|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1159 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... corridors of this Court for 20 years. 23. On the plea urged that since an issue has been settled with respect to the tenancy being determined, it would be apparent that Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure would have no application, we may only note the decision of the Supreme Court reported as AIR 2005 SC 2765 Charanjit Lal Mehra & Ors. v. Smt.Kamal Saroj Mahajan & Anr. As noted in para 5 therein, issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties and at the stage of evidence an application under Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge but on a Revision Petition being filed was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The Supreme Court upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge and highlighted that mere settlement of issues had no bearing on the applicability of Order 12 Rule 6 Code of Civil Procedure. Upholding the impugned decision we dismiss the appeal but refrain from imposing any costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1127 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on enjoins that before levying penalty, the authority prescribed shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. As is apparent from the show-cause notice dated 4-4-2012 except extracting the provision of Section 53(3) there is no indication that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-assessee is alleged to have committed fraud or willful neglect in under declaring his tax liability. 6. In view of the singularly laconic nature of the show-cause notice, the dealer was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard. On this account, the show-cause notice itself being defective, the subsequent order imposing penalty impugned in this writ petition is also vitiated. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order of penalty dated 24-4-2012 as well as the preceding and laconic show-cause notice dated 4-4-2012, are quashed. It is however open to the 2nd respondent to issue a proper show-cause notice, in accordance with law. No costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1126 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the same. In terms of the provisions of sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, all the property, rights and powers of the Transferor Company be transferred to and vest in the Transferee Company without any further act or deed. Similarly, all the liabilities and duties of the Transferor Company be transferred to the Transferee Company without any further act or deed. Upon the Scheme coming into effect, the Transferor Company shall stand dissolved without winding up. It is, however, clarified that this order will not be construed as an order granting exemption from payment of stamp duty or any other charges, if payable, in accordance with any law; or permission/compliance with any other requirement which may be specifically required under any law. 15. The Petitioner Companies would voluntarily deposit a sum of ₹ 1,00,000/-in the Common Pool fund of the Official Liquidator within three weeks from today. The Petition is allowed in the above terms. Order Dasti.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1125 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e case of CIT vs. M/s.Tata Elxsi Limited, through the judgment of their Lordships dated 30th August, 2011. The Hon’ble High Court has held that any adjustment made in the numerator should be reflected in the denominator as well, with reference to the expenses in foreign currency and in the context of section 10A of the Act. 4. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court also held the same view in the case of CIT vs. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd., 330 ITR 175. 5. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court also has taken a similar view in the case of CIT vs. Genpact India, decided on 16th November, 2011. 6. This issue was in fact determined as early as on 6th March, 2009 by the Special Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in the case of ITO vs. Sak Soft Ltd., 313 ITR (AT) 353 (Chennai) (SB). 7. In view of the above, these two appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 31st of July, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1124 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ct of rebate for the purpose of computing the income under normal provisions. The objection of the learned DR is that ground No.3 has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal and therefore only ground Nos. 1 and 2 have to be remitted back to the AO. 5. After considering the entire submissions of both the sides and also the orders of the authorities below, we hold that the issue involved in these appeals relating to computation of book profits under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act as well as under normal provisions has to be remitted back since facts are available on record and therefore in the interests of justice we set aside the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO to decide the issue de novo after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 6. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on Monday, the 30th of July, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1123 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etent authority in consonance with the order passed by the Supreme Court on 24. 