|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 581 Records
-
2005 (4) TMI 589 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s namely the assessee not being assessed is satisfied. As regards the satisfaction of the AO that the assessee had taxable income, this is not established because though the officers doubted that the assessee might be having income but were not sure of the extent of income and whether it could exceed the minimum limit not taxable. The assessee had offered her capital namely FDRs as well as her investment in pawning business. This does not mean that these were incomes earned in those years. Therefore, Expln. 3 to s. 271(1)(c) would not operate." 7. The learned standing counsel could not show from the assessment order or otherwise that the above finding of the Tribunal is vitiated. 8. In the result we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the penalty order. 9. In view of the above discussion we answer the question referred to us in affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 588 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 587 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lding took donations from Members of the public including parents whose children were studying in the school. He also relied on the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 6. We have examined the rival submissions. The assessee-society had applied the entire funds for educational purposes in accordance with the objects of the society. The assessee is entitled to take donation for development and building fund and apply the same towards the objects of the Society is entitled to exemptions under section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismiss the department’s appeal." 2. The above findings are primarily finding of fact and do not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law. The approach of the Tribunal is in no way in conflict with any settled principle of law. No judgment has been brought to our notice contrary to the view taken by the Tribunal. Dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 586 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not enough for holding that share holders neither existed nor their credit worthiness was established. The overwhelming evidence mentioned above clearly proved not only the identity of the share applicant but their credit worthiness as well as genuineness of the transaction. We, therefore, hold that the addition in respect of share application money received from the above 7 companies was a genuine share application money and the addition sustained by the CIT(A) in this respect is not justified and the same is deleted." 5. We may also notice that the Assessing Officer himself has noticed in the order that the applicant share holders were Income-tax payee. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the share holder who is assessed to tax is not in existence. This would tantamount to contradiction in the stand of the Department itself. 6. In view of the above circumstances, no questions of law much less the substantial question of law arise in the present case.
-
2005 (4) TMI 585 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... remand the matter after amendment to Section 35A(3). Ld. DR appearing for the revenue fairly agrees that the issue stands decided by the Honourable High Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs. Medico Labs reported in 2004(173)ELT 117(Guj) . In the said decision, it is held that Commissioner (Appeals) have powers to remand even after amendment of Section 35A(3). In view of the above decision, we do not find any merits in the revenue appeal and reject the same.
-
2005 (4) TMI 584 - SUPREME COURT
Challenged the Judgment of High Court gave the benefit of probation u/s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 ("POB Act") to the second respondent and Maintained the conviction - Without calling for a report from the Authorities relating to the conduct - Previous conviction - HELD THAT:- In our view, there was no good reason for letting the respondent off by granting to him the said benefit of POB Act particularly, keeping in view the large scale irregularity and unauthorized constructions carried by the builders in Delhi despite strict direction of the Municipal authorities and despite of the Courts passing various orders from time to time against the unauthorized construction. The High Court also failed to take into consideration that the respondent has been in jail for three days and had not put in substantial period in custody. The High Court vide its order impugned in this appeal has observed that there is no allegation that the respondent is a previous convict. In fact, as could be seen from the annexures filed along with this appeal, the respondent has been convicted for offence under Sections 332 and 461 of the DMC Act.
Non-production of the order and even non-mentioning of the conviction and sentence in the criminal Case tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. A litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all documents which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well on the opposite party. The second respondent, in our opinion, was not justified in suppressing the material fact that he was convicted by the Magistrate on an earlier occasion. Since the second respondent deliberately suppressed the crucial and important fact, we disapprove strongly and particularly, the conduct of the second respondent and by reason of such conduct, the second respondent disentitled himself from getting any relief or assistance from this Court. We, however, part with this case with heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of the conduct and behaviour but direct that the second respondent to pay a sum of ₹ 10,000 by way of cost to the appellant herein.
The offender can only be released on probation of good conduct under this section when the Court forms an opinion, having considered the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender, that in a particular case, the offender should be released on probation of good conduct. The section itself is clear that before applying the section, the Magistrate should carefully take into consideration the attendant circumstances. The second respondent is a previous convict as per the records placed before us. Such a previous convict cannot be released in view of Section 4 of the POB Act. The Court is bound to call for a report as per Section 4 of POB Act but the High Court has failed to do so although the Court is not bound by the report of the Probationer Officer but it must call for such a report before the case comes to its conclusion. The word "shall" in sub-section (2) of Section 4 is mandatory and the consideration of the report of the Probationer Officer is a condition precedent to the release of the accused as reported in the case of State v. Naguesh G. Shet Govenkar and Anr................. and a release without such a report would, therefore, be illegal.
The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs of ₹ 10,000 to be paid by the second respondent to the appellant.
-
2005 (4) TMI 583 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rent conclusions. Above being the position, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." 18. The exercise strictly speaking was not necessary because I already with an arm of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Doshi. But in deference to strenuous submission made by Mr. Mullick I thought it was worthwhile. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition succeeds. The order dated 09.09.97 is set aside and the Department is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Narendra Doshi, reported in 254 ITR 606. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Mr. Mallick, learned Senior counsel, prayed for stay of operation of this order. The operation of this order shall remain stayed for a period of three weeks hence. Let xerox certified copies of this Judgment be supplied to the parties urgently if applied for the same.
