an appropriate complaint. 49. Accordingly, the questions as framed in para 16 above are answered as under - Questions Findings Whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner while passing an order under section 7A is a Judge within the definition under section 19 of the IPC & section 2 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985? In the affirmative Whether the averments made in the FIR even if they are taken at its face value, constitute an offence? In the negative (iii) Whether the prosecution of the Petitioner only on the basis of the order passed under Section 7A is barred in view of section 77 of the Indian Penal Code or section 3(1) of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 ? In the affirmative CONCLUSION In the result, Writ Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b)
-
2012 (5) TMI 845 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... of rectification under the Income Tax Act is only in respect of mistakes which are apparent from the record. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S.Balaram, ITO., Vs. Volkart Brothers & Ors., reported as 82 ITR 50 (SC) have held that the power of rectification is permissible only in respect of glaring, obvious and patent mistakes and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on the points on which there may conceivably be two opinions and that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt.Ltd. & Another, reported as 228 ITR 463. We accordingly, see no merit in this petition. The same is thus, dismissed. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday , the 25th of May, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (5) TMI 844 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ion 68 of the I.T.Act, 1961. Looking to the totality of the facts, we are of the view that the Id. CIT(A) has given cogent reason for directing the AO to accept the capital gain of ₹ 34,65,922/- as disclosed by the assessee. We, therefore, incline to uphold the order of the Id. CIT(A). Resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.” 4. An another decision of ITAT “A” Bench in the case of said group has also been cited pronounced in the case of ACIT vs. Hemani M.Vakil bearing ITA No.3106/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07, order dated 31/05/2011, wherein as well the question of capital gain was accepted. Since on identical facts a view has already been taken by the Respected Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, we find no reason to taken any other view but to follow the view already taken. Resultantly, we hereby confirm the finding of Learned CIT(Appeals) and this ground of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 843 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 2271; and Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and Anr., (2012) 4 SCC 722). 16. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that in the instant case there had been major improvements/embellishments in the prosecution case and demand of ₹ 10,000/- by the Appellant does not find mention in the statements Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. More so, even if such demand was there, it may not necessarily be a demand of dowry. Further, the chemical analysis report falsifies the theory of suicide by deceased taking any pills. In such a fact-situation, the defence taken by the Appellant in his statement Under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. could be plausible. Thus, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The Appellant is given the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 11.1.2007 is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
-
2012 (5) TMI 842 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... aving VAT No. and the payments to them were through account payee cheques. This finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) has not been disputed by the revenue or shown to be perverse. In the circumstances, the addition made by the Assessing Off icer cannot be sustained. In the circumstances, the finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue stands confirmed. 7. In Ground No. 2, the Revenue has also challenged the act ion of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in accepting additional evidence which were not produced before the Assessing Officer. However, Revenue has not been able to specifically point out any additional evidence, which has been taken into consideration by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and which were not before the Assessing officer. In the circumstances, Ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The order is dictated and pronounced in the open court immediately upon conclusion of hearing today on 29th day of May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 841 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... d to average GP of last five years by observing that fall in yield ultimately resulted into fall in GP. But this allegation is not supported by the facts of the present case because even after alleging of 8% fall in the yield of JKPM unit, fall in GP of this unit as compared to last year GP of this unit is only marginal to the extent of 0.51% and hence, the allegation of Ld. CIT(A) that fall in yield ultimately result into fall in GP is not found to be correct in the facts of the present case. In the light of this and various other reasons noted by us in the above paras as per which the order of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is found to be not sustainable and hence, we delete the addition made by Ld. CIT(A). This ground of the assessee stands allowed. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed. 5. In the combined result, appeals of the assessee as well as of the revenue are partly allowed. 6. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (5) TMI 840 - HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
... ...
... ... ..... entioned as valid till 20.10.2011 (i.e. 120 days) and it was further provided in writing that "this guarantee will remain enforce up to and including the dated 45 days beyond the validity of the bid" but due to clerical mistake in the last line the date was mentioned as 20.11.2011 as per one month claim period instead of 45 days. 19. That the mistake was rectified and amended copy of bank guarantee was submitted. 20. That on account of the clerical mistake, which has already been rectified, the petitioner's bid cannot be treated as non-response. Therefore, there is a clear admission on the part of the applicants/petitioners about their lapses in submitting the tender. Hence, in totality we do not find any ground to pass any affirmative order within the limited scope of review. Thus, by allowing the application for condonation of delay, we dismiss the review application on merit. However, no order is passed as to costs. Hon'ble Vinay Kumar Mathur, J. I agree.
