|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 875 Records
-
2010 (2) TMI 1243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w because of basic presumption of innocence which became bolstered up further due to the judgment of acquittal in favour of the accused. 20. Necessarily to conclude the discussion, the prosecution succeeds. The judgment and order of acquittal is, therefore, set aside as the accused is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, instead of incarceration, the accused must make good the compensation payable to the complainant in view of Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is sentenced as follows (i) The accused shall undergo imprisonment for a day until the rising of the court below, as may be fixed by the trial court. (ii) The accused shall pay an amount of ₹ 46,900/- plus ₹ 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant/appellant within sixty days from today default whereof shall result in imprisonment for six months. (iii) The Court below shall execute this order. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1242 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to the respondents-claimants. Sri T.Ramulu, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner had already paid the TDS amount deducted from the respondents - claimants to the Income Tax Department and, as a result of the order of the court below, the petitioner has been mulcted with the liability with regards the TDS amount twice i.e., payment of the said amount both to the Income Tax Department and to the respondents - claimants. As the order of the court below suffers from a patent error of law, and is without jurisdiction, the said order necessitates being set aside. The order in E.P.No.24 of 2007 in O.P.No.507 of 2004 on the file of the District Judge & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam dated 13.2.2008 is set aside. It is, however, open to the claimants to approach the Income Tax authorities and make a claim for spread over of the interest and, in case there is no income tax liability, to claim refund. The C.R.P. is, accordingly, allowed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1241 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... both the writ petitions stand set aside. The claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation stands rejected, however, with liberty to the petitioners to work out the remedy in the appropriate forum. The third respondent is directed to release the goods on either the petitioners’ furnishing the bank guarantee for 50 of the amount of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the second respondent as per orders dated 12-8-2009 and 2-9-2009 along with payment of applicable duty to the goods or on the petitioners complying with the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai dated 15-9-2009 and 17-9-2009 respectively and if the above said payment is made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on compliance of the above said order, the third respondent shall release the goods and such release shall be subject to the final decision in the adjudication process. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1240 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ing with M/s Shambu Dayal Ram Nath during the year nor has pair or received any amount from that party.Copy of A/c of M/s Shambu Dayal Ram Nath is available before us on pages 26-27 of the paper book. As per the same, there is income of only ₹ 49,100/-. As per copybof account that party available on page No.25 of the paper book, there was an advance of ₹ 5,000/- by the assessee and for this reason the net amount received from that paprty is of ₹ 54,100/-. Income of ₹ 49,100/- was duly declared by the assessee in the return of income although the name was mentioned was wrong name of M/s Shambu Dayal Ram Nath instead of M/s Shambu Dayal Vinod Kumar. There is no other discrepancy in the present case, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue. Ground No.2 of the appeal of the revenue is rejected. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed. 9. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1239 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... in para-8 of the appellate order dated 16.10.07 is to be permissible to be deducted from ₹ 3,01,642/- to give rise to ultimate demand of ₹ 2,86,000/- to be recovered through cash or PLA account. It is necessary to properly find out from record as to the amount of ₹ 3,01,642/- which was subject matter of adjudication whether arose out of the amounts stated in para 15(a) and (c) of the first appellate order dated 13.1.06. If the authority is satisfied that the amount adjudicated is relatable to those categories there cannot be deduction of ₹ 15,642/- from the amount adjudicated by the ld. Adjudicating authority. Except verification to be conducted by the ld. Adjudicating authority as stated above, the appeal is dismissed holding that the amount discharged through Cenvat account making debit entry in respect of the amount recoverable under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 is erroneous and not permissible. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2010 (2) TMI 1238 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Central Government. The State Government has no power or authority to interfere with the matter except with the previous approval from the Central Government even to legislate on the subject which falls within the jurisdiction of Union Government. In the instant case, the impugned order was issued by the State Government without the approval of Central Government. No record is placed before this Court by the State Government to show that it has obtained prior approval with regard to the issuance of the impugned G.O. Therefore, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.723, Industries & Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 25-11-2009 suffers from the elements of jurisdiction as well as principles of natural justice and as such the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside to the extent of the petitioners only. Accordingly the same is set aside. 89. For the aforementioned discussion, the writ petitions Nos. 25910 & 26083 of 2009 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1237 - ITAT DELHI
Addition u/s 68 - Share application money unexplained - onus to prove the identity of the creditors - genuineness of the transactions, creditworthiness of the creditors not proved - as per AO all the transactions are intra-day transactions which reflect that the account is just being used to route such money. The money does not stay in the accounts, so as to suggest that it had been received as and investment. So it is clear that these companies had no actual business and had been used to give accommodation entries - HELD THAT- We find that no document has been submitted to establish identity of the share applicants. It was also not the case of simple share application money. ₹ 10/- worth of shares were purportedly applied for at a premium of ₹ 90/- by strangers. No justification or record whatsoever as to whether the companies’ credentials commanded a premium of ₹ 90 for shares of ₹ 10 is on record.
