|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1180 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1164 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t to compliance of the pre deposit of the amount, which may be passed by the first appellate authority. It is made clear that the aforesaid amount of cost is towards the condonation of the delay, which has nothing to do with the pre deposit and other requirements of pre deposit, while entertaining the appeal by the first appellate authority and the same is kept open, which shall be considered by the first appellate authority in accordance with law and on its own merits, without, in any way, being influenced by any of the observations made in the present order. It is also clarified that all the contentions, which may be available to the respective parties in the appeal, are kept open, inclusive of whether the affixing of notice on the factory premises of the assessee was a valid service of notice or not and any observations made by this Court be construed while considering the application for delay only. 12. With this, the present Tax Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1163 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ve the ability to repay but fall prey to the Indian habit of not paying the debt due from them. 6. Since the preliminary opinion impugned in the present proceedings is devoid of any reason or any evidence as to why the petitioners have been proposed to be classified as willful defaulters, the notices impugned dated March 5, 2013 and April 13, 2013 are set aside and the preliminary committee of the respondent bank is left free to proceed afresh in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Master Circular. 7. Nothing in this order should be construed to be a certificate to any of the petitioners and the bank is left free to collate the material to brand the petitioners as willful defaulters and take steps against the petitioners in accordance with the Master Circular. 8. W.P. No. 749 of 2013 is allowed as above without any order as to costs. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1162 - ITAT CHANDIGARH
... ...
... ... ..... e both in respect of the opening introduction of cash in hand and various transactions of cash deposits and withdrawals during the year under consideration. In order to verify the claim of the assessee and to determine the quantum of addition, we restore the issue back to the file of Assessing Officer to first determine the deposit of cash at the start of the year and in case the same is not relatable to cash withdrawn during the year before that date, then such amount is to be included as income of the assessee. Further, the peak theory is to be applied to the various entries of cash deposit and withdrawal during the year under consideration in order to determine the addition in the hands of the assessee on the basis of peak theory. In view thereof, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 20th day of August, 2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1161 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 83 has been cancelled and, as further put forth by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the same is under assail before the High Court. The said Madhav Singh Tadagi was neither a party before the tribunal nor before the High Court and he is also not a party before this Court. As presently advised, we refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the cancellation of promotion and the repercussions of the same. As the matter is sub-judice before the High Court, suffice it to say that the High Court shall deal with the same in accordance with the settled principles of law in that regard. We say no more on the said score. However, we irrefragably come to hold that the direction given by the tribunal which has been concurred with by the High Court being absolutely unsustainable in law is bound to be axed and we so do. 24. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the orders passed by the High Court and that of the tribunal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1160 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Bikram Singh (supra). In para.7, the Honourable Larger Bench has found that the interest paid under Section 28 is not by way of any charge on compensation determined under Section 23(1). We, therefore, with respect, follow the larger Bench judgment of the Honourable Apex Court. 10 In W.P. Nos. 5401/2013, 5402/2013, and 5427/2012, only 50% of the amount deducted is forwarded by SLAO to the Income Tax Officer. Remaining 50% is still not forwarded and this Court has, on 8.7.2013, restrained him from forwarding the same. Mr. D.A. Bide, points out that in W.P. No. 3536 of 2013 there is no such order. However, only 50% amount is forwarded to the Income Tax Officer and 50% is still lying with the SLAO. Needless to mention that if deduction is found not only on the amount of interest but on amount of compensation also, the concerned authorities including the SLAO, can then order refund of proportionate amount to the petitioners. 11 Writ petitions are partly allowed and disposed of.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1159 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ition and proof thereof. 7. Section 141 of the NI Act, is analogous to Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, the principles of law laid down in Aneeta Hada's case squarely applies to the facts of the case. Admittedly, in the case on hand the Company which is the principal offender has not been prosecuted. The petitioners in the present case are stated to be the Directors and authorised signatories of the company and are being prosecuted in that capacity. 