10,2007 in Sir Gangaram Trust Society and another vs. Union of India and others (Civil Appeal No. 7284/2005). Likewise. if the proposed alternative scheme is not approved by the Central Government by 31.10.201 1, - those who have opted for the proposed alternative scheme, shall also be proceeded against by the concerned competent authority in consonance with the order passed by Supreme Court on 24.10.2007 in Sir Gangaram Trust Society's case (supra). In such of the matters which have to be proceeded with. in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court, we hope and expect, that Ghe final orders shall be passed within six months from today. This is imperative, as we are informed. that in many eases proceedings under the notification dated 01.03.1988 came to be initiated 18 years ago. 11. The appeals and writ petitions collectively listed for disposal stand disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... udge for an appropriate order both on administrative side as well as on judicial side. As already held, the Petitioner, being an Advocate and cannot be said to be a person aggrieved, cannot question such matters. 31. Since the Chief Justice is the Master of Rolls and the jurisdiction of each High Court is well defined by the Presidential order and by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court defining the scope of the Presidential order as well as the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and also the territorial divisions between the two High Courts having benches in the same State at different places and also the question of cause of action both in Civil and Criminal cases have been well settled, a direction sought for by the Petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. The issues raised before this Full Bench are answered accordingly. The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. Miscellaneous Petition will stand closed. No costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1121 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t will cursorily look at the merits of the allegations and come to the finding as to whether it prima facie holds the ingredients of the offence being established or not and accordingly, either discharge the accused holding that the charges are groundless or decide to proceed further in the matter. This exercise has not been done by the learned ACMM. In other words, if the complaint is being returned by a court on account of lack of jurisdiction, it could not be done under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. under the heading that the charges are groundless. It may be done by the learned court in some other provision or by the accused by invoking the powers of the High Court. 14. For the reasons mentioned above, I set aside the order of the learned ACMM dated 8.12.2003 and remand the matter back to the learned trial court, who will start the complaint from the place where it had discharged the accused persons. The parties are directed to appear before the learned ACMM on 31st July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1120 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... he AO took recourse to s. 68 and the only available course was thus to treat the unexplained amount available at the hands of the assessee as an unexplained income. It is seen from the assessment order that till the date of passing the order of assessment, the assessee had not filed any objection to the proposed addition made. Thus, in the absence of any explanation, the only course open to the officer was to treat the amount at the hands of the assessee as an unexplained income. In the light of the order passed by us, as indicated above, except to the extent of the relief as stated above, the assessee is not entitled to any relief and hence, the unexplained entries were rightly treated as unexplained income of the assessee. In the circumstances, the tax case stands partly allowed. It is open to the Department to make necessary assessment on Pannalal and others in whose names the shares stand, after verifying the records, and subject to the provisions of the IT Act. No costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1119 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ations are of serious nature, it does not warrant framing of charge, specially under Section 239, Cr.P.C Hence, the very approach and the reason for rejecting the request of the petitioners is unsustainable. It is accordingly set-aside. 24. The question is, whether remand is necessary, or finality has to be given. As could be seen from the impugned order, the Learned Trial Judge has extracted the nature of allegations made against the petitioners who are shown as accomplices in the crime with their parents and brother. The allegation so extracted itself does not make out any case for trial against them. In this view, I am satisfied they are entitled for discharge. 25. Hence, the revision succeeds in entirety. Petitioners herein who are arraigned as accused Nos. 4 and 5 are discharged. However, any observation made during the course of this order on the allegations made in the complaint shall not prejudice the prosecution or accused in any manner during trial of other accused.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1118 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ts made by the assessee to Abbey National Plc, UK were liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act ? 17.1 In view of our findings that -- (i) the assessee was the real and economic employer of the secondees under the secondment agreement. (ii) the reimbursement of salary costs and other expenditure was without any profit element and hence cannot be regarded as income chargeable in the hands of Abbey National Plc, UK under Article 13 of the India-U.K. Treaty, the above questions are answered in favour of the assessee and against revenue. In other words, the reimbursement of salary and other expenditure made by the assessee to Abbey National Plc, UK under the secondment agreement were not liable for TDS u/s. 195 of the Act and consequently the said payments are not liable for disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) of the Act. 18. In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.1141/Bang/2010, 41 & 42/Bang/2011 are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1117 - ITAT COCHIN
... ...
