|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 851 Records
-
2010 (3) TMI 1285
... ...
... ... ..... e projecting himself to be Mohd. Haleem, such an exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code cannot be said to be arbitrary illegal or beyond the jurisdiction. It is for the trial Judge to look into the prosecution and defence evidence and other material on record and, to give a finding of acquittal or conviction. Section 311 of the Code empowers the trial Judge to recall any witness or witness already examined or summoned any witness, if it is felt necessary in the interest of justice at various stages mentioned in the Code. 24. From the discussion made above and after going through the impugned order, I find that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity of law and does not call for any interference by this Court. No case for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 24-11-2009, as prayed by the petitioners is made out. 25. Petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code by the petitioners have no merit and both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... quired to be admitted in relation to the said question. 8. Thus, in relation to each of the first four proposed questions, there is nothing available on record to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded both by Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record. Accordingly, none of the said proposed questions, or any other question, can be stated to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal insofar as the said issues are concerned. In absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed qua proposed questions No.1 to 4. 9. In relation to proposed question No.5, the tax appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) directing to exclude Sales Tax and Excise duty from the total turnover for computing deduction under section 80HHC even after insertion of section 145A of the Act.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1283
... ...
... ... ..... ich may be five years or ten years. However, the contention of the Revenue that new infrastructure facility set up before the amendment in 2002 only are eligible for reduction is unacceptable because, the word new in sub clause 4(i)(b) is not a new introduction and was already there even prior to the amendment in 2002. The new infrastructure facility referred to therein is nothing but a facility, which was not available until the assessee sets up the same. The Department has no case that what assessee has set up in 1998 is not an infrastructure facility for being considered for the benefit of deduction. We therefore hold that, running infrastructure facilities set apart on 1.4.1995 will qualify for reduction, even if there is no provision for transfer of facility under the agreement to the Central Government or the State Government, local authority or concerned statutory body, as the case may be. We therefore uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the Department appeal.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1282
... ...
... ... ..... t by such transfer there is assignment or transfer of the lease in breach of the above covenant. On the basis of the allegations in the body of the letter in my opinion no case for transfer or assignment is made out. I hereby declare as such. I also restrain the Government of West Bengal from taking any steps on the basis of the letter dated 10th September, 2009. 13. But however, this will not prevent the respondent No. 1 to bring an appropriate action in any forum as they may be advised in law for establishing that there is a breach of the above covenant in the lease. If such an action is brought then my observations would be limited and confined to construction of the allegations in the letter dated 10th September 2009 and should not be read as deciding any point which is not mentioned in that letter. The writ application is allowed to the above extent. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, to be provided upon complying with all formalities.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... ficer while completing the assessments could not have taken into account the restrictions available under the provisions later introduced with retrospective effect. In our view, assessments completed have become mistaken orders because the provisos introduced with retrospective effect were not and could not have been taken into account while making regular assessments and re-assessments. Going by the decisions of the Supreme Court above referred, the assessing officer was perfectly justified in revising the assessments under Section 154. Consequently the appeals are liable to be allowed and we do so by reversing the orders of the Tribunal and by restoring the orders of the CIT (Appeals) confirming the assessments. However, since the Tribunal has not considered other grounds on merits that is pertaining to computation of eligible deduction under Section 80HHC, liability for interest, etc., we remand the cases to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the appeals on other grounds.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1280
... ...
... ... ..... ssions used under Section 202(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure are quite plain and unambiguous. Those, in my opinion, do not deserve to be stretched to a point that the same adversely affects the interest of justice. There should be no attempt to read something more than what meets the eyes. 47. Accordingly, after hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and in the light of discussion as made hereinbefore, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate the grievances, as ventilated on behalf of the Petitioner. The instant three applications being C.R.R. No. 1997 of 2008, C.R.R. No. 1998 of 2008 and C.R.R. No. 1999 of 2008 be dismissed. Interim order of stay, if any, stands vacated. Learned Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed with the cases under reference in accordance with law and of course, in the light of observation made hereinabove. 48. Criminal department is directed to supply certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1279
... ...