8. In the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decision, the prosecution launched against the petitioners as functionaries of the company, is not maintainable since the company is not being prosecuted. In this view of the matter, the prosecution launched against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The prosecution launched against the petitioners in C.C. No. 825 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-IV, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1158 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 1 to 8, though quantum may differ, therefore, on similar lines, similar reasons, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 8222/M/2010 for assessment year 2006-2007 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 - A.Y. 2006-07 89. Before closing, we find that the assessee has filed another appeal for A.Y. 2006-07 which has been given ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010. This is a repetitive appeal, already considered in ITA No. 8222/M/2010, by virtue of which ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 becomes otiose. 90. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2393/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 and ITA No. 5596/M/2011 for A.Y. 2005- 06 is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 3098/M/09 for A.Y. 2004-05 is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 8222/M/10 for A.Y. 2006-07 is allowed for statistical purpose. Assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 7585/Mum/2010 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.8.2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1157 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shi Chauhan, Adv., Mr.Gaurav Nair, Adv., Mr.Debarshi Bhuyan, Adv. for M/S. K.J. John & Co., Advs. O R D E R Notice. Learned counsel, on caveat, enters appearance and accepts notice in S.L.P.(C)No..../2013 @ CC Nos.11402-11404.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he provisions of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the matters in the High Court ought to have been heard by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge. The submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General is based on the provision of sub- section (2) of Section 21, which is a statutory requirement. That being so, the order passed by the High Courts deserve to be set aside and the proceedings, namely, Crl.P. No.6562/2012 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Criminal Bail Application No.1063/2012 in the Bombay High Court, will have to be restored to the Division Bench of the respective High Courts. Ordered accordingly. We are informed that in both the cases, the respondents are in custody. We, therefore, request both the High Courts to take up their applications and decide them at the earliest, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations, both these special leave petitions are disposed of.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1155 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... payable to the petitioner at 1% of the sum under S. 194IA of the Act since the total sale consideration exceeds ₹ 50 lakhs. The obligation to deduct tax under S. 194IA of the Act arises when consideration is payable to a resident transferor on the transfer of immovable property otherwise than by land acquisition. It is upto the petitioner to submit his return before the jurisdictional assessing officer and take the proceedings to a logical end in the determination of his tax liability. The dictum in Infopark Kerala's case as affirmed in W.A. No. 2243 of 2008 is clearly distinguishable in as much as the same dealt with the deduction of tax under S. 194IA of the Act in the absence of a compulsory acquisition. The District Collector and the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) are therefore directed to disburse the sale consideration to the petitioner after deducting income tax at 1% of the sum under S. 194IA of the Act. The Writ Petition is allowed in part. No costs.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1154 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eave granted. Tag with C.A. Nos. 10619-10620/2011.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1153 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... cord and the orders of the authorities below. The fact is that there were transactions in Mutual Funds which are out of the purview of the transactions effected in shares. This fact is not controverted by the ld. DR. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case. The authorities below ought to have applied their mind on the facts of the case as non-consideration of the transaction being transactions in Mutual Funds exfacie depicts the non-application of mind. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee and decide this issue afresh by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Order pronounced in the open Court immediately after conclusion of hearing on 21-08-2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1152 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n could be made for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. In other words, if a class does not come within the exceptions, as provided in Sub-Articles (4), (4A) and (4B) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the State is bereft of any power to provide for any reservation for any person in any employment available with the State. Therefore, the Government Order dated 6th October, 2006, i.e. the foundation of the right of the respondents / writ petitioners, being non est, as the same is contrary to the expressed provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India; no right flows therefrom and, accordingly, on the basis of the said Government Order dated 6th October, 2006, respondents / writ petitioners could not ask the writ court to issue a mandamus directing them to be appointed in illegally created reservation for sports people. 3. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment and the order under appeal and, at the same time, dismiss the writ petition.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1151 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h; and after considering similar arguments from both sides, the Bench has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration of the entire issue afresh. A copy of that order passed in I.T.A.No. 1800/Mds/2008 dated 30.6.2010 for assessment year 2004-05 has been produced for our perusal. 