|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 638 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 864
... ...
... ... ..... le for us to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. The power under Section 11 of the Act, as now held, is not administrative power but judicial power. Secondly, the death of Arbitrator ordinarily does not invalidate the arbitration agreement where it is so manifest. In the instant case it is not so. The clause survives. Therefore, if the named Arbitrator dies or refuses to proceed with the arbitration, the procedure under Section 11(6) of the Act will have to be followed. In our opinion, therefore, the view taken by this Court in Smt. Satya Kailashchandra Sahu and Ors. (supra) and by the Allahabad High Court in Dharmpal Satyapal Ltd. case (supra) will reflect the correct interpretation of the Act of 1996. 11. As the learned Judge has not gone into the merits of the matter, we set aside the order in order to enable the parties to argue the matter on merits. The matter remanded back to the learned Judge. Appeal disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (6) TMI 863
... ...
... ... ..... 13 Whether the suit suffers from delay, laches and acquiescence and if so, to what effect? (OPD) The Defendant has not been able to show that the suit is barred by laches. The issue is decided against Defendant and in favour of the Plaintiff. 76. Issue No. 14 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief for rendition of accounts and if so, its nature of relief? (OPP) In view of the findings of this Court that there is no deceptive similarity in the use by the Defendant of the trade mark 'LIV-T' for its homeopathic medicines for treating liver related ailments vis-à-vis the Plaintiff's ayurvedic medicine 'Liv.52' the question of the Plaintiff being entitled for relief for rendition of accounts does not arise. The issue is decided against the Plaintiff. 77. Issue No. 15 Relief. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the suit is dismissed with costs of ₹ 50,000/- which will be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant within a period of four weeks.
-
2010 (6) TMI 862
... ...
... ... ..... 0 wherein it has been held that presumption that entries in account books are true, can be rebutted. It is also observation that there was not adequate material in the possession of the AO to conclude that the transactions in the seized documents are the transactions of the assessee which remained undisclosed. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the case law relied upon by the Ld. Counsel, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO presumably on the basis of provisions under section 292C of the I.T. Act and the Ld. Counsel has correctly rebutted the presumption by his submissions which have also been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in his elaborative observations. Hence, we find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 9 In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON Dt. 25.06.10.
-
2010 (6) TMI 861
... ...
... ... ..... d be received by the customers/viewers in their respective houses. Therefore, for transmitting the signal through DTH mode, optical fiber cable may not be an essential requirement. The very fact that the optical fiber cable was laid by the assessee for continuing in the business of transmitting signal through cable net work system establishes that the assessee did not acquired any new asset which is of enduring in nature. Therefore, in our opinion, merely because the optical fiber cable gives better quality of signal to the customers/viewers it cannot be construed as giving enduring benefit to the assessee. In our opinion, replacement of cable is an essential requirement for continuation in the business. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is in the Revenue field. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority and the same is confirmed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court 30.6.2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 860
... ...
... ... ..... e heard the learned senior counsel on the both sides, in the light of the directions issued by the board, the appellant has stated that it has revised its business rules and put in place additional procedures to deal with the accounts of the beneficial owners in the event of deactivation/termination of depositary participant. Having gone through record, we are satisfied that no prejudice has been caused to the beneficial owner of the depositary participant namely, Rajnarayan Capital Market Services Limited whose certificate of registration has since been cancelled. In the view of the matter and having regards to the interest of the securities market. We direct that the observations made in the impugned order, in so far as they are adverse to the appellant shall stand expunged. Learner senior counsel on the both sides agree that we need record detailed reasons for expunging the observations in the impugned order The appeal stand disposed of as above with no order to no costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 859
... ...
... ... ..... the petitioners, in the instant case too the consequences of payment of duty after availing credit was revenue neutral. The Tribunal after holding that in view of the benefit available to the petitioners under the deemed export provision, there is no gain or loss to the exchequer of the Government and hence, the so-called financial accommodation becomes ‘notional’ than ‘real’ in its character ought not to have directed the petitioners to pay interest on the duty amount paid, on the ground of delay. The order of the Settlement Commission directing the petitioners to pay interest on duty is, therefore, erroneous and perverse and deserves to be set aside. 16. In the result, the order of the Settlement Commission dated 28th September 2007 in so far as it relates to the direction to the petitioners to pay interest on the amount of excise duty at 13 p.a., is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... nt Notification. It cannot be denied that tax exemption was granted in larger public interest. I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that Notification dated 18-1-2008 was issued in superior public interest. 29. In view of above discussion, the amending Notification No. 1/2008-C.E., dated 18-1-2008 is held to be prospective as it will affect those industrial units, involved in the manufacturing process of packing, repacking, labelling, re-labelling etc. referred to therein, which came into operation on and after the date of its issue. The petitioner unit which was established prior to this Notification, is not covered by this Notification and same is entitled to the benefit of earlier Notification dated 10-6-2003. 30. Writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner company to avail of the benefits of the exemption Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003. 31. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 857
... ...