We find that the Hon’ble Apex court decision in the case of Kapurchand Shrimal Vs. CIT, [1981 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that the appellate authority has jurisdiction as well as the duty to correct the errors in the proceedings under appeal. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that in the case of Durga Prasad More [1971 (8) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Sumati Dayal [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the authorities should not put on blinkers, but should look at the surrounding circumstances also. Therefore, In our opinion, this matter needs to be remitted to the files of the AO to enable him to examine the matter afresh. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the files of the AO. Revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Reopening of assessment - reason to believe - HELD THAT:- The return was processed u/s 143(1). Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri [2007 (5) TMI 197 - SUPREME COURT] has held that intimation u/s143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of reassessment. Therefore, there is no question of forming of opinion in such a case.
Section 147 of the IT Act mandates that AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may assess or reassess of such income. Now in this case AO has information from the Investigation Wing of the Department that assessee has taken accommodation entries to the tune of ₹ 16 lacs (Rs. 4 lacs each) and these amounts were found credited in the companies accounts maintained with the SBI, Hyderabad, Karol Bagh, New Delhi during the period relating to 2003-04.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Raymond Woolen Mills Vs. ITO [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] has held that regarding the reason for reopening there should be prima-facie material, the sufficiency or correctness of material need not be established at the time of recording of reasons for reopening.
Hence, objections from the assessee regarding reopening are untenable. Therefore, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) holding the reopening as valid. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1236 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Whether Copper Cathode (cut) so used in pipe and launders were required to pay duty or eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., dated 16-3-95?
Held that:- In the present case, undisputedly, the prices of the final products are being determined on the basis of ruling LME prices. In my considered view, the question of passing on the duty burden in such a situation, to the buyers cannot be arise - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1235 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... his expenditure of 5 . In the absence of evidence of having incurred expenditure outside the books of account, in our considered opinion, no addition could be made u/s 69C. The addition has been made on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 4. In the result, ground No. 1 is allowed. 5. Coming to ground No. 2, we find that the assessee has offered the entire sale proceeds to tax. The AO added the purchase cost u/s 69C. When the allegation of the Revenue is that the purchase is a bogus transaction and that the entire sale consideration is nothing but the income of the assessee, then in our considered opinion, no addition could be made u/s 69C. As the entire sale proceeds is brought to tax, no separate addition is justified u/s 69C. 6. In the result, ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 7. Ground No. 3 and 4 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 26th day of February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1234 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lant’s case also gets indirect support from the finding of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Emerald Commercial Ltd., 250 ITR 540 (Cal.), wherein Hon’ble court confirmed the finding of ITAT in respect of claim of loss in share dealing based on actual transaction. After looking into all the facts available on record, I have no doubt in my mind to hold that the transaction of purchase & sale of share is genuine and there is no factual evidences to support the finding of the AO. Hence, the addition of ₹ 16,83,000/- is deleted.” As stated above, neither the finding of the CIT(A) could be controverted nor was there any other material brought on record to establish otherwise. Therefore, in view of the detailed reasonings given by the ld. CIT(A), which, in our considered view, are findings of fact, we confirm the order of CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced on 24th day of Feb., 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1233 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... at the refrigerators were not proved to have been put to business use during the relevant previous year. The fact that these refrigerators were at the various outlets all over India as recorded by the A.O. itself shows that the refrigerators have been put to use as these refrigerators are at the premises of the dealers of the product of the assessee and consequently the assessee would be entitled to the claim of depreciation. 7. In the appeal of the revenue in I.T.A. No. 810/Del/2009 identical issue has been raised and it is noticed that the CIT(A) has relied upon his decision for the Assessment Year 2004-05 for deleting the disallowance of depreciation. As we have held that the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to the issue in I.T.A. No. 482/Del/2009 is on a right footing, the same finding would apply to this appeal also in I.T.A. No. 810/Del/2009. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed. 9. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 18th Feb., 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1232 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... taken into account is that the show cause notice is a composite to the petitioners as well as M/s Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The Adjudication order is common order passed based on identical facts and common defence. The petitioners M/s Kamal Traders, Bombay and M/s Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd., both were saddled with penalty in the sum of ₹ 1,15,000/- each. It was a joint and indivisible order based on inseparable and individual findings. There is no material on record to show that penalty imposed on M/s Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. was at any time set aside by the competent authority. In absence of any material on record, one has to presume that the order against M/s Fedders Lloyd Corporation Pvt. Ltd. has become final and conclusive. If that be so, in one lis there cannot be two inconsistent orders. On this count also the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14 In the result the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1231 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tance of the disallowances made by the Assessing Officer and non-filing of appeal by the assessee from the assessment order amounting to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Let requisite number of paper books be filed within six weeks from date. Let the usual Notice of Appeal be served upon the respondent. Liberty to mention for expeditious hearing of the appeal.