|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1014 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 1077 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ged in exporting the iron ore from the place of extraction and processing to the other countries. In order to export the same, iron ore has to be transported from the place of extraction or from the place of processing, till shipment is completed. In order to transport the iron ore, chassis is purchased and thereafter a body is built on it, in order to treat it as a truck or lorry. Now the claim is made by the petitioner for refund of the input tax on the ground that the investment made by the petitioner is for the purpose of its business of manufacturing and processing. According to us in view of the definition of sub-section (19) of Section 2 and Section 11(3) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the purchase of chassis by the petitioner is not for the purpose of manufacturing of the goods or for processing. It is used only for transportation. 6. Therefore, we do not see any substantial question of law arises in this petition. 7. Accordingly, this petitioner is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1076 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iver will execute the conveyance on the judgment-debtor's behalf and the decree-holders or either of them or their nominee or nominees will get as good a title to the property upon such conveyance as they could have obtained from the judgment-debtor. 38. The fees of Talbot & Company should be met by the judgment-debtor, or else, if the decree-holders pay the fees they shall be entitled to receive the money from the judgment-debtor and launch fresh execution in this Court for such purpose. The receiver will be paid a remuneration of 2000 GMs and will stand discharged upon all steps in terms of this order being completed. 39. E.C. No. 113 of 2007 and E.C. No. 115 of 2007 are disposed of accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs. 40. Urgent certified photostat copies of this judgment, if applied for, be issued to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 41. Later The judgment-debtor prays for a stay of operation of the order which is declined.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1075 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ious orders which have relevance were suppressed. There is substance in what is submitted. 15. It is to be noted that suit was filed against Tuljaram. Subsequently there was a compromise between Tuljaram and Bhagwan Das. It is relevant to note that Bhagwan’s claim was that there was an agreement of sale between Tuljaram and Bhagwan Das. It is to be further noted that in the counter affidavit filed by Tuljraram there is no reference to the alleged agreement with Bhagwan Das. He is a local person and not a displaced person. Therefore, he has no right to get the property. There is no distinction between original order and the revisional order. Law is fairly well settled that even if an order is a nullity same has to be challenged. See State of Punjab and Ors. v. Gurdev Singh (1991(4) SCC 1) . 16. Above being the position, the High Court was justified in its view and no interference is called for. 17. Appeal is dismissed accordingly. But there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1074 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y are entirely different than in the criminal prosecution. The departmental inquiry aims at finding out the misconduct committed by an employee and to assess as to whether such a person could be retained in service, whereas criminal prosecution aims at finding the criminal intent which may require a criminal to be segregated from the law abiding society. In the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 10.3.2004, which stands concluded on 8.9.2004 whereas the criminal prosecution was prolonged resulting in passing of the judgment came to an end on 23.2.2007. It shows that statements of the witnesses in the departmental inquiry were recorded earlier. Therefore, merely because the petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case registered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not ipso facto result into her exoneration in the departmental proceedings. 13. For the reasons aforementioned, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1073 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... complainant has utterly failed to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt against the accused. Therefore, the question of drawing presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act does not arise. In this view of the matter, the Courts below are not justified in recording conviction against the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. In this view of the matter, the revision petition deserves to be allowed and the accused is entitled to be acquitted. 33. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence are hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint filed by the respondent herein is dismissed. The bail and surety bonds of the accused are discharged. The amount stated to have been deposited by the petitioner, before the Trial Court pursuant to the judgment of the Courts below is ordered to be returned to the petitioner herein.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1072 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... V. Balaram Das,Adv. ORDER The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1071 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... cardboard boxes cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods as the packing was necessary for transporting and marketing the electrodes. