|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 891 Records
-
2010 (8) TMI 1141 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... There has to be a factual basis for the same. Since no factual basis has been mentioned either in the notice or in the counter affidavit as to why the department has any reason to believe that the goods imported have been the subject matter of any transaction of sale or purchase within the State of Jharkhand, therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner appears to be wholly unwarranted. 7. Considering the above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to re-ex amine the application of the petitioner for refund of security money with reasons, in the light of the observations made above, and to pass appropriate reasoned orders about the entitlement to refund within two weeks from the date on which certified copy of this order is presented before respondent No. 4, who had required the security to be deposited. If there is no reason for withholding the security, it will be refunded to the petitioner within the next two weeks after the reasoned orders are passed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1140 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e aforesaid decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in their two decisions by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, followed by the Special Bench, Mumbai, since the amount of ₹ 7,62,787/- ,being the money receivable by the assessee as share broker from his clients against purchase of shares made on their behalf has to be treated as “debt” while undisputedly the brokerage payable by the clients was a part of that debt and that part had been taken into account in computation of his income and the aforesaid amount of ₹ 7,62,787/- having been written off in the year under consideration as bad debt, we are of the opinion that the said amount being the loss suffered by the assessee was allowable as a bad debt u/s 36(1)(viii)/36(2) of the Act . Therefore, we have no hesitation in reversing the order of the ld. CIT(A) and consequently, allowing the claim of the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the court today on 19-08-2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1139 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Durga Rice Mills were transferred to the account of the first respondent, the appellant did not specify the statutory provision which enabled it to make such a claim. The decision in Paramount Polymers shows that such an enabling term was introduced in the terms and conditions of electricity supply in Haryana, only in the year 2001. The appellant did not demand the alleged arrears, when first respondent approached the appellant for electricity connection in its own name for the same premises and obtained it in the year 1991. More than three years thereafter, a demand was made by the appellant for the first time on 16.1.1995 alleging that there were electricity dues by the previous owner. In these circumstances the claim relating to the previous owner could not be enforced against the first respondent. 11. On facts, it has to be held that the decision of the High Court does not call for interference. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1138 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the police officials. I consider that the order of learned ACMM was itself not tenable. 6. It is settled law that this Court can suo moto exercise powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to keep the subordinate courts within the four walls of law. I, therefore, in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order of learned ACMM issuing show cause notice to the Investigating Officer/ACP. However, Court of learned ACMM will have liberty to refer issue of contempt to High Court. The present revision petition was filed by the applicant Syed Nusrat Ali who wanted proceedings against ACP and Investigating Officer to be initiated. The applicant (petitioner No. 1) would be at liberty to take resort to appropriate law to initiate action, if so advised, and if there was a cause for the same. The action, as initiated by learned ACMM, was illegal and contrary to law. 7. The present petition stands disposed of with above observations.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1137 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee regarding setting off of the rental payments made over and above the one recorded in the books against other additions on account of suppressed profits sustained by this Tribunal in accordance with law. Ground No. 2 taken by the assessee in its appeal for A.Y. 2000-01 and ground No. 8 to 10 taken in its appeal for A.Y. 2001-02 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.” 42. In line with the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we also restore the issue to the Assessing Officer in this year for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer will consider the issue in the light of assertion made by the parties that the debit notes were not intended to be acted upon and also take into account the written leave and licence agreement between the parties. For the statistical purposes, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is treated as allowed. 43. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 31st August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1136 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... sions also support the case of the assessee. When the Memorandum of settlement is read in its entirety in its correct perspective, the terms “release” or “relinquish” are found to be not material. The family settlement is simpliciter a settlement arrived at to avoid further protracted litigation amongst family members. Under such circumstances, the Courts/Tribunals have excluded the receipt of any capital asset or any consideration out of the purview of section 2(47), and it has not been treated as a ‘transfer’ in the same meaning as it is given in that section. Consequently, we hold that the assessee is not required to pay any capital gains tax as no such liability arises in this case. As a result, we allow the appeal of the assessee and set aside the orders of the authorities below, particularly the order appealed against. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. The order was pronounced in the Court on 31.08.10
-
2010 (8) TMI 1135 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the individual assessments in accordance with law. Such amounts cannot be regarded as undisclosed income under section 68 of the assessee company. Applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, the Assessing Officer having traced out the source of funds to specific persons who had invested the same in shares of the assessee company, it was open for the Assessing Officer to proceed against the said persons. The funds not having emanated from the assessee company, there was no warrant for making addition of the said amount as undisclosed income under section 68 of the Act in its hands. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 50,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act. The question stands answered accordingly, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, there being no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1134 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filling appeal before ITAT - delay of 310 days - due to change of Managing Director, took their own time to get the papers signed and to file the appeal - Whether constitute a sufficient cause u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not disputed after the order came to be passed, the Managing Director was changed and thereafter, the Chartered Accountant took a decision to prefer the appeal and though papers were sent for signature was not signed and appeal was not filed. What is to be seen in such matters is that, the appellant was negligent and by not filing the appeal within time, whether there is any valuable right of the appellant, which would be taken away by not condoning the delay in the matters arising under the Income-tax Act, ultimately the question is, what is the tax payable under law.