... ... ..... w of the plain language employed by section 130 of the Act, the High Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain this Tax Appeal and therefore, without going into the merits of the controversy raised, the Appeal is disposed of as not being maintainable in absence of jurisdiction, leaving it open to the Appellant to present the Appeal before the Apex Court as required in law. 5. At this stage, learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the interim relief granted earlier may be continued for a further period of four weeks. It is not possible to accept the request made, as in absence of jurisdiction there is no question of granting any interim relief. Once the Court has come to the conclusion that the Appeal is not maintainable before this Court due to lack of jurisdiction, no interim relief can be granted/extended. It is also necessary to note that till date the Court has not even issued notice to the other side. 6. The Appeal and the Civil Application stand disposed of.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1278
... ...
... ... ..... hable under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and convict him there under. 13. On the question of sentence, it is not necessary to insist upon incarceration of the accused having regard to nature of the offence. The accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 70,000/ . The amount covered by the cheque in question plus Rs. 10,000/ as cost for prosecuting the accused, payable under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the complainant, within two months from the date of this judgment. In default of payment of compensation, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The accused shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court Under Section 138 of the N I Act) Nagpur and his surety to produce him on 23rd March, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. and the learned Magistrate shall execute sentence, as directed. Compensation if not paid, shall be recovered as fine. Appeal allowed accordingly.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1277
... ...
... ... ..... me to be amended by inserting Explanation 5 whereby it was declared that the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 32 shall apply whether or not the assessee has claimed the deduction in respect of depreciation in computing his total income. The said amendment has been brought into force with effect from 1st April 2002. 7. The controversy in issue pertains to assessment year 1999-2000, hence, apparently, the provisions of Explanation 5 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the circumstances, once the assessee had validly withdrawn its claim for deduction of depreciation, it was not permissible for Assessing Officer to grant the depreciation taking into account the amended provisions of section 32. 8. In the aforesaid factual matrix, no infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal so as to give rise to any question of law, much less any substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1276
... ...
... ... ..... to the various orders passed by this Court. The first respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.1,39,440/-. There is no reason as to why the petitioner is not entitled atleast for a part of the amount. Having said so, the following order is passed 1) Petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-‘K’ stands quashed. 2) Matter stands remitted to the enquiring authority for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Needless. to say the first respondent enquiring authority shall issue notice to the. petitioner before embarking upon the enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. The enquiry will commence from stage of reply to the second shew cause notice. 3) The petitioner is entitled for 50% of the subsistence allowance which is deposited in this Court. He is permitted to withdraw the same but however subject to final accounting. Rule is made absolute. Mr. M.Kumar, learned AGA is permitted to file memo of appearance for Respondent No.2 within four weeks.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1275
... ...
... ... ..... nt, would show that there had been a delay. 3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where the government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified. 4. The writ petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be however no directions as to costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1274
... ...
... ... ..... rity who can file a complaint only after completion of investigation. In my considered opinion, therefore, in view of non-obstante clause contained in various provisions of the Act, which has overriding effect, the provision contained in Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. will not apply. 16. In the instant case, as noticed above, a case under the said Act was lodged on 4.9.2009 and the petitioner was remanded to custody in this case on 13.10.2009. Even assuming that the provisions contained in Section 167(2) was to be complied with, admittedly, the authorized authority after completion of investigation filed the complaint on 11.12.2009 i.e. well within 60 days , hence, the petitioner could not get the benefit of the provisions contained in Section 167(2) of the Code. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the discussions made above, the impugned order needs no interference. Hence, there is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1273
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee paid consideration higher than stated in the purchase deed , provisions of sec. 50C can not be extended while making additions u/s 69B of the Act. 9.4 Admittedly, in the present case, apart from relying upon the rates adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority, there is no other material to support the addition. In our opinion, rates adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority cannot be taken, by itself, as the price, for which the property was purchased. In view thereof and in the light of aforesaid decisions of the ITAT and of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, the findings of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are reversed and the AO is directed to delete the addition . Therefore, ground no. 2 in the appeal is allowed. 10. No additional ground having been raised in terms of residuary ground no.3 in the appeal of the assessee, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 11 In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court today on 22 -03-2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... es but it is to be kept in mind that the income being determined in the hands of the assessee is the agricultural income, which is to be included for rate purposes in the hands of the assessee. The parameters laid down for computing the income from business cannot be applied for computing the agricultural income and in any case the expenditure claimed by the assessee is at parity with similar expenditure being allowed in the hands of the assessee in the preceding year and the same is being accepted by the Revenue authorities. In the absence of any evidence being brought on record by the Assessing Officer to prove the incurring of expenditure equivalent to Rs. 6,75,400/- we find no merit in the aforesaid addition being made under the provisions of section 69C of the Act. Confirming the order of CIT(A), we dismiss the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue. 11. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 30th day of March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1271
... ...
