|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 1159 Records
-
2012 (7) TMI 1027 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... rd. (ii) Notice to the respondent. (iii) Notice to the Registrar of Companies, Madras. (iv) Affixure of notice at the premises of the Registered Office of the respondent company. (v) The petitioner is directed to publish the company petition in one issue of English Daily "The Hindu" and Indian Express and in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette fixing the date of hearing on 06.09.2012. (vi) The petitioner is directed to publish the company petition giving at least fourteen days clear advance notice. (vii) The Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras is appointed as Provisional Liquidator and is directed to take charge of the assets of the respondent company. The Ex -Directors of the respondent company are directed to file their statement of affairs before the Official Liquidator within a period of 21 days. The company shall deposit a sum of ₹ 15,000/ - towards initial expenses before the Official Liquidator in this matter. Call the company petition on 06.09.2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1026 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... members of the society. The condition for allowing exemption under section 10(23C) is that the assessee should engage in the activity of providing medical relief without any profit motive. In the assessee’s case, we do not see that the society is engaged in any activity of providing medical relief with profit motive. This issue has been elaborately dealt with by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in allowing the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiae) to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case. We also see that the case law relied on by the Revenue are not applicable to the facts of the assessee. Therefore, we sustain the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and reject the grounds of appeal of the Revenue. 8. The result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 20th of July, 2012 at Chennai.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1025 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petitioner filed an application on 21.1.2011 enclosing a certificate from a doctor to the effect that he was unable to move during the period from 10.7.2007 to 15.10.2007. The Tribunal, by its order dated 3.5.2012 has declined to consider the application filed by the petitioner. 3. Although the petitioner has not furnished the requisite certificate within the reasonable time, in our opinion, interest of justice will be met if delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merits subject to payment of costs. 4. Accordingly, the orders of the Tribunal dated 1.11.2010 and 3.5.2012 are quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of ₹ 5000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. 5. If the petitioner prays the costs of ₹ 5000/- to the respondents within four weeks from today, the CESTAT shall hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1024 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... erused the order of the authorities below and heard the arguments from both the sides. Ld. Counsel for the assessee had not be able to put on record any evidence to show that which sale had been rooted through these persons and on which commission was paid. He simply gives the sale figure comprising from A.Y.06-07 to 07-08 & 07-08 to 08-09 but it had not been pointed out the exact sale made through the six persons in A.Y. 07- 08 and four persons in A.Y. 08-09. The assessee having the status of firm. The ld. A.O. had allowed the commission to various persons which had been found genuine payment. Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the addition on ground that the appellant had not given any evidence, of service being rendered by them. The burden of prove lay upon the assessee. Therefore, we upheld the order of CIT (A). 5. In the result, the Assessee’s appeals in both assessment years, are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1023 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Applicability of the provisions of Section 133A -Held that:- The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 12.7.2012 to 13.7.2012 conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act. As and when any report is prepared and used against the petitioner on the basis of the said survey, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all such grounds which are permissible in law before the appropriate forum. The concerned authority will decide such an objection independently without being influenced by the tentative opinion expressed by us in this order.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1022 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Addition u/s 40(a)(ia) - Held that:- Since the TDS was deposited on 25/5/05, therefore, we hereby direct to delete the addition - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1021 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of the petitioner as mutual concern. In fact the learned CIT(A) has treated the status of the assessee as a Trust, which is in line with the view taken by the Tribunal. It is thus seen that the issue urged by the Revenue does not arise out of the order of the learned CIT(A). With utmost respect, we feel that the grounds prepared shows lack of application of mind, both on the part of the Commissioner as well as the Assessing Officer - which are not germane to the issue on hand - and hence the appeal deserves to be treated as unadmitted or dismissed as not arising out of the order of the CIT(A). 7. At any rate, the main issue, which arises out of the order of the learned CIT(A), stands covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal cited supra and nothing has been brought on record to take a different view on the matter. Thus, the appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd July 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1020 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eave granted. The appeals will be heard on the SLP paper books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1019 - SUPREME COURT
|
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause to condone delay present or not - validity of ex-parte decree passed - right to appeal - regular appeal u/s 96 CPC - certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of the Advocate - "sufficient cause" used in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which serves the ends of justice. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can be laid down for deciding the applications parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay.