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue does not dispute this fact that the packing was necessary for transporting and marketing the electrodes and fairly submits that point is concluded against the revenue by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, especially Apar (P) Ltd. (supra). In view of this, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1070 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... DR however submitted the user was a condition for allowing depreciation and in this regard relied to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dineshkumar Gulabchand Agrawal vs. CIT, 267 ITR 768 (Born). We have perused the aforesaid decision and are of the view that the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the assessee has already used the asset for the purpose of business. The asset has already entered the block of assets. In the case before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the asset in question was not at all put to use. We therefore, find the decision relied upon the Id. DR. is of no assistance to the plea of the DR. Respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunals referred to the above, we hold that the assessee was entitled to cairn depreciation and the Assessing Officer directed to allow the same. 13. In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 17th July, 2008.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1069 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the order itself. If the said period is calculated from the date of receipt of the order, then it becomes clear that designated authority passed the order on 27.1.99, which is at Annexure 'A'. The petitioner received the order on 04.02.99 and made payment as determined by the designated authority on 03.03.99. Therefore the submission of the petitioner is that the payment was made as per the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of KVSS. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the payment was made by the petitioner in time i.e. within 30 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of KVSS. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is required to be allowed on the short ground as discussed hereinabove. The order dated 22nd July 1999 passed by the designated authority vide annexure 'B' and order dated 03.11.99 at annexure 'E' are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute, with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1068 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e against the appellants and no illegality has been committed by them in coming to such conclusion. It is no doubt, true, that the above orders do not mean that the accused have committed such offences. It only means that a prima facie case has been made out to frame charge and at that stage, no interference is called for. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the said order. The appeals deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. 48. Before parting with the matter, we may clarify that we may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the merits on the matter one way or the other. All the observations made by the trial Court, by the High Court as well as by us in this judgment, must be construed as limited to the framing of charge and nothing more than that. As and when the main matter will come up before the Court for hearing, the Court will decide it on merits without being inhibited or influenced by the above observations. 49. Ordered accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1067 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... Rajaram v. , State of M.P. Gurucharan v. State of Rajasthan 2003 Cri LJ 1234 , Akhil Ali v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 708 , Bansi Lal v. State of M.P. (1982)3SCC370 , Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab 1989 Cri LJ 287 , Hari Nath v. State of U.P. Cri LJ 422 , Jayantibhai v. State of Gujarat 2002 Cri LJ 4734 , Suresh v. State of Bihar2003 Cri LJ 1717 , Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala1973 Cri LJ 185 ; Hira Lal v. Delhi Administration 1973 Cri LJ 47 , Uma Shankar v. State of Bihar (2005) 10 SCC 336. 9. In our view, similar course needs to be adopted. In the circumstances, by applying the decision in Vajrapu's case (supra), the conviction of the appellant is altered to Section 304 Part I, IPC and 10 years' custodial sentence with fine as was imposed by the High Court would meet the ends of justice, since the accused appellant stands on similar footing with the other accused persons who were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2003. 10. The appeal is allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1066 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... l for the appellant contends that the premises of the appellant were raided by the income tax authorities in January 2007 and all the record was seized by that department and, therefore, the appellant was unable to furnish the requisite information. Such a plea is being noticed only to be rejected. Investigations were going on in the year 2004 and the summons were issued to the appellant in the year 2005. All the records were then available with the appellant but the information was not furnished. We specifically put it to the learned Counsel for the appellant as to why the information could not be supplied till January 2007 and the reply is that the concerned officers of the company were not available. It is obvious that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to hamper the investigations. In this view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1065 - ITAT JAIPUR
Interpretation of Statutes - Deduction u/s 80HHC - Net expenditure was claimed as interest expenditure - Calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC - excluding the receipts from DEPB - Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) - Trading addition - estimation of income - reducing the GP rate to 21.26 per cent as against 24 per cent - Disallowance of a sum out of interest.
Interpretation of Statutes - Deduction u/s 80HHC - Net expenditure was claimed as interest expenditure - HELD THAT:- On identical issues, this Bench has been taking the consistent decisions where the income earned as interest on FDRs has to he treated as income from other sources and not income from business and the interest expenditure has been held to be allowable u/s 37(1)/36(1)(iii) of the Act. No netting in such cases can be done - there are no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A) who has rightly confirmed the action of the AO in treating the interest income as income from other sources and no netting has been allowed. Thus, ground No. 1 of the assessee is dismissed.
