|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1159 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1148 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fficient cause from producing the confirmation letters, which he was called upon to produce by the Assessing Officer. Those confirmation letters were in support of the ground of assessee's appeal, therefore, it was covered under sub-clause (c) also. 6. As a result of foregoing discussion, it is held that the Tribunal committed an error in upholding the order of the CIT(A). Question of law is accordingly answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee. 6.1 In the aforesaid premise, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The assessee shall produce the confirmation letters dated 16.3.2005 and 15.3.2005 by filing an appropriate application under Rule 46A and the same shall be permitted as additional evidence by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall thereafter re-examine the entire matter afresh and shall pass an appropriate order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order . 7. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1147 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... der “1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in confirming decision of CIT(A) that excise duty incentive refund, Sales tax incentive and VAT on purchase of goods are Capital in nature?” Issue notice to the respondent. Paper Book be submitted within three months. Connect with Tax Appeal No.599 of 2011.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1146 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er it fair and appropriate to set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file for deciding the aforesaid issues, afresh in accordance with law in the light of various judicial pronouncements, including those referred to above and of course after allowing sufficient opportunity to both the parties. Needless to say that while redeciding the appeal, the ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order, keeping in mind, inter alia, the mandate of provisions of sec. 250(6) of the Act, bringing out clearly the amount of accumulated profits as on the date of advance or loan and the nature of such advance or loan. With these observations, ground no. 1 in the appeal is disposed of. 6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary ground no. 2 in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 7. No other plea or argument was raised before us. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court
-
2012 (7) TMI 1145 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ny such step was taken by the Board. The Board itself has chosen not to issue any direction to the acquirer to come out with a public offer under section 11(1) but decided to initiate adjudication proceedings and levied penalty. While deciding the quantum of penalty, the stand taken by the Board in its interpretive letter dated April 2, 2009 issued to Suryajyoti Spinning Mills Ltd. and the order dated August 28, 2008 passed by the adjudicating officer in the case of Jamnalal Sons Private Limited can definitely be considered as other mitigating factors. We are, therefore, of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to ' 10 lakh. We order accordingly. In the result, while upholding the order of the adjudicating officer on the issue of violation / contravention of the provisions of regulation 11(1) read with regulation 14(1) of the takeover code, we reduce the penalty to ' 10 lakh. No costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1144 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... District Judge, Latur in the light of the judgment passed in the Civil Appeal Nos.5316-5318/2012 (@ SLP© Nos. 26049-51/2011). In the light of our above conclusion, we do not find any necessity to traverse from the various other submissions made in the written submission of the respondent. 20. In the light of the decision in C.A.Nos.5316-5318/2012(@ SLP (C) Nos.26049-51/2011) and in the light of the fact that after the order of remittal passed in Civil Revision Application No.424 of 1987 dated 06.05.2011, the Rent Control Proceeding having been concluded before the Rent Controller, it will have to be held that SLP (C) No.23457/2011 has to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Accordingly, while C.A.Nos.5316-5318/2012(@ SLP (C) Nos.26049-51 of 2011) stand allowed with specific directions as regards the Rent arrears payable by the respondent, the Special Leave Petition No.23457 of 2011 stands dismissed as having become infructuous. There will be no orders as to costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... after, they had altercation with the deceased and the deceased was strangulated by the accused persons and then his body was disposed of by cutting it into pieces and packing the same in gunny bags and abandoning the same at a deserted place near the Barrackpore Dum Highway. Thus, all these acts obviously were in furtherance to the common intention of doing away with the deceased, if he failed to give them ₹ 40,000/- as demanded. The offence was committed with common intention and collective participation. The various acts were performed by different accused in presence of each one of them. In other words, each of the accused had common intention. Thus, we find that the argument on the application of Section 34 Indian Penal Code advanced on behalf of the accused is without any substance. 66. For the reasons afore-stated, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court either on merits or on the quantum of sentence. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1142 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... urag Gohil,Adv., Ms. Ruchika Gohil,Adv., Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain,Adv. O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1141 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o such enhanced income.” 7. In the case of CIT Vs. Allied Industries 229 CTR 462, the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court held that “the addition was made to the income of the assessee and had been assessed under the head of profits and gains of business. Since the entire profits of the business are entitled for 100% deduction, the addition on account of such discrepancy will only result in the enhancement of the income of the business and would be entitled for such deduction.” 