HELD THAT:- the Respondent was very much conscious of the fact that the appeal filed by him against order dated 20.2.2008 passed by the trial Court had been dismissed by the High Court on 11.12.2008 and he had obtained certified copies of the documents, which are said to have handed over to the counsel on 10.1.2009, he did not make any effort to contact the concerned advocate till the first week of March, 2010 to ascertain the fate of the appeal supposed to have been filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 18.8.2006. Not only this, the application and affidavit filed by him are conspicuously silent about the name of the advocate to whom the papers were entrusted tor the purpose of preparing the grounds of appeal. The affidavit of the concerned advocate was also not filed. if there was any iota of truth in the Respondent's story that the certified copies of the documents were misplaced by the office of his counsel and the same were noticed by the counsel on 2.3.2010 while preparing arguments in A.S. No. 200/2001, the minimum which he was expected to do was to file an affidavit of the concerned advocate. Why he did not do so has not been explained by the Respondent. Notwithstanding this, the learned Single Judge assumed that the counsel to whom the Appellant is said to have handed over the documents was remiss in the performance of his duties and on that account, the same got tagged with another file resulting in the delay.
In the present case, the statement made by the Respondent about misplacement of the documents by the office of the Advocate was vague to the core and the learned Single Judge committed grave error by entertaining the fanciful explanation given for 1236 days delay. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application filed by the Respondent for condonation of 1236 days delay in filing appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court shall stand dismissed.
|
-
2012 (7) TMI 1018 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ding insult to the injury and prolonging the agony of not only the accused but also resulting in dilatory tactics on the part of the respondent. I feel that the petitioners have been able to make out a case where the facts of the present case are squarely covered by Radhe Shyam Kejriwal’s case (supra) inasmuch as having been exonerated in the departmental adjudicatory proceedings regarding both the allegations of mis-declaration and undervaluation, there is no point in continuing with the criminal trial as it is resulting in abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, Criminal Complaint No. 25/1/03 titled V.P. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI v. M/s. Siddhartha Polymers Ltd. (now known as Siddharth Asia Ltd.) & Ors., under Sections 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the consequent proceedings against the petitioners stand quashed. 12. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and all the pending applications stand disposed of.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1017 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ose the amount of discount that is being offered. It is an admitted fact that no such discount has been shown in the tax invoice. That the discount offered is subsequent to the raising of the tax invoice. 15. On facts, we are of the view that in terms of the proviso to Rule 3(2)(c), until and unless the discounts are shown in the tax invoice, the assessee is not entitled to any relief. In the instant case, the same is absent. Hence, it is evident that the view of the Tribunal requires to be set aside as being contrary to the proviso to Rule 3(2)(c).” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In my opinion, the rectification orders are in accordance with Rule 3(2)(c) of the Rules and the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Kitchen Appliances India Ltd. referred to above. I find no legal infirmity in the impugned rectification orders to warrant interference under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitions dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1016 - ITAT JODHPUR
... ...
