|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1741 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1746 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quences of arrest under section 41 of the Code and arrest under a warrant under section 70 of the Code are different and as such, the petitions are required to be decided on merits. It is in these circumstances, that though pursuant to the impugned order, the warrant under section 70 of the Code has already been executed, the Court has deemed it fit to decide the matter on merits. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat below the application dated 19.10.2013, is hereby quashed and set aside. As the petitioners have already been arrested, they shall be treated as having been arrested in exercise of powers under section 41 of the Code. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 30. At this stage, Mr. R.C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor prays for stay of the present judgment. Having regard to the facts of the case, the request is declined.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1745 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hat from 1993 to 2001, there was a period when instead of increase in the land price, there was attrition in the land rates. Therefore, we would like to enhance the value by applying the formula of 12% per annum increase for a period of 4 years, instead of taking entire period 1993 and 2001 (and this would not be treated as a precedent). When calculated in this manner, the valuation of the land in the year 2001 shall come to Rs. 770/- per square yard. After making a deduction of one-third therefrom the net valuation comes to Rs. 514/- per square yard. Compared to the land value of this very area in 1993 which was fixed at Rs. 350/- per square yards, we have increased the same by about 50% over a period of 7 years or so, which we think, is quite reasonable as this much compensation is legitimately due to the Appellants. We, accordingly, fix the compensation @ Rs. 514/- per square yard for the acquired land of the Appellants. 12. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1744 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r to cross-examine the said witness on the aspect relating to the statement, namely, Sister Mina Baruwa identified accused Santosh Patnaik as the said suspect gave her a slap, pulled her wearing Saree, squeezed her breasts and did not commit any other overt act vis- -vis the contents of the statement recorded by PW-18 in Exhibit-8 at the time of test identification parade when the Appellant as PW-25 identified the Respondent No. 9 as has been prayed for on behalf of the Appellant and also provide an opportunity to the Appellant to file the written arguments on her behalf as provided Under Section 301 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the trial was withheld by virtue of the pendency of this appeal till this date, the trial Court is directed to comply with the directions as above and conclude the proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of the copy of this order. The appeal stands allowed on the above terms.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1743 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eater Noida to Ludhiana. It was not disputed that the driver of the vehicle had presented both the invoices i.e. No. 10137174 and 10137172 in respect of the goods amounting to ₹ 12,55,154/- and ₹ 2,08,780/- respectively. One consolidated GR No. 146715 from Greater Noida to Ludhiana alongwith the packing list was also presented. In such circumstances, it could not be said that there was an attempt to evade tax. Moreover, there was no tax liability at the stage of entry of goods in the State of Punjab as they were coming from Greater Noida to the branch at Ludhaina. The Tribunal had taken different view from the one as had been taken in M/s Karwa Consolidated Marketing Limited's case (supra) under similar circumstances without giving any reasons. No justification has been pointed out for adopting different approach. 8. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal stands allowed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1742 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... o demand service tax. We find that the show cause notice in this case was issued on 11.11.2005, demanding service tax for the period 2001-02 to 2003-04, The Appellant submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. Accordingly, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable on the ground of limitation. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, along with interest, for the normal period of limitation. As suppression with intent to evade payment of tax has not been established, no penalty imposable on the Appellant. 8. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period is not sustainable. The Appellant is liable to pay service tax, if any, along with interest, for the normal period of limitation. No penalty imposable on the Appellant. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. (Order pronounced in the open court on 19.12.2023.)