3. Both the parties have relied on this decision of the Tribunal. Consequently, by respectfully following the above order, we restore the entire issue involved in the years under consideration to the file of the Assessing Officer in a similar manner with a direction that he shall consider all the issues, de novo, commensurate with his decision taken in assessment year 2004-05. Needless to mention that he shall give opportunity of hearing to the assessee as per law. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-09-2011.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1150 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had been at the time of incident. In such a fact-situation, the provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act may also be made applicable as the Appellant/accused had special knowledge regarding such facts, though he failed to furnish any explanation thus, the court could draw an adverse inference against him. 26. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the Trial Court on each issue had been perverse and the High Court has rightly reversed the said findings. The conduct of the Appellant/accused during the trial also disentitled him of any indulgence whatsoever. The appeal lacks merit, and is, accordingly dismissed. The Appellant-accused is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He must surrender within a period of four weeks from today failing which the III Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, CCH No. 25 shall take him in custody to serve out the remaining sentence. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for information and compliance.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1149 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... m for depreciation of ₹ 1,81,174/-. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has claimed depreciation against the property which is let out. According to the Assessing Officer, the income from rent is chargeable under the head ‘income from house property’ therefore, the assessee cannot claim depreciation against the same property. 13. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 14. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R of the assessee submitted that as the assessee has shown rental income throughout the year from house property, therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of deduction of depreciation against such income to the assessee was in order. We, therefore, dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on Monday, the 05th of August, 2013, at Chennai.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1148 - ITAT PUNE
... ...
... ... ..... ue in controversy is whether the donations given by the assessee trust to another charitable trust is an application of income within the meaning of Sec. 11 of the Act. So far as an application of the income is concerned which is in respect of donations given by the assessee trust to another charitable trust the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustees of the Jadi Trust (supra). Moreover, as per the instruction no. 1132, dated 05-01-2007 issued by the CBDT nowhere it is made mandatory that there should be specific objects in the trust deed. It is sufficient that the donations are given to the donee trust for applying the donation for the charitable purpose for which the donor trust is settled. In our opinion, no interference is called for in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, same is confirmed. 5. In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open Court on 26-08-2013
-
2013 (8) TMI 1147 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... d by the assessee is situated in OMR, the Assessing Officer denied the claim of the assessee. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has also without examining the property, where the Assessing Officer has given a specific finding that the assessee is buying and selling the property frequently and without mentioning any detail of the property sold by the wife of the assessee and assigning complete detail of the ITAT order directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of the assessee. In view of the above and in the absence of any clear facts and findings of lower authorities, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) on this issue and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine all the details as stated above including the land sold by wife of the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on Friday, the 30th of August, 2013 at Chennai
-
2013 (8) TMI 1146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation. (1) XXXX (2) XXXX 3. In view of the above provisions of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the publication was effected on 9.2.2013 and the accused was directed to appear in the Court as per that publication on 6.3.2013 which period was less than 30 days. Therefore, it cannot be held that by passing the impugned order on 13.3.2013, the publication has been effected as per the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There was no order in the publication for the accused giving specified time and place to appear on 13.3.2013. Therefore, this order is not as per law and the same is set aside. Finding merit in the petition, the same is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.32012 (Annexure-P.1) is set aside. The lower Court record be returned.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1145 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... A No. 2426/Mum/2010 dated 22nd February, 2012, deleted these additions. Consequently the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the learned CIT(A). 3. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the learned CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the premise that the additions, which formed the bedrock of the penalty, no more stand in view of their deletion by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings has been reversed or modified by the Hon’ble High Court. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 4. परिणामतः अपीलें खारिज की जाती हैं। In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of August, 2013.
........
|