... ... ..... he first time. As the terms and conditions setout in the original stay order have been complied with but the appeals remained undisposed due to no fault of the assessee, the stay has to be extended upto the period permissible u/s 254(2A) of the Act. We are unable to accept the submission made by the ld. DR that stay be extended in respect of demand created u/s 201(1) only and not towards 201(1A). The obvious reason is that the present stay application is for the extension of the stay order dated 11.12.2009 read with its addendum dated 26.02.2010. If the stay deserves to be extended in respect of demand u/s 201(1), then the same reasoning shall hold good with regard to demand u/s 201(1A) also. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we order for the extension of stay of demand created u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) till 10.12.2010 or the disposal of the appeals, whichever is earlier. 9. In the result, the stay applications are allowed. Order pronounced on this 18th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 856
... ...
... ... ..... quo; issued under the SILRS in relation to the members of the Petitioner No.1 Association and give them credit of the payments already made by them on account of SEBI registration fees in the said “Fee Liability Statements”. If there is any amount owing to the members of the petitioner No.1 Association as a result of the above revision of the Fee Liability Statement, the said amount can be adjusted against the future dues of such stock brokers. It is made clear that this would be a onetime measure, which is not to be treated as a precedent. It is further clarified that in case of any failure hereafter on the part of the members of the Petitioner No. 1 Association to submit the turnover data in terms of Clause (bb) within the time prescribed, it will be open to SEBI to suspend the registration of such stock broker as provided in the Regulations. o p /o p 36. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions with no orders as to costs. o p /o p
-
2010 (6) TMI 855
... ...
... ... ..... by respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 for 6.2 crores although the same is within the vicinity of 35 to 40 crores, the least the petitioners expected was an opportunity to submit a reasonable offer to respondent no.2 and obtain a response thereto. 3. We are afraid that we cannot entertain this petition because it impugns a notice under section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. Apart from exhausting the opportunity provided therein and u/s 13(3) and 13(3A) additionally any adverse action pursuant to such notice can be challenged by the petitioners by resorting to the remedies provided by the said Act. Furthermore, during the course of pursuing the remedies provided by the act, the petitioners can raise all pleas and also forward their offer for a final settlement to respondent no.2, if they so desire. 4. This writ petition cannot be entertained for want of alternate and efficacious remedies available under the act itself. Writ Petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 854
... ...
... ... ..... ingots is challenged by the assessees on the ground that the materials were rejects and not fit for marketing and therefore were not required to be entered into in RG.1 Register as contended by the Revenue, but had been accounted for rightly in Form IV Raw Material Register. 3. Since the clinching evidence would consist of a report by the handwriting expert on whether the entries in the notebook of ingots stock were made by Yuvaraj as held by the Revenue and contested by the assessees, interest of justice requires that this vital information is obtained before proceeding to confirm the demand. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after getting the expert opinion on who has made the entries of ingots stock in the said notebook. He shall thereafter pass fresh orders after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. 4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2010 (6) TMI 853
... ...
... ... ..... rrectly reached this conclusion.- Sree Krishna Electricals vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2009) 23 VST 249 (SC), applied, Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dt, 23rd Oct., 2007 of the Gujarat High court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of 2007) affirmed.” 9. Applying the propositions laid down to the facts of this case, we have to necessarily hold that merely because the assessee has made a bonafide claim, and the Revenue has rejected the claim on a different legal interpretation, a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Thus we uphold the contention of the assessee that there is no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in this case. There is no finding in the return of income that any details supplied by the assessee in the return of income were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false. Hence we delete the penalties for both the assessment years. 10. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on this 25th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 852
... ...