-
2012 (5) TMI 839 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e or not. It is an admitted fact that a penalty of ₹ 1.5 lacs has been imposed on Mr. Ravindra Singhai who tops the list of wrong doers. There has to be a reasonable nexus between the penalty imposed on the one hand and the gravity of the offence and the facts of the case on the other. Mr. Ravindra Singhai could pitch the value to a high of ₹ 181.35 by virtue of 7 trades. The appellant contributed to the new high of price at ₹ 114.45 with the help of 46 trades. So, the gravity of the offence in the appellant’s case appears to be a shade lower as compared to that of Mr. Ravindra Singhai. Considering the stand taken by the adjudicating officer in the case of Mr. Ravindra Singhai and the facts and circumstances relating to the appellant’s transactions we are of the view that a penalty of ₹ 1 lac would be just and reasonable in the case of the appellant. Penalty is, therefore, reduced to ₹ 1 lac and the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 838 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ntious issues on which, the assessee and the AO differ in their perceptions, must be allowed to reach finality at some stage and the finality so achieved by AO’s not challenging the relief granted to the assessee in an assessment year, it cannot be open to the AO to disturb the same by challenging the same issue, which have been allowed to reach finality by filing the appeal in an earlier year, in appeal again. 5. In view of the above discussion and for the short reason that the AO had not challenged the relief granted to the assessee on this very issue by the CIT(A) in the assessment year 2004-05, we decline to interfere in the matter. The order of the CIT(A) stands confirmed. As the matter has been decided on this ground, we see no need to address ourselves to the merits of the case. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. This Order is dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31st May, 2012, immediately after the completion of the hearing.
-
2012 (5) TMI 837 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e is not revisable.” 17. In light of the aforesaid discussion, our final conclusion may be summarized thus (I) An order refusing to grant remand has direct bearing on the proceedings of the trial itself and in a given case will definitely have effect on the ultimate decision of the case. (II) An order refusing to grant remand may affect the progress of the trial or its decision in any manner if Investigating Agency is deprived of having custodial interrogation of the accused so as to effectively investigate the offence and gather necessary evidence and material to put the accused to trial. (III) An order refusing to grant police remand would be a final order and a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code would be maintainable. Reference is accordingly answered. Registry shall place the matter once again before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders so that the main matter can be placed before the appropriate Court taking up such matter.
-
2012 (5) TMI 836 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... eleted the entire addition following the decision of the Hon’ble Special Bench OF I.T.A.T. in the case of M/s. Bhoumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. 27 SOT 270 (Mum)(SB). 5. We find that nowhere it is a case of the A.O. that the assessee company is a shareholder in M/s. Yashm Chemphor Pvt. Ltd. Merely because the directors and shareholders are common in both the companies that cannot be the ground to make the impugned addition by invoking the provisions of sec.56 r.w.s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. In M/s. Bhoumik Colours Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it is held that unless the borrower is a shareholder no amount can be taxed as ‘deemed dividend’. The decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hilltop Hotels 217 CTR (Raj) 527 is also in favour of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the same is confirmed. 6. In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 21st May, 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 835 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... de to the sub-contractors without deducting the TDS by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia). On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. “We are of the considered opinion that the income of the assessee having been determined by resorting to estimation, there is no scope for any further disallowance either in terms of section 40(a)(ia) 40A(3) or otherwise. While deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, Tribunal relied upon the matters of Indwell Construction (232 ITR 776) and Kenara Saha & Subhash Saha 301 ITR 171 (Kol.) (SB) (AT)”. 6. Respectfully following the above referred case, we allow the appeal filed by the assessee, we are unable to uphold the action of the CIT(A) in invoking the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(ia) of the Acts, especially when the income was estimated after rejecting the Books of Accounts of the Assessee. Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th May 2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 834 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s as Atul Kumar Gupta i.e. the assessee. Thus, neither the diary was found from the premises of the assessee nor it is in the handwriting of the assessee, any third person may right the name of any person at his sweet will then an assessee cannot be burdened with liability on the basis of such writing. That can be starting point of investigation but revenue has to establish that it is the assessee who has paid the money to certain concerns without recording them in the books of account. Learned First Appellate Authority has discussed this aspect while deleting the addition and we do not see any reason to interfere in his findings. The findings in all the other assessment years are almost similar except variation in the quantum of additions. Therefore, all the appeals of the revenue are de void of any merit and they are dismissed. 12. In brief, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed. Decision pronounced in the open court on 18.05.2012.
-
2012 (5) TMI 833 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sion resulting in an injury/ailment to the person and the normal expected standard of duties and way of life expected from such person. See also Govt. of India (Ministry of Defence) v. Ajit Singh Govt. of India Ministry of Defence v. Ajit Singh, 2009 7 SCC 328. 5. We are of the view that the opinion of the Medical Board which is an expert body must be given due weight, value and credence. Person claiming disability pension must establish that the injury suffered by him bears a causal connection with military service. 6. In the instant case, the Medical Board has opined as under “ID. Generalised Tonic Clonic Seizure MA opined that ID is genetic in origin, not connected with service.” Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that the ailment with which the respondent has been suffering from is neither aggravated nor attributable to the Army services. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgments/orders are set aside. No costs.
........
|