... ... ..... copies of the bills etc. in which it has been seen that rejected kernels have been sold @ ₹ 4/- per kg. Hence the valuation on an average sale would come to ₹ 5/- per kg. This rate seems quite reasonable in view of the fact that last year the value adopted was ₹ 4.50/- per kg. Accordingly, I direct that value rejected kernels be adopted at ₹ 5 per kg. instead of ₹ 6 per kg. as adopted in the assessment order. This ground of the appellant is partly allowed”. We have carefully considered the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and find that the first appellate authority has taken a conscious decision by duly considering the relevant details. Hence, we are inclined to accept the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and accordingly, uphold his order on this issue. 15. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly on 20-07-2012
-
2012 (7) TMI 1116 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... order shows that the expenditure has been incurred by the assessee on the following counts - S.No. Social & Community Welfare Expenses Amt. Rs. (in lakhs) 1 Expenses in connection with Rural Health Centre 10.40 2 Expenses in connection with Manali School 1.31 3 Expenses in connection with Sports development 2.21 4 Expenses in connection with rehabilitation expenses 90.30 5 Social & Community Welfare expenses in CBR unit 5.66 Total 109.88 4. The assessee has incurred these expenditure for social cause, discharging its duty towards the society and especially for those who have been adversely affected by the refinery industry which is one of the most polluting industries. In view of the above, we, respectfully follow the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of any merit. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Wednesday, the 25th day of July, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1115 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Offences punishable u/s 20(b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 'NDPS Act') for having been found in unlawful possession of 3.5KGs of charas - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the samples were drawn after breaking small pieces from 08 of the polythene bags which were allegedly kept in a green coloured bag by the appellant in his right hand. IO prepared two samples of 25 grams each after taking a small quantity from each of the slabs. Though the settled law is that if it is not practicable to send the entire quantity then sufficient quantity by way of samples from each of the packets of pieces recovered should be sent for chemical examination. Otherwise, result thereon, may be doubted.
For example, if the 08 packets were allegedly recovered from the appellant and only two packets were having contraband substance and rest 6 packets did not have any contraband; though all may be of the same colour, when we mix the substances of all 8 packets into one or two; then definitely, the result would be of the total quantity and not of the two pieces. The process adopted by the prosecution creates suspicion. In such a situation, as per settled law, the benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. It does not matter the quantity. Proper procedure has to be followed, without that the results would be negative.
In view of above discussion, instant appeal is allowed. Consequently, impugned judgment dated 18.10.2005 and order on sentence dated 21.10.2005 are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted from the charges.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1114 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dishonor of Cheque u/s 138 r/w section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act) - legally enforceable debt or not - issuance of a cheque for repayment of a time barred debt would amount to a written promise to pay the said debt within the meaning of Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not - HELD THAT:- A "Cheque" means "a draft signed by the maker or drawer drawn on a bank, payable on demand and unlimited in negotiability." Therefore, it goes without saying that a cheque is not a promise. It is nothing but an instrument which enables a person in whose favour the same has been drawn to draw money mentioned therein from the concerned bank. Therefore, a cheque cannot be equated with a promise.
It has been pointed out that the respondent/complainant cannot take umbrage u/s 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and further issuance of cheque in question on 01.02.2011 is not a promise. Therefore, viewing from any angle, on the date of issuance of the cheque in question that is, on 01.02.2011, all the debts mentioned in the complaint have become time barred and the cheque in question has not been issued in respect of enforceable debt or other liability. Under the said circumstances, the complaint in question under section 138 r/w section 142 of the Act, is not legally maintainable and this Court by invoking inherent powers can very well quash the entire proceeding in C.C.
In the instant case, it has already been pointed out that at the time of issuance of cheque that is, on 01.02.2011, the debts alleged to have been received by the petitioners have become time barred. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioners is really having subsisting force.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in A.R.M. Nizmathullah V. Vaduganathan [2007 (8) TMI 808 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], held that "the cheque in question has been issued in view of the fact that the debtor has acknowledged his liability. Under the said circumstances, he should not be entitled to claim that the debt has become barred by limitation."
It has already been pointed out that for invoking Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 there must be a separate and distinct promise. Unless a separate and distinct promise, novation of contract does not arise. In the instant case, no such distinct or separate promise has been in existence in writing between the parties and therefore, viewing from any angle, the contention put forth on the side of the respondent/complainant does not hold good.