... ... ..... art of the adjudicating authority in calculating the appropriate quantum of the duty liability of the appellants. This is also apparent from the letter dated 4th May 2010 by the Commissioner addressed to the Registrar of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the point which is sought to be raised in that regard, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order relating to the quantum of duty and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the correct liability of the appellants in relation to the duty amount. Hence on the said limited ground, the appeals are allowed by way of remand and the impugned order fixing the total liability of ₹ 1,13,65,524/- is hereby set aside and the matters are remanded to the adjudicating authority to ascertain the correct quantum of duty liability. Needless to say that liability to pay duty will include the liability of penalty and interest, if any. The appeals accordingly stand disposed of.
-
2010 (6) TMI 851
... ...
... ... ..... refore, cancel the assessment. Further, the AO, New Delhi shall be at liberty to initiate fresh assessment proceedings u/s 147of the Act as per law. We order accordingly. 12. Since the assessment made by the AO has been held to be illegal, and void ab initio, the other grounds raised by the assessee, in its appeal, need no adjudication by us. ITA No.2861/Del/2008 13. Coming to the appeal filed by the revenue, we are of the view that the appeal filed by the revenue in respect of certain additions deleted by the ld. CIT(A) has become redundant in the light of our view taken in assesse’s appeal that the very assessment framed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as infructuous. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the manner as indicated above, and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as infructious. 15. This decision was pronounced in the Open Court on 30th 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... the liability against the petitioners. Even as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (supra) the liability for short landing was that of the Carrier and not of the Cargo Agents, the petitioners herein. The petitioners were never served with the show cause notice since they were under no liability to account for short landing. The impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice. 9. In the above backdrop, we have no alternative but to quash and set aside the impugned orders against the petitioners, passed by the first appellate authority and impugned order of the revisionary authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the Government of India, Ministry of Finance respectively holding petitioners liable for penalty being erroneous besides being in breach of the natural justice. 10. In the result, both petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 849
... ...
... ... ..... ss profits’ either. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer delete the impugned additions. The assessee get relief accordingly. 4. In view of the above and respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions.” Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. After hearing both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) who has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for various asst. years. The ld. D.R. could not controvert the above finding of the CIT(A). Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case and in the absence of any distinguishing features brought before us, we uphold the order of CIT(A). The ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 25th day of June, 2010.
-
2010 (6) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... greed in stating that the questions of law which have been raised by the Revenue in this appeal under Section 260A shall be governed by the judgment delivered today in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals (ITA(L) 2887 of 2009). In view of the statement made, the Appeal shall stand disposed of in the same terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (6) TMI 847
... ...
... ... ..... al undertaking. The remand report of the A O is also not considered by the learned CIT (A). Considering the above decision and the fact that the learned CIT (A) has not considered evidence on record for the purpose of deciding the issue in favour of the assessee, we accordingly set aside the orders of the learned CIT (A) and restore this issue to his file with direction to re-decide the issue by giving reasonable sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The learned CIT (A) shall pass a speaking order discussing the entire evidence and material on record in the appellate order. As a result, these grounds of appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 13. As a result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for statistical purposes. All the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11-06-2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 846
... ...
... ... ..... use and keeping the capacity or maintaining already existing plant functioning to the standard required for manufacturing and production of pharma drugs. Ld. CIT(A) enclosed along with the order the list of items which were consumed under the head filtration expenses. 8. We have heard the ld. DR and the ld. AR. In our considered view there is no case for interference in the order of ld. CIT(A). For the reasons mentioned in his order and on perusal of goods and sample used under the head filtration expenses, we are satisfied that they are the day to day consumables and do not create any capital asset or any enduring benefit to the assessee. Their maintenance expenditure would fall under the head current repairs. Accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and hence the same is dismissed. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order was pronounced in open Court on 11/6/2010
-
2010 (6) TMI 845
... ...
... ... ..... eiterated their submissions before the ld. CIT(A) while the ld. DR supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 10 After hearing both the parties and considering the facts of the case, we find that the assessee has not referred us to any material warranting interference with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Since personal use of car and telephone by the assessee and his family members or staff has not been denied nor it was claimed that the assessee or his family had any independent vehicles or telephones for personal use, in our opinion disallowance of 1/6th of the expenses on telephones/mobiles, running and maintenance of vehicles including depreciation thereon, in the light of provisions of sec. 38(2) of the Act, is reasonable. Therefore, ground no. 2 is rejected. 11. No additional ground having been raised in terms of the residuary ground no.3, accordingly, this ground is dismissed. 12. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 30-6-2010
........
|