8. Since the finding of the CIT(A) that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 80IB on the enhanced profit is in consonance with the law laid down by various benches of ITAT and High Courts (supra), we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and, hence, the order of the CIT(A) is hereby confirmed and the grounds raised by the revenue on this issue are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on 27th July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1140 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... words, the exercise of power must be for securing the ends of justice and only in cases where refusal to exercise that power may result in the abuse of the process of law. 10. In the light of the principles mentioned above, inasmuch as Respondent No. 2-the Complainant has filed an affidavit highlighting the stand taken by the Appellant (Accused No. 3) during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and the terms of settlement as stated in the said affidavit, by applying the same analogy and in order to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution, we accept the terms of settlement insofar as the Appellant herein (Accused No. 3) is concerned. 11. In view of the same, we quash and set aside the impugned FIR No. 45/2011 registered with Sanand Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable Under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code insofar as the Appellant (Accused No. 3) is concerned. The appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1139 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the statute by reading into it as allowing a document aged 29 and one- half years to be open to the law's presumption. The Judgment of the High Court below has considered the issue of this document's eligibility under Section 90, and repudiated this submission, the document not even, echoing the words of Section 90, "purporting" to be thirty years old at the time of tendering. We hasten to add that even if the document purported or proved to be thirty years old, the Appellant would not axiomatically receive a favourable presumption, the Section 90 presumption being a discretionary one. 13 While clarifying law as we have striven to do above, since the Gift Deed in question was tendered in evidence five months prior to having become thirty years old, the Appeal is devoid of merits. The Appellant did not even attempt to prove the Gift Deed in any manner known in law. 14 The Interim Order is recalled. The Appeal is dismissed but we desist from imposing costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1138 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion of the sale deed in 1975 and also as regards the claim of adverse possession by the Defendant no.1 do not seem to be perverse or unwarranted. It is not a case where the findings were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or was based on inadmissible evidence or was arrived at without evidence. Therefore, this Court sitting in second Appeal would not interfere with the aforesaid concurrent findings of facts. Further, the substantial question of law raised by the appellant in the present second appeal regarding the requirement of examining the scribe or the attesting witnesses to a disputed document has been already settled by a decision of this Court as well other High Courts which do not require any reconsideration and decided accordingly holding the execution of the sale deed in question to have been proved. 33 In view of the above, this Court is of the view that present second appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1137 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n used only for calculation or charting etc. then it would have been neither a factory nor a shop under the circular and out of the ambit of the E.S.I Act. Therefore, the findings given by the E.S.I Court in First Appeal No. 143 of 2012 require interference hence the order of the E.S.I Court is set aside. The issues are answered as follows - Issues Findings (i) Whether creation of software or development of software itself is a manufacturing process or not? Yes (ii) Whether the premises where computers are involved in manufacturing process is a factory under the E.S.I Act? Yes 25. Appeals are disposed of by following order - 1. In First Appeal No. 143 of 2012, the Judgment and order passed by the E.S.I Court is set aside and the Respondents are liable to pay the contribution as demanded by the Applicants/Corporation. Hence, the Appeal is allowed. 2. In First Appeal No. 307 of 2012, the Judgment and order passed by the E.S.I Court is maintained. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1136 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... remits the compensation amount of a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) into the credit of C.C. No. 327 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode before being remanded into judicial custody, the accused would be set at liberty and this Court order would not be operated against him any further. If the accused deposits the said compensation amount before the trial Court, it is open to the complainant to withdraw the same after filing a Memo before the trial Court This modified order has been passed by this Court by invoking its discretionary power vested with it. Resultantly, the above revision has been disposed of with the above observations. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.A. No. 69 of 2007, on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, dated 26.9.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C. No. 327 of 2002, on the file of Judicial Magistrate-II Erode, dated 5.3.2007 is modified. Accordingly ordered.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1135 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... noted. 4. In view of the settlement that has been arrived at by the parties to the lis, we permit the parties to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short). 5. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court. The appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly. 6. Leave granted. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 8. Appeals allowed, in terms of the signed order.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1134 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f various Courts including this Court, the Appellants and Respondent No. 1 are saddled with cost of ₹ 10 lakhs each. They are directed to deposit the amount of cost with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today. 13. Respondent No. 1 is directed to hand over possession of plot No. 92A/C to the Vice-Chairman, LDA within a period of 15 days. If the Appellants have managed to take possession of the plot then they shall surrender the plot to the Vice-Chairman, LDA with 15 days. Thereafter, LDA shall dispose of the plot by public auction keeping in view the propositions laid down by this Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 5 SCC 29 (paragraphs 65 and 66). It is needless to say that Respondent No. 1 shall be free to participate in the auction which may be conducted by LDA in compliance of this order. The Appellants shall be free to withdraw the amount deposited for conversion of plot No. 92 A/C.