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1741 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... assesses as per books Particulars Taxable Exempt Total Unit Unit (Rs.) Amount Amount (Rs.) (Rs.) Gross receipts 100 100 200 Less Expenses 50 50 100 Net Profit 50 50 100 Deduction u/s 80-IC of profit of profit of exempt unit 0 50 50 Taxable Income 50 0 50 b) Computation if allocation of expenses of Rs. 10 from Taxable unit to exempt unit is made Particulars Taxable Exempt Total Unit Unit (Rs.) Amount Amount (Rs.) (Rs.) Gross receipts 100 100 200 Less Expenses 40 60 100 Net Profit 60 40 100 Deduction u/s 80-IC of profit of exempt unit 0 4 0 40 Taxable Income 60 0 60 26. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the deduction under section 80IC of the Act keeping in mind the above. The ground Nos. 6 7 raised by the assessee are thus, partly allowed. 27. The ground No.8 raised by the assessee is not pressed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 28. In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1740 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... e us. 6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and the Paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find from the order of the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had obtained information from APMC, Latur according to which the value of soyabean as on 31-03- 2009 varies between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,255/-. Therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) has taken the average value of the soyabean at Rs.2,127.50 per quintal and accordingly calculated the value of closing stock of 756 quintals at Rs.16,08,390/- as against Rs.13,61,142/- declared by the assessee and accordingly sustained an amount of Rs.2,47,248/- which in our opinion is a reasoned one. The Ld. Departmental Representative could not point out any mistake in the above. Accordingly, this ground by the Revenue is dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the Open court on 27-12-2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1739 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... statutory condition. We find no reason to deviate from the consistent view taken by this Court on this question. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of U. M. Cables Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petitions No.3102 & 3103 of 2013 decided on 24.4.2013. We are bound by the decision of our High Court and as aforesaid since we are in agreement with the said view. Hence, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1738 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ime and also in all the subsequent proceedings contemplated by Cr.P.C., which take place right from lodging of an FIR till decision in appeal or revision. 10. The transfer of the sessions trial in question from Guna to Shivpuri was admittedly made without hearing the victim, which is evident from reading of the order which is sought to be recalled. The transfer certainly causes prejudice to the victim as he has a right not only to know the venue of conduction of trial, but also to oppose on cogent grounds an attempt of transfer of trial made on any ones behest out of territorial jurisdiction of the competent Court within whose purviews the crime was committed. 11. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the order sought to be recalled herein has been passed without hearing the victim and, therefore is vitiated. Accordingly, the order dated 19.12.2012 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 9261/2012 is recalled. The M. Cr. C. No. 9261/2012 is restored to its original number.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1737 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e and the assessee is entitled to the benefits under the India-Singapore Treaty. We dismiss the first ground of appeal of the Revenue.” Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate Bench (supra), we dismiss ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal. 9. As we have decided that the Royalty does not arise in India having regard to the provisions of the Article 12(7) of the Treaty vide our decision for ground No. 3 hereinabove, we do not find it necessary to decide whether the payment in question was in the nature of Royalty under the respective DTAA. Our finding is in line with the decision of the Tribunal (supra) relied upon by us. We accordingly dismiss this appeal filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee become otiose and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th December, 2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1736 - ITAT AHMADABAD
... ...
... ... ..... furnish any reply to the A.O. and had not clarified the nature of expenses. In first round, the ld. CIT(A) without calling the remand report from the A.O. accepted the submission of appellant. On that basis, the Co-ordinate ‘A’ Bench had set aside the issue, which has not been considered by both the lower authorities. However, the ld. CIT(A) in first round had given finding on nature of expenditure and had treated these expenses as revenue expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) has co-terminus power with A.O. The only technical formality remained to be fulfilled at the time of first round by the ld. CIT(A), was not calling remand report from the A.O. Co-ordinate ‘A’ Bench also had touched this issue in setting aside order and observed that these receipts are revenue nature. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 7. In the combined result, the assessee’s and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. These Orders pronounced in open Court on 20.12.2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1735 - ITAT VISHAKHAPATNAM
... ...