In fine, this petition is allowed and the proceeding in C.C pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Musiri is quashed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1113 - ITAT GUWAHATI
... ...
... ... ..... . 1995 215 ITR 847 (Gau.). II. Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CIT 1997 228 ITR 253 (SC). III. Dy. CIT v. Assam Asbestos Ltd. 2003 263 ITR 357 (Gau.). IV. CIT v. Ramaram Maize Products 2001 251 ITR 427 (SC). V. Sarda Plywood Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1999 238 ITR 354 (Cal.) 61. Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon'ble Accountant Member vide his order dated 3rd July, 2012, has held that the transport subsidy is required to be treated as revenue receipt, and is, accordingly, taxable in the hands of the assessee, whereby he has agreed with the order passed by the Learned Accountant Member reversing the addition made by the learned CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid question. As the Hon'ble Third Member has agreed with the learned AM, the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 20/Gau/2005 is partly allowed, assessee's C.O. No. 02/Gau/2005 is partly allowed, revenue's appeal in ITA No. 25/Gau/2005 is dismissed and the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 165/2004 is also partly allowed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1112 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... nts of TDS made before due date of filing of the return would be outside the purview of applicability of sec. 40(a)(ia). Even though, the Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench in the case of Bharti Shipyard Ltd. V. DCIT (132 ITD 53) had held against the assessee on this issue, the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court is in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we have to follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rather than the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Special Bench. Accordingly, we hold that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under sec. 40(a)(ia).” In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order passed by the AO is erroneous. We, therefore, cancel the order passed by the learned CIT under section 263 of the Act. This ground of appeal by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 6. The order was pronounced in the court on 13-07-2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1111 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on such sales. As noticed above, admittedly, these purchases were not reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee practically admits that they were suppressed. The Division Bench of this Court has in 2012(3) KLT SN17(C.No.19) Mohammed Haji V State of Kerala held that input tax credit cannot be granted when the purchases are not reflected in the books of accounts. Hence, the said question has to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The last question raised is essentially one regarding the propriety of the Tribunal to have confirmed the penalty to one and half times the tax sought to be evaded. Normally, we would not have interfered with the same. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the penalty can be confined to the actual tax sought to be evaded. The above revision hence is partly allowed confirming the orders of the lower authorities but only modifying quantum of penalty to the extend indicated above.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1110 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Unexplained Cash Credits u/s 68 - The assessee claimed benefits u/s 80HHC for export sale. The AO declared those sales as bogus and therefore, denied such benefits - HELD THAT- Decision made by the tribunal is upheld, where it was observed that when the assessee had already offered sales realisation and such income is accepted by the AO to be the income of the assessee, addition of the same amount once again u/s 68 would tantamount to double taxation of the same income.
CIT not only deleted addition u/s 68, but also directed that the assessee shall be entitled to deduction u/s 80HHC for such disputed amount also. Tribunal didn't address that issue. However, assessee clarified that the assessee does not claim any deduction u/s 80HHC to the extent of such disputed amount. He further submitted that diminution of his eligibility for deduction u/s 80HHC would have no bearing on the assessee's ultimate tax liability. Thus, all tax appeal dismissed, subject to clarification given by Assessee - Decision in Favour of Assessee.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1109 - COMPANY LAW BOARD MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... prejudicial to the interest of the R-1-company, to do substantial justice between the parties, with a view to bringing to an end the matters complained of, and to regulate the conduct of the company's affairs in future. I hereby allow the petitioner to move out of the R-1 company on receipt of fair value of her shares (amounting to 28.43 per cent) to which she is entitled on a valuation report to be obtained by her as on 31st March, 2011 (being near to the date of filing of the CP). The respondents are hereby required to buy her shares at the price ascertained by a reputed valuer, within four weeks of receipt of such valuation report. In case of dispute regarding the fair valuation of shares, the parties are at liberty to mention the matter and submit sealed bids to buy/sell out their shares and part ways. Company Petition No. 54 of 2011 is disposed off in the above terms. All company applications stand disposed off. All interim orders stand vacated. No orders as to cost.
........
|