-
2005 (4) TMI 582 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... fore, this issue is restored back to the Assessing Officer with the direction that the assessee's claim that investments were converted into stock-in-trade with reference to the entries made in the books of account of the relevant year in which the alleged conversion took place may be verified. The Assessing Officer may also examine whether there is any resolution of the Board of Directors regarding such conversion. It has been stated before us that these shares have been sold during subsequent assessment years. This issue may also be examined with reference to the provisions of section 45(2) of the IT Act. If it is found that the assessee's claim regarding conversion into stock-in-trade is bona fide, the assessee's claim for loss arising on valuation of the stock-in-trade as per the method cost or market price whichever is lower may be accepted by the Assessing Officer. 10. In the result, for statistical purposes, the assessee's appeal is treated as allowed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 581 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... circular had also been challenged in the Gujarat High Court. The High Court of Gujarat by its decision in the case of Lucky Star International v. Union of India reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 26 (Guj.) had also quashed the circulars. Against that decision Special Leave Petitions Nos........... CC Nos.3434-3456 of 2001 had been filed. That Special Leave Petitions got dismissed on 30th July, 2001. The circular had also been challenged in the Calcutta High Court. The Calcutta High Court by its Judgment dated 16th October, 2001 had also quashed the circular. Against the decision of the Calcutta High Court Special Leave Petition Nos............ CC Nos. 9727-9731 of 2003 had been filed. Those Special Leave Petitions were withdrawn by learned Attorney General on 19th January, 2004. In view of the fact that one Special Leave Petition has been dismissed and another has been withdrawn, we see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeals stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 580 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the property in the goods had passed to the Government of India?
Whether the certificate dated 23-9-1999 issued by the Government, to the effect that these goods were for use by the Government and for no other purpose and the letter of the Chief General Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle dated 23-9-1999 wherein it is claimed that the articles belong to the Union Government do not alter the position in law?
-
2005 (4) TMI 579 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution while undertaking judicial review of an administrative action relating to award of a contract?
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the order of the CONCOR awarding the contract to the appellant?
-
2005 (4) TMI 578 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e connected papers. We do not find any merit in the petitions for review. The same shall stand dismissed accordingly.
-
2005 (4) TMI 577 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n of Explanation 5(2) of section 271(1)(c) were fully complied and thereby the assessee was entitled to the concession granted by the law. We accordingly, hold that the imposition of penalty in this case was not justified and, therefore, even the sustenance of part of it by the ld. CIT (Appeals) deserves to be deleted. We accordingly, allow the assessee’s appeal and dismiss the Department’s appeal." 4. Heard learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of revenue and Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned counsel for the assessee-respondent. 5. Both the counsels agreed that the issue involved in the present case is similar to the issue involved in CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel IT Reference No. 111 of 1993, dated 21-4-2005 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 6. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision in Radha Kishan Goel’s case (supra), we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2005 (4) TMI 576 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... We clarify that dismissal of this Appeal will, in no way, affect the contention of the parties in the Contempt Petition. This Order will not mean that this Court has accepted that ₹ 9.5 lakhs was the compensation payable nor that this Court is accepting that a higher amount is payable. However, considering the fact that it has been held by this Court in the cases of Union of India & Ors. vs. C.Krishna Reddy reported in 2003 (10) SCALE 1050 as well as in Union of India vs. R.Padmanabhan reported in (2003) 7 SCC 270 and in the Reward Scheme that there is no vested right in the person to claim a reward and that the payment can, at the highest, be an ex-gratia payment, there is absolutely no justification to grant interest on such ex-gratia payment. We, therefore, set aside the portion of the High Court Order where the interest is directed to be paid as well as the portion awarding costs. Save as above, we see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal stands dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 575 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . For Respondent(s) Mr. B.V. Balaram Das, Adv. O R D E R Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (4) TMI 574 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r, JJ. ORDER Appeal admitted.
-
2005 (4) TMI 573 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he petition is required to be allowed. The imported goods in question having been lost due to deterioration by passage of time, the respondent authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to physically destroy the goods in presence of a proper officer. This direction shall be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. The petitioner shall ensure that, in the process of destruction of the goods, no environmental pollution or degradation occurs and is carried out in accordance with law. 15. The respondent authorities primarily cannot levy any duty, not having established that any taxing event has taken place. However, in case the respondent authorities insist on levying duty, the petitioner is entitled to seek remission of duty under Section 23(1) of the Act on facts and circumstances of the case, and the respondents are directed accordingly. 16. The petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (4) TMI 572 - SUPREME COURT
Whether pre- requisites for passing an order under Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 were not available?
-
2005 (4) TMI 571 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , who is allegedly responsible for doing all these things. The matter is left to the discretion of the Tribunal. Needless to say that the Sales Tax Officer has rightly pointed out certain circumstances in its order which definitely cast doubt about the bonafide of the dealer/opposite party. It is for the dealer to explain those circumstances. Prima facie it does not appeal to reason that an application for amendment in the recognition certificate was filed on 31st March, 1987 and the dealer/opposite party kept quiet for a number of years and woke up only after the close of the business. The receipt register namely, R-29 is also to be examined to find out the correctness of the respective allegations made by the department and the assessee against each other. In view of the above, the revision is allowed in part and the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above.
-
2005 (4) TMI 570 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erverse. Thus, there is no reason to interfere with such findings. 4. If the assessee maintained books of account in the regular course of business and necessary entries relating to the expenditure towards cost of constructions are entered in the books of account, which are open to verification, and its correctness is not doubted, it should be accepted. In case of doubt, the Assessing Authority can refer the matter to the valuation Cell for determination of cost of construction and rely upon such report as an evidence, but it is open to the assessee to challenge the correctness of such valuation report and in case if it establishes that such report is not correct and reliable, expenditure shown in the construction as per the books of account is liable to be accepted. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any error in the order of Tribunal. Question referred is accordingly answered in affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
........
|