Calculation of deduction u/s 80HHC - excluding the receipts from DEPB - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the intent of the legislature is clear and we find no ambiguity with respect to the taxability of the profit on the transfer of DEPB and the authorities below need not call the aid of other rule of construction of statutes. If this is done, this will tantamount to straining the statute which is not permitted in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab v. Jalandhar Vegetables [1965 (11) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT] and Innamuri Gopalam v. State of AP[1963 (4) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT] - Moreover, the revenue cannot adopt different ways of taxing one receipt, i.e., if the assessee utilizes the said entitlements for imports, no tax is levied on the part of profit which has resulted from the savings in the import duty whereas if it is not utilized and sold in the market, the same is taxed. Therefore, such cost cannot become the part of the profit. Essentially it has to be reduced from the sale consideration - DEPB entitlements are given to supplement the input cost of exports which is a fixed percentage of the export which differs from the different products. It is this imputed or attributed cost which is to be set off against DEPB receipts to arrive at the sums taxable u/s 28(iiid) of the Act. Therefore, it is only the profit on the transfer of DEPB Scheme which has to be treated as income u/s 28(iiid) of the Act. On identical issue, the reliance has rightly been placed by the ld AR on the following decisions in Glenmark Laboratories Ltd. v. Dy. CIT[2007 (12) TMI 236 - ITAT BOMBAY-K] - Therefore, theAO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee. The order of the ld CIT(A) is reversed on this issue. Thus, ground No. 2. of the assessee is allowed.
Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) - Trading addition - estimation of income - reducing the GP rate to 21.26 per cent as against 24 per cent - HELD THAT:- Assessee did not produce the stock register for the reasons best known to him. No defect has been pointed out by the auditor cannot help the assessee and therefore, the results declared by the assessee cannot be considered as accurate. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld CIT (A) who has rightly upheld the applicability of Section 145(3) - We uphold the views of the ld CIT (A) that the comparable cases relied upon by the AO cannot be the basis for estimation of income since the said cases are the manufacture of garments whereas the assessee is manufacturer of made ups. Moreover, the AO has not brought on record whether the said cases are at all comparable with the present case or not. No material has been provided to the assessee with regard to the said comparable cases - The results of the assessee have been accepted for the AY's 2001-02 and 2002-03 under the assessments u/s 143(3) of the Act which have to be kept into consideration though each year is an independent year in the Income-tax proceedings. Therefore, past results of the assessee are the best guide. The assessee has declared GP rate of 20.46 per cent in the immediately preceding year whereas during the impugned year, the assessee has declared better GP rate of 20.75 per cent - In view of decision in the case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanij Udhyog [2001 (7) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], even if the rejection of books of account have been upheld, in the circumstances of the present case, no addition is called for. The ld CIT (A) has not given any basis for making the application of GP rate of 21.26 per cent and has ignored the past results declared by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the ld CIT (A) for sustaining the addition is reversed - Thus, ground for Rejection of books of account u/s 145(3) is dismissed and ground for confirming the trading addition of the assessee is allowed and solitary ground for reducing the GP rate of the revenue is dismissed.
Rejection of books of account - trading addition - HELD THAT:- In the present case, We find the explanation of the assessee as convincing for fall in GP and therefore, no addition can be made even if the books of account are rejected in view of decision in the case of CIT v. Gotan Lime Khanjit Udyog (supra). Therefore, the order of the ld CIT (A) for sustaining the trading addition is reversed. Thus, ground No. 1 of. the assessee is dismissed and ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed.