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1230 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d 13th February, 2009 we had indicated the necessity of hearing the appeals as early as possible because it was causing serious and great prejudice to the petitioner herein inasmuch as his licence to operate as a Custom House Clearing Agent has been suspended since 29th January, 2007. In these circumstances, relegating the petitioner to the stage of adjudication would amount to nothing but causing further prejudice to the petitioner. It is for these reasons that we set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to here the appeals on merits and come to a decision on the basis of the available record. The said decision be rendered as early as possible and not later than six weeks from today. Counsel for the parties have agreed that neither of them shall take any adjournment before the Tribunal. The matter shall be taken up by the Tribunal in the first instance on 15th February, 2010. No coercive steps shall be taken till the matter is ultimately decided by the tribunal.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1229 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s also rejected as per Exhibit P2. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the revision petition is pending, by Exhibit P6, Detention Notice has been issued and various consignments have been detained without clearance. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P3 within a period of three months after hearing a representative of the petitioner. Till then, further action pursuant to Exhibits P1, P2 and P6 will be kept in abeyance. Any goods detained pursuant to Exhibit P6 also will be released on satisfying terms and conditions for clearance, if any. This writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1228 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... royalty/fees for technical services and another 50 is towards business receipts.” 10. The learned DR could not controvert the findings given by the CIT(A). Further the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as before us that DTC has no PE in India, that no part of services is rendered in India and that the ADIT had issued ‘nil’ deduction certificate in response to application u/s. 195(2) for the immediately preceding assessment year under identical facts and circumstances could not be controverted by the learned DR. In absence of any distinguishable feature brought on record by the learned DR against the findings of the CIT(A) and considering the findings given by the CIT(A) as reasonable, we are not inclined to interfere in the same. Accordingly the same is upheld and the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 17th February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1227 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - want of necessary permission from the Cabinet Committee - Held that: - there is no such Committee and no clearance from any Committee was required in the case of State PSUs; thus virtually conceding the position as put forth from the part of the petitioner - petition disposed off.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1226 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... of the assessee by Final Order Nos. 1684/2004, dated 1-11-2004 and 1822/2004, dated 16-11-2004. The issue involved in the appeal before us is same as was before this Bench, i.e. demand of Additional Duties of Excise not paid under Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, as required under Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 as amended by Notification No. 11/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. We find that the issue is no longer res integra as the matter has been decided by this Bench in respect of very same assessee following the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. U.O.I. 2004 (170) E.L.T. 518 (S.C.). Respectfully following the ratio of the above cited judgments, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced on completion of hearing on 24-2-2010)
-
2010 (2) TMI 1225 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... man Exports vs. I.T.O. reported in (2009) 125 TTJ (Mumbai)(SB) 289. 3. The ld. DR was heard in the light of the submissions made by the assessee. 4. After considering the assessee’s submissions, we find it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for his fresh decision in the light of the view taken by the Special Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO (supra). The ld. counsel for the assessee has also agreed to restore the matter back to the file of the AO for his fresh adjudication in the light of the decision of Special Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Topman Exports vs. ITO (supra). We order accordingly. Needless to mention that AO shall provide reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee while deciding the matter afresh. 5. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for a statistical purpose. 6. This decision was pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2010.
-
2010 (2) TMI 1224 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e Act was issued to the assessee on 12.6.2007. It being a case of processing the return of income, there is no finding in the AO’s order with regard to the applicability or otherwise of section 269 T of the I.T. Act to the assessee’s case. It was within the purview of the AO to bring the assessee’s case to scrutiny and to make regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was also within the powers of the AO to, at the appropriate stage, initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against the assessee. No such action was taken. Rather, the penalty was imposed on the basis of the findings in the case of the assessee’s wife. 11. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) clearly erred in upholding the penalty order. The said order is, as such, quashed. 12. Since the order under appeal stands quashed as above, nothing further remains to be adjudicated at this stage. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.02.2010.
........
|
