-
2010 (1) TMI 1309
... ... ... ... ..... e. Therefore, it is always necessary to record reasons in support of the order. We are constrained to set aside the impugned order since no reasons are to be found in support of the view taken therein. Looking to the consensus between the parties, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Appellate Authority for consideration afresh. Needless to mention that the lower Appellate Authority shall keep in mind the law laid down by this Court, which is holding the field and shall decide each a....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1308
... ... ... ... ..... e has also filed copy of the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (Income-tax Appeal (L) No. 1236 of 2009 decided on 23rd June, 2009) in which the appeal of the Revenue in the case of the assessee was dismissed by following the decision in the case of Pfizer Corporation v. CIT, reported in 259 ITR 391. Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the earlier year which has been confirmed by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court (supra), we decide the issue against the revenue by holding that the advert....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1307
... ... ... ... ..... r of the first appellate authority is that this is a colourable transaction. In our humble opinion, these being group concerns and the facts of the case being well known to all in the group, the purchase of shares, that too at an inflated rate by the assessee company, despite of fact that it is well known that Polychem Ltd. is going to reduce its capital, is nothing but a colourable device and a make-belief transaction. There is no logic to the fact that shares are purchased at higher rate than what the assessee would get ....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1306
... ... ... ... ..... t between the same parties, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court is adjudicating the same as an Arbitrator at Mumbai, it is but proper and convenient for both parties to have the assistance of the same Hon'ble Judge. 21. Accordingly, Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former Judge of this Court is appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim made by both parties and whatever conclusion a....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1305
... ... ... ... ..... enced only with fine. Learned Advocate V. Menezes for the appellant submitted that essentially the prosecution is launched for getting the money due under the dishonoured cheque, and therefore, the amount of fine on which the accused would be released ought to be proportionate to loss suffered by the appellant/complainant from the time the cheque was dishonoured till this date. 18. Offences under N.I. Act, 1881 are compoundable. This signifies that there is freedom for parties to remove blame of punishment under this Act o....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1304
... ... ... ... ..... nces of the case, since the matter has already been admitted as back as on 25.9.1984, and therefore decided to hear and decide this matter while sitting at Nagpur. That decision cannot be considered as authority for the proposition that the matter arising outside the specified districts should be entertained by this Bench at Nagpur. 10. We thus find that mere receipt of three communications dated 23.12.2008, 9.1.2009 and 16.6.2009, by the Petitioner at Nagpur pertaining to a corrigendum to the tender notice, the date and t....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1303
... ... ... ... ..... said cheques were to be returned by the Complainant on the execution, of the Sale Deed, therefore, appears to be more probable. The trial Court, therefore, on consideration of the evidence on record has rightly come to a conclusion that the accused has by the cross-examination of the Complainant raised a serious doubt about the loan transaction. In my view, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned hereinabove, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the ....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1302
... ... ... ... ..... upon the decision of this Court in Ramaswamy v. Bharti Infotel Ltd. 148 (2008) DLT 79 where a learned Single Judge of this Court observed in para 21 of the judgment that the date of commission of the offence cannot be said to be the date of its dishonor of the cheque, but the date on which it was drawn. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingot (supra) and K. Bhaskaran (supra), it is not possible for me to go by the view taken in this case. More importantly, this judgment d....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1301
... ...
... ... ..... lam, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1300
... ... ... ... ..... cluding that since the advertisement did not mention that a separate selection will be held, for the post reserved for sportsmen, the same would not be permissible in law. The deduction of 34 posts for separate selection would not in any manner affect the overall ratio of reservation as provided by law. Furthermore, there is no carry forward of any post. The separate selection is clearly part and parcel of the main selection. In view of the factual situation, we are of the opinion, that the conclusions recorded by the lear....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1299
... ... ... ... ..... the approved facility and therefore not included in the cost of in house research facility. 11. The AR submitted that identical issues has been decided by CIT(A) in the assessee s own case for the assessment years 2003-04 in ITA.No.0559/CIT(A)/II/05-06 wherein after going into the details of the issue, allowed the ground of the assessee and the same may be followed. 12. We have heard from both the parties and perused the material on record. In our humble opinion, following the principles of consistency, for the assessment ....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1298
... ... ... ... ..... Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv. ORDER The special leave petition shall stand over for four weeks in order to enable the assessee herein to file an additional affidavit indicating therein the accounting treatment which has been given by the assessee to the expenses incurred towards payment of excise duty.
-
2010 (1) TMI 1297
... ... ... ... ..... ssued under section 131, no adverse inference can be drawn. Further, we find that the assessee had already submitted the names and addresses and IT details of the share applicants and under these circumstances the decision if the Hon ble Apex Court delivered in the case of CIT vs. Lovely Exports 216 CTR 195 is directly applicable. In this case it was held that if the share application money is received by the assessee company from alleged bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the Departme....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1296
... ... ... ... ..... However, this does not call for any addition u/s.68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the possibility revealed that the amount received by the assessee was towards share application only and not from any income earning activity. The share applications were received from the persons who were in acquaintance with the then Directors. The assessee being Private Limited Company, the share applicants will the friends or relatives of the Directors only and, hence, it can be held that the amount received by the assessee is not the undisclo....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1295
... ... ... ... ..... r, if the assessee has not claimed deduction of the turnover tax on payment basis under Section 43B for 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 as stated in the order, then certainly there is no case for assessment of refund because if the amount happened to be assessed as it's income for any earlier year, repeated assessment is not called for on refund of the tax after payment by the respondent. In other words, if deduction of turnover tax paid was allowed in the assessment for any year prior to the year in which refund is issue....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1294
Negotiable Instruments Act - offence u/s 138 - cheques in question for examination - Whether the Courts can order to send documents for forensic opinion regarding the age of the writings and signatures on disputed documents? - HELD THAT:- No denial of the fact that the accused needs to be afforded a fair trial to exhaust all his defences available to him. Fair trial is the sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence and the same has been recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. To prove that the handwriting w....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1293
... ... ... ... ..... by an expert with scientific accuracy. Further, the use of the old ink manufactured long ago will definitely create a dent in the opinion furnished by an expert. Therefore, there is no necessity for sending the disputed cheque admittedly signed by the petitioner to an expert for his opinion. The Order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Erode in C.M.P. No. 2915 of 2007 in C.C. No. 1287 of 2006 does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference with the well cons....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1292
... ... ... ... ..... security of civil liberty'. The writ provides a prompt and effective remedy against illegal detention and its purpose is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our founding fathers have lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle and seen an alien government trample upon the human rights of our citizens. It is for this reason th....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1291
Seeking grant of bail u/s 439 CrPC - Offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and Section 7, 8, 12, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - discriminatory treatment of the petitioner qua the other co- accused - HELD THAT:- No doubt the petitioner was arrested on 23rd November, 2009 immediately after the other co-accused Manoj had delivered a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- and the consequent recovery of ₹ 55 lakhs which included prima facie this amount shows that the petitioner had been ostensibly misusing his official po....... + More
-
2010 (1) TMI 1290
... ... ... ... ..... s has not yet been taken. Consequently, we decline to entertain this appeal. However, the appellant has applied for approval of the Committee on Disputes. In case the Committee on Disputes grants approval, the Revenue would be at liberty to file a fresh appeal within 15 days of the appellant receiving the order granting approval. This appeal stands disposed of in these terms.