Disallowance of a sum out of interest - loan is diverted by the assessee by way of investment and advancement of loans to various persons which are not connected with his business activities - HELD THAT:- The vital fact has been ignored by both the authorities below. The assessee is having the surplus capital and any investment made out of own capital of the assessee, cannot be a subject for disallowance of interest paid to the banks. The cases relied upon by the authorities below are no help to the Revenue as submitted by the learned Authorised Representative. The cases relied upon by Mr. Rajeev Sogani in the case of Radico Khaitan Ltd.[2004 (9) TMI 37 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [2005 (4) TMI 603 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Britannia Industries Ltd. [2005 (6) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], support our views and therefore, no disallowance on account of interest can be made. Therefore, the disallowance confirmed by the ld CIT (A) is directed to be deleted. Thus, ground No. 4 of the assessee is allowed.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1064 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Supreme Court, it is not possible to accept the contention put forward by the Department that the annual letting value as fixed by the municipality, should be accepted. There is also no evidence on record to show that the rent received by the assessee is low because of any extraneous considerations, like relationship between the landlord and the tenant or any other contract. In the absence of such evidence we are not in a position to reject the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the actual rent received by the assessee would form the fair rent, as contemplated under the Rent Control Act.” 15.So is in the present case inasmuch as the Tribunal was right in setting aside the assessment based on the Annual Rental Value and was right in directing the assessment based on the actual rental income received by the Assessee on the basis of the rental agreement. Hence, we answer the question in affirmative in favour of Assessee against Revenue. 16.Disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1063 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... MM is not essential in the interests of justice. Criminal jurisprudence fastens the pious obligation on the prosecution to safeguard the interests of each and every citizen; to ensure that an innocent person is not vexatiously prosecuted; and to preserve the rights of every accused to a fair trial. This obligation does not rest on the Court alone. 33. In these circumstances, we do not find merit in the Petitions. The cumulative effect of the impugned Notification is that the CMM has ceased to have jurisdiction to try the criminal cases pending before him. Consequent upon the withdrawal or rescission of the special empowerment the Court of Sessions would have jurisdiction to try the cases. The impugned administrative decision of this Court, Therefore, validly transfers the pending cases from the Court of CMM to the Court of Sessions. The Petitions are dismissed but in view of the complexity of the contentions raised before us imposition of costs would be totally unjustified.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1062 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... consideration for condoning the prolongation of investigation and the trial. The lackadaisical manner of investigation spread over a period of four years in a case of this type and inordinate delay of over eight years (excluding the period when the record of the trial court was in the High Court), is manifestly clear. Thus, on facts in hand, we are convinced that the appellant has been denied his valuable constitutional right to a speedy investigation and trial and, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against him in the year 1987 and pending in the court of Special Judge, Latur, deserve to be quashed on this short ground alone. 19.For the view we have taken, we deem it unnecessary to go into the merits of the accusations against the appellant as also the question of his age, at the time of commission of alleged offences. 20.Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the proceedings against the appellant in criminal case arising out of FIR No.78 of 1987 are hereby quashed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1061 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... when the contemners are in the tight corner and with a view to ward off the Court. Acceptance of such apology in the case on hand would be allowing the contemners to go away with impunity after committing gross contempt of Court. In our considered opinion, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, imposition of fine in lieu of imprisonment will not meet the ends of justice. o p /o p 69. Considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety, in our opinion, ends of justice would be served if we hold the respondents/contemners guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 94(c) and Rule 2-A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and Article 129 of the Constitution and order the respondents-contemners to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two weeks i.e. fourteen days. o p /o p 70. Ordered accordingly. The Contempt Petitions are disposed of. o p /o p
-
2008 (7) TMI 1060 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB)”. The decision of the larger bench has not been challenged and has been accepted by the department. In our opinion, therefore, as admittedly the order impugned in the appeal is entirely based on the decision of the larger bench which has been accepted by the department, it will not be in the interest of justice to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1059 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 676 (T); Emtex Synthetics Ltd. reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 170 (T). The law on the point is well-settled that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be proved beyond doubt by production of sufficient and affirmative evidence and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It is not understood as to why the Revenue has not conducted further verification from the buyers of the goods or the purchasers, when the details of the same were, according to them, available in said register. Having failed to conduct further investigation, Revenue cannot now confirm the demand on the basis of sole entry. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.” 5. The Tribunal having recorded findings after appreciation of evidence on record, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, can be termed to be a substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1058 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of law raised in ITA No. 28/04. It is answered by us today against the revenue. 2. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment this appeal is dismissed.
........
|