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1133 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he file of Assessing Officer with directions that if assessee gets registration u/s 12AA valid for these two relevant assessment years also, then Assessing Officer shall examine as to whether the expenses incurred by the assessee can be said to be for the purpose of the charitable objects. If not, then Assessing Officer shall examine and decide afresh as to whether these expenses are capital or revenue. If Assessing Officer held it to be capital, then he should examine whether any depreciation is allowable or not. In view of these facts, we restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction as stated above and also mentioned in the order of ITAT dated 12th June, 2009 for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. In the result, both the appeals are set aside to the Assessing Officer in the terms stated above. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on this 27th day of July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1132 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... the appeal could not be preferred to the Tribunal. Regarding the arguments of the learned DR that the assessee has not produced any evidence that the vehicle in question was used for the purpose of business of the assessee and has not produced its log book before the AO or before the CIT(A), we find that in case the vehicle was used for non-business purpose of the assessee, suitable disallowance could be made out of the vehicle running expenses. But so far as the claim of depreciation is concerned, since the ownership of the vehicle was with the assessee-company and the vehicle was put to use during the relevant period, the claim of depreciation on the vehicle was allowable to the assessee-company, and accordingly the disallowance of ₹ 50,260/- being depreciation on the car is deleted and the Ground No.1.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1131 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot the gross amount.” It is the contention of the appellant in the said decision, question involved was gross rent and gross interest or net rent and net interest and not gross or net job work receipts. Therefore, the decision has no application. This court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and another Vs. M/s. Resonace Laboratories in ITA Nos.793, 794, 795 &796/2006, dated 06.06.2012 has taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Miani Precision Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and has held that what is to be excluded is net receipts and net gross receipts. In view of the afore said decisions, the question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Authority to redo the assessment as per the law laid down by the Supreme Courtin the case of ACG Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd. &Commissioner of Income Tax. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1130 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at Rao) that he can be dispossessed only by recourse to law is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Viewing from any angle, the lower appellate Court has grossly erred in disagreeing with the finding of the trial court and in reversing the same in respect of the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the basis of Ex.A3. 23. Thus, for the discussion held above, though the substantial questions of law (1) and (2) originally framed and the additional substantial questions of law (1) to (3) are answered in favour of the defendants, in view of the findings of this court upon Ex.A3 family arrangement, which answers the additional substantial question of law (4) against the plaintiff, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is liable to be interfered with. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and by restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court. No costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1129 - SUPREME COURT
Possession (allegedly) of assets disproportionate to known sources of income - offences punishable U/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (PC Act) - Validity of FIR Lodged by CBI - the Petitioner is aggrieved of second FIR being No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. It is also clear that the Petitioner has assailed the said FIR on the ground that there was no direction by this Court in its order dated 18.09.2003 which could have empowered the CBI to lodge two FIRs.
HELD THAT:- the 'compilation', we are satisfied that this Court being the ultimate custodian of the fundamental rights did not issue any direction to the CBI to conduct a roving inquiry against the assets of the Petitioner commencing from 1995 to 2003 even though the Taj Heritage Corridor Project was conceived only in July, 2002 and an amount of ₹ 17 crores was released in August/September, 2002. The method adopted by the CBI is unwarranted and without jurisdiction. We are also satisfied that the CBI has proceeded without proper understanding of various orders dated 16.07.2003, 21.08.2003, 18.09.2003, 25.10.2003 and 07.08.2003 passed by this Court. We are also satisfied that there was no such direction relating to second FIR, namely, FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.We are satisfied that there was no such finding or satisfaction recorded by this Court in the matter of disproportionate assets of the Petitioner on the basis of the status report dated 11.09.2003 and, in fact, the Petitioner was not a party before this Court in the case in question. From the perusal of those orders, we are also satisfied that there could not have been any material before this Court about the disproportionate assets case of the Petitioner beyond the Taj Corridor Project case and there was no such question or issue about disproportionate assets of the Petitioner. In view of the same, giving any direction to lodge FIR relating to disproportionate assets case did not arise. CBI is not justified in proceeding with the FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003.
we hold that in the absence of any specific direction from this Court in the order dated 18.09.2003 or any subsequent orders, the CBI has exceeded its jurisdiction in lodging FIR No. R.C. 0062003A0019 dated 05.10.2003. The impugned FIR is without jurisdiction and any investigation pursuant thereto is illegal and liable to be quashed, accordingly quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
........
|