... ... ..... essment year 2004-05. In our considered view, there is no case of imposition of penalty as the reasons shown by the assessee in its explanation for non-compliance to the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B of the Act. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we delete the penalty imposed u/s.271D of the Act. For the same reason, we also delete the penalty imposed u/s.271E also for the impugned assessment year. Ground No.2 in I.T.A. No.261/Viz/2013 since does not relate to the subject matter of appeal, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 19. Since on identical facts and issue, the penalty is imposed by the AO and sustained by ld CIT(A) for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09, following the view taken in assessment year 2004-05, we delete the penalty imposed under section 271E and 271D of the Act. 20. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06/12/2013
-
2013 (12) TMI 1734 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nied his signatures on the same by claiming that his signatures were obtained as a witness on the said Pronote and Receipt in good faith in the year 2003. The learned trial Court has, by referring to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that there is no scientific method available for determining the age of the “ink”. In the opinion of this Court said view is correct and even otherwise the stand in the written statement is that the defendant has affixed his signatures as a witness and not as a borrower and therefore, said question even otherwise would become academic. Dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1733 - ITAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... on done by the A.O. is not as per law.” Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us. 5. It is a fact that the AO while giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A) u/s. 251 of the Act dated 30.05.2006 allowed deduction u/s. 80HHC of the Act and that deduction was allowed on the basis of Form No. 10CCAC as well as in view of the direction of CIT(A). The AO has taken recourse to the rectification proceedings as he wanted to compute the turnover and computation of turnover is a highly debatable issue as the assessee in original allowance i.e. giving appeal effect to the order of CIT(A) has given his opinion, which he cannot rectify while acting u/s. 154 of the Act. Once this is a position, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has rightly quashed the rectification proceedings carried out by the AO u/s. 154 of the Act. We confirm the same. Appeal of revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed. 7. Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th Dec., 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1732 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. 12. Further, having regard to the age of the appellant at the time of committing the offences, we feel it would not be just and proper to allow the sentences to run consecutively. As the offences committed by the appellant have been committed under a single transaction, it is well settled position of law that the sentences must run concurrently and not consecutively. 13. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the relief as prayed for in this case and the sentences are modified to run concurrently and not consecutively and for this reason, we hold that the sentence must be reduced to 10 years in total with regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, as also keeping in view the tender age of the appellant on the date of the offence. 14. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms by modifying the judgment of the High Court, by reducing the sentence to 10 years in total, the remainder of which he must serve.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1731 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d the same from the assessee or tried to ascertain whether the same are disclosed in the respective accounts, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of Rs. 3,52,44,338/- under Section 40A(3) of the Income-tax Act. Except the case on behalf of the assessee, which was his case from the very beginning, that on the bills he was to get only 0.25% commission, when the CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to compute the income at 0.25% on the total turnover by further observing that the assessee will not get any benefit of expenditure claim against the same and when the same is confirmed by the ITAT, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT. Similar case is with respect to the Assessment Year 2006-07. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises in the present Tax Appeals and accordingly they deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1730 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elling dealer had been cancelled. The first appellate authority as well the tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that during the relevant period the selling dealer was duly registered and all payments to him were made by the assessee through Bank which stood verified. It has also been recorded that the entire purchases were made by the assessee against the tax invoice which shows that the goods were tax paid. In view of the above, the assessee was entitle to the benefit of input tax credit. I find no illegality in the order of the tribunal. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1729 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principle in relation to exercise of powers under Section 311 of Cr.PC. That was a case where statement under Section 313 was yet to be recorded and before that, defence had adduced certain evidence and it is at that point of time that the application for additional evidence came to be made by the appellant before the Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the circumstances therefor. The facts of that case and the present case do not warrant any comparison. The Courts below rightly found that the case under Section 138 of the NI Act was being tried in a summary way and the petitioner had all the opportunity to place on record the evidence during the trial. This Court is in broad agreement with the impugned orders wherein concurrent findings are recorded and exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in such a case are not warranted. The petition, therefore, must fail and is accordingly summarily rejected.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1728 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ii) of the Act. 19. As mentioned hereinabove that only grounds of appeal in respect of A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 is respect of disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act for non deduction of TDS of payment made by the assessee branches operating abroad to the foreign suppliers for services rendered by them to foreign branches of Indian-company. Since issue and the facts are identical to A.Y. 2002-03 (supra), we observe that learned CIT(A) has deleted disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in A.Ys. 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 by following his order for A.Y. 2002-03, and we have upheld the order of learned CIT(A) for A.Y. 2002-03, we for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, confirm the orders of learned CIT(A) in respect of A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2007-08 by dismissing grounds of appeal taken by the Department. 20. In the result, all appeals of the Department for A.Y. 2002-03, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. Order pronounced on 27th Day of December, 2013.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1727 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t Information Report was also sent to the Reserve Bank of India and it appears that the Reserve Bank of India has, in turn, sent this information to the Directorate of Enforcement which has taken cognizance under the said Act. 5. On the last occasion, learned Assistant Solicitor General was directed to apprise this Court in the matter, therefore, Mr. Pradeep Joshi appears in the Court today and submits that the Enforcement Directorate is presently looking into the matter, and investigation is going on and not only the petitioner but various officials of the Bank, including the person who is named in the F.I.R. have been summoned, and the investigation is in process. 6. In view of the above, no interference is presently called for. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India shall complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible in which the petitioner must give all the necessary cooperation.
........
|