... ... ..... n of law, disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the Petitioner and enquiry was proceeded with against the Petitioner, as a result of which, he has been deprived of his right to promotion, for no fault of him. Though the Secretary to the Government has strongly recommended the promotion of the Petitioner by his communication dated 23.5.2007, the same was not considered, thus causing mental and physical harassment to the Petitioner, for which we feel the ends of justice would be met by awarding appropriate compensation to the Petitioner and hence we award a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the Secretary, P&AR Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, to the Petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In view of quashing of the charge memo, the promotion ordered by the learned single Judge by allowing W.P. No. 714 of 2005 is confirmed and W.A. No. 1478 of 2008 filed by the Department is dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1270
... ...
... ... ..... ns are fulfilled, shall be allowed.” 9. The above directions of ld. CIT(A), if read with the provisions of section 251(1)(a), then it will be clear that he has not confirmed, reduced, enhance or annulled the assessment but practically he has restored the issue to be determined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, such restoration is not permitted by the express provision of the statute. 10. Finding force in the arguments of the Ld. D.R., we consider it just and proper to direct the ld. CIT(A) to get report from the Assessing Officer on the issues which have been directed to be verified and then to decide the appeal filed by the assessee according to the facts verified and as per provisions of law. We direct accordingly. The issue raised by the revenue is restored back to the file of the CIT(A) in the manner aforesaid. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1269
... ...
... ... ..... nt could not have questioned the correctness of the said order in a revision. Therefore, the respondent - accused was well within his right in raising the validity of the said order dated 10.4.2006, as a ground of appeal filed before the learned Sessions Judge, The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the judgment on merits on 17.5.2006 within about five weeks from the date of condoning the delay. Therefore, there was no opportunity for the respondent accused oven to question the said order. Under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified, in interfering with the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The judgment of the learned Magistrate is perverse, illegal and contrary to the well settled principles of law. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the said judgment and acquitted the accused. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1268
... ...
... ... ..... treat the income as income from house property.” 20. Since the A.O. has accepted the fact that the assessee is to be considered deemed owner in view of the decision of the ITAT in the assessment years 1998-99,1999-2000 & 2000-01 the issue is decided in favour of the assessee and accordingly the ground is considered allowed. A.O. is directed to treat the income as income from house property. 21. Ground No. 6 is with reference to charging of interest under section 234D on refund granted prior to the introduction of section 234D w.e.f. June 1, 2003. This issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Special Bench in the case of ITO vs. Ekta Promoters P. Ltd. 305 ITR (AT) 1 (Del) (SB). Accordingly the A.O. is directed to withdraw the interest levied on the refund issued period to 01.06.2003. The ground is considered allowed. 22. In the result, appeal is considered allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th March 2010.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1267
... ...
... ... ..... ns are dismissed. SLP(C) No.1057-1058/2010. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners wishes to withdraw the special leave petitions. The special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the High Court for appropriate direction. Crl. Appeal No. 90/2010. Registry is directed to list the appeal before the appropriate Bench.
-
2010 (3) TMI 1266
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal had finalized the assessment and had directed that the value of the marble blocks imported by the respondent should be assessed at US 95 PMT, hence there was nothing left for the original authority to finalize except quantification of duty, which he appears to have done at a belated stage. As per the Board’s instructions interest liability arises from the date of finalization of assessment. In the present case the assessment came to be finalized by the order dated 3.1.2006 of the Tribunal as the said order was not stayed at any point of time and the appeal against the same came to be dismissed. Hence, liability to pay interest would arise from the date of the order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal confirming the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference. 9. In absence of any question of law, much less any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