... ... ..... 0. After considering the submissions of both the parties and material available on record, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to recalculate the interest u/s 234A of the Income Tax Act in accordance with ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Priti Pithawala vs ITO (supra), no other contrary judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court or any other Court was brought to our notice, we therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the same is upheld. In the present case, it is also noted that the appeal filed by the department is belated by 435 days and no application for condonation of delay is moved by the Department. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on limitation also. 11. In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as cross objection of the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 25.07.2012)
-
2012 (7) TMI 1015 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ect to tax in India in accordance with the provisions of the DTAA.” Thus, it is evident that the assessee treated the reimbursement of cost as not having any income component therein and made a proper disclosure in that regard. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has held that simply for the reason that the Assessing Officer did not find the claim of the assessee to be sustainable in law up to a certain extent, it can not be a case for penalty u/s.271(1)(c) more so when the particulars furnished by the assessee were not inaccurate. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty, at least, on the ground of possible view about non-taxability of the line charges. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order. 7. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re not readily available with the respondent on the day the application was filed and the Officers were required to search and collect the information, which was required to be supplied to the applicant. We find that the information sought by the respondent and reproduced in this judgment was so general and extensive that it could not have been found out within a couple of days or even within a fortnight in spite of the best efforts of half a dozen persons working in that direction. Hence, we feel that the imposition of costs of ₹ 2,000/- on the appellant no.2 was not proper. Since a part of the order in appeal has already been complied with and the appellant no.2 has supplied the necessary information to the respondent free of costs, there is no reason to interfere with the same. We, however, set aside the order imposing the costs of ₹ 2,000/- on the appellant no.2. In the facts of the case, the letters patent appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1013 - SC ORDER
Denial of duty exemption - Notification 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 - Import of capital goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- There is no ground for interference with the impugned judgment - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1012 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eated to be an order and against it, an appeal could be filed and it cannot be said that it was an appellate order. The Tribunal further held that the communication dated 16-12-2005 showing the bill of entry to the respondent has to be considered as relevant date for challenging the same and since the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the issue on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits. 6. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not decided the matter on merits and the letter dated 16-12-2005 cannot be considered to be an order passed in appeal by the Commissioner which could be challenged before the Tribunal. The question of law framed by this Court is answered in the affirmative against department and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1011 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... that the reliance placed by ld CIT(A) in the case of Protos Engg. Co.Pvt.Ltd(supra) is not justified. We are also of the considered view that the provisions of section 28(iv) which provides the value of any benefit or perquisite, whether convertible into money or not, arising from business or the exercise of a profession shall be chargeable to income tax under the head “profits and gains and business or profession” could not be applied as the said benefit or perquisite has not arisen to the assessee because the assessee is showing the said amount as its liability in the balance sheet year after year. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the said amount also cannot be added as income of the assessee u/s.28(iv) of the Act. Accordingly, we delete the said addition made by the authorities below by allowing ground of appeal. 13. In the result, appeal field by assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2012
-
2012 (7) TMI 1010 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ndirectly for the purpose of earning the exempt income. The disallowance has been ultimately made on adhoc basis only. Such an adhoc disallowance on account of administrative expenses for earning of dividend income cannot be held to be a cause for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for either concealment of income or furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee’s explanation not only during the course of the assessment proceedings but also during the course of the penalty proceedings, have not been found to be incorrect or false. Therefore, in such a situation we do not find any reason to confirm the penalty on such an adhoc disallowance of administrative expenditure u/s.14A. Therefore, penalty sustained to this extent by the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the same is deleted. In the result, the grounds taken by the assessee is allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed. Order pronounced on this 31st day of July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1009 - SUPREME COURT
Termination of a Constable in the Police Department - Held that:- When we consider the principles laid down in majority of the decisions, the question that looms large before us is when consideration of such claim by the candidates who deliberately suppressed information at the time of recruitment; can there be different yardsticks applied in the matter of grant of relief.
Though there are very many decisions in support of the various points culled out in the above paragraphs, inasmuch as we have noted certain other decisions taking different view of coordinate Benches, we feel it appropriate to refer the above mentioned issues to a larger Bench of this Court for an authoritative pronouncement so that there will be no conflict of views and which will enable the Courts to apply the law uniformily while dealing with such issues.
With that view, we feel it appropriate to refer this matter to be considered by a larger Bench of this Court. Registry is directed to place all the relevant documents before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1008 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... herwise whatever stated in the invoice, which is concocted document would become binding and results in injustice to revenue. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the observation made by the Tribunal does not foreclose the discretion of the Assessing Authority to assess the market price of the equipment. However, it is essential that verification from the supplier is to be made and if the material furnished by the supplier would disclose that the sale price stated in the invoice is just and proper, accordingly the depreciation is to be allowed. The contention that the observation made have dives ted discretion of the Assessing Authority, is incorrect . 5. Heard. Learned counsel for both sides. It is clarified that the remand is an open remand. The Assessing Authority is free to assess sale value of the product with reference to the materials pertaining to the supplier and other relevant material if any. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
............
|