It is not an adversary litigation. An assessee cannot be charged without statutory authority. Under these circumstances, the approach of the Tribunal cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the Tribunal for not condoning the delay is unsustainable in law. Hence, we are satisfied that the appellant has made out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. Hence, we pass the following:
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is hereby set aside. The application filed for condonation of delay of 310 days in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1133 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... usiness. This contention is stated by the assessee in paragraph-10 of the revision. Thereafter, the assessee filed a supplementary affidavit in support of this contention and placed before this Court photocopies of the registration certificates under the Bihar Sales Tax Act and Central Sales Tax Act. In response to the contentions made in the supplementary affidavit, the State has filed a supplementary counter affidavit and has not in any manner doubted the veracity of the tax clearances filed by the assessee from Bihar. Thus, in view of the facts as stated in the supplementary counter affidavit, it becomes abundantly clear that the averments made by the applicant in the revision were correct. Since the entries of the items were duly accounted for in the books of accounts at his original place of business, the imposition under Section 15A(1)(o) is not justified. The penalty imposed upon the assessee is deleted. This revision is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is set aside.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1132 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and it is for the concerned authorities to take action against him if there is any violation in holding the properties in India under the said Act. In my considered opinion, the appellant has no locus standi to take a defence under the provisions of the Act. So far as this case is concerned, we have to see whether there is a valid demand on the side of the plaintiff. The evidence on record would show that there is a valid demand . Hence, I am of the opinion that both the courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence and the documents adduced by the parties. The concurrent findings of the courts below reflect the evidence on record. The reasonings and findings do not suffer from any infirmity and I find no question of law involved in this matter, warranting this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. For the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1131 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Appeal No. 573 of 2010 are common. Therefore, in light of the order passed today in Special Appeal No. 573 of 2010, we hereby set aside the order dated 15.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal is allowed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1130 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . And Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For The Respondent (s) Mr. Muthu Venkatraman, Adv., Mr. Achin Goel, Adv., Mr. Jaiman Adrews, Adv., Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Adv. And Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, Adv. ORDER Delay condoned. Appeal admitted.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1129 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Gupta and Anr. v. K.P. Jain and Anr. reported in (1979) 49 Comp Cas 342 has been relied upon. That decision is in respect of Company Petition No. 86 of 1974 which was moved for according sanction to a scheme of arrangement. It has nothing to do with the winding up proceeding on the recommendation of the BIFR. 28. In view of what has been stated above we are of the opinion that the learned Company Judge was right in refusing to consider sanctioning the scheme of rehabilitation submitted before it in that winding up proceedings, where the winding up order had been passed on the recommendation of the BIFR, which recommendation had attained finality and which recommendation was binding upon the Company Judge in view of Section 20(2) of the SICA, and who was bound to proceed with the winding up of the company in view of the legislative mandate in Section 20(2) of the SICA. 29. Accordingly this Company Petition being without merit is dismissed.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ocuments. After the show cause / explanation is filed, the adjudicating authority shall proceed to adjudicate the matter after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the respondent and pass an order by ascribing cogent and germane reasons. Needless to say, the adjudicating authority has a different role and this Court hopes and trusts that it shall act within the parameters of law with utmost objectivity. We may further add that it is open to the respondent to raise all possible contentions before the adjudicating authority including its jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid directions, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. We may hasten to clarify that though we have set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and not directed the release of the cash seized from the respondent, it should not be construed that we have expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1127 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppears to have been constricted by limitation on the powers of the magistrate in that regard. Therefore, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in K.Bhaskaran (supra), the matter is required to be remanded to learned magistrate for expeditiously making appropriate order, after hearing the parties, with regard to sentence and compensation. Accordingly, the impugned final order of sentence is set aside, without disturbing conviction for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the matter is remanded to the learned magistrate for making appropriate order, within three months, and after giving to the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard, with regard to sentence and compensation, if any, under section 347 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed to be present for hearing, as aforesaid, before the learned magistrate concerned on 01.09.2010. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. Direct service.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1126 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... p the case on 16.3.2007 and allowed the adjournment without making entry in the order sheet, thus allowed the request for adjournment. The assessment was finally completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 17.12.2007. ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust Vs. ADIT - 115 TTJ 419, observed that where assessment had been made u/s 143(2) and not u/s 144, it means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as good compliance and the defaults committed earlier were ignored by the AO, hence penalty u/s 271(1)(b) could not be levied. In the instant case also, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and not u/s 144, according proposition stated by the ITAT in the aforementioned matter is applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, this case is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1125 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e is no evidence on record to show that the items which were valued as on 31.03.2005 at a particular amount, were sold immediately thereafter at a price higher than the price taken by the assessee in the closing stock. In this view of the matter and having regard to the consistent method of accounting for valuing the closing stock followed by the assessee, we are of the opinion that the assessee’s claim of reduction in valuation of closing stock as on 31.03.2005 as compared to the value of the opening stock of the same item as on 01.04.2005 is justified and it is to be allowed while determining the assessee’s income from business. We therefore, delete the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the CIT(A) and allow this ground raised by the assessee. The AO shall modify the assessment order accordingly. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 22. This decision is pronounced in the Open Court on 20th August, 2010.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1124 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Earning of unprecedented amount of illicit money - “sting operation” said to have conducted - showing money bargaining being done - misuse of official position - huge investments in foreign countries - transferring investigation from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to the CBI - Ex. Ministers, including Ex. Chief Minister, are involved - HELD THAT:- In the present case where Ex. Ministers, including Ex. Chief Minister, are involved, investigation by the State Investigating Agency suffers from the same problem as in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh [2010 (1) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT]. We, therefore, feel that for a proper investigation inspiring public confidence, it is necessary to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI.
Investigation by CBI where such a huge amount is alleged to have been misappropriated and massive wealth have been accumulated, will lead to exact and accurate charge-sheet in the offences. Innocent persons should not need to worry about accurate investigation. Ultimately, such an investigation is nothing but a good help to the Court conducting the trial. If proper investigation is carried out by well-equipped and unbiased investigating officers it will lead to precise and speedy trial. The type of allegations and the persons alleged to be involved make it necessary in the larger public interest that investigation is done by the CBI. Investigation by CBI is not a punishment. Therefore, the hue and cry made by the private Respondents is uncalled for and unwarranted at this stage.
An attempt has been made on the part of some of the Respondents to give their defence in the form of counter affidavits. Firstly, this defence might have been capable of being examined if the investigation as well as the evidence at the trial was complete. At this stage, it cannot be said with certainty what other material will be uncovered during investigation. It also cannot be said with certainty as to which of the accused will turn approver thereby corroborating the other material collected during investigation and, therefore, the defence cannot be examined at this stage. More importantly, what is being transferred is investigation into an offence and not in respect of a particular accused. It is possible that during investigation some of the Respondents may not be found guilty and it is equally possible that during investigation some people, who are not the Respondents before us, may also be found involved. Therefore, we decline to consider the defence at this stage.
So far as the defence about exclusive right of investigation of the Enforcement Directorate is concerned, suffice it to say that it is neither possible nor desirable at this stage to give a positive finding about how much of the crime proceeds have been ‘projected as untainted’. Therefore there is an area of overlap, and the same cannot be allowed to form a tool in the hands of the accused to scuttle investigation.
Considering the time which has already elapsed, the nature of allegations which have been made and the larger public interest involved, we would expect the CBI to expedite the investigation into this matter to the extent to which it is possible having regard to the resources of the CBI.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1123 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the Tribunal has no such power merely because it is an application in the nature of an appeal or cross objections filed under Sub-section (4) of Section 129D of the Act. There is no reason to make differentiation amongst the appellants themselves. 71. On the above premise, we are of the considered view that the application in the nature of appeal or cross objections falling within the sweep of Sub-section(4) of Section 129D would be entitled for benefit of condonation of delay via Sub-section(5) of Section 129A of the Act. 72. In the above view of the matter, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, we answer the question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Appeal is allowed and remanded back to the Tribunal with direction to consider the application for condonation of delay on its own merits in accordance with law with expeditious despatch at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs.
-
2010 (8) TMI 1122 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not been honoured because of the direction from the drawer regarding stoppayment. In fact, a plain reading of Section 138 of the Act makes it crystal clear that unless the conditions precedent mentioned therein are satisfied, the said penal provision cannot be attracted. In this view of the matter and on the admitted facts, as referred to in paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the High Court committed error in relying upon the judgment of this Court in Modi Cements and refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, quash the criminal proceedings and allow the criminal appeal.” 9. In the result, all the petitions are allowed. Respective complaints of cheque bouncing pending, details of which are available in the chart contained in this judgment, before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad are quashed qua the present petitioners also.
........
|
