|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1820 - ITAT LUCKNOW
... ...
... ... ..... or the assessment year under consideration came to Rs. Nil and hence in view of the C.B.D.T. Circular No.5 of 2008 dated 15.5.2008, the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed because tax effect is less than ₹ 2 lacs. According to Shri Surendra Kohli, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the assessee the appeal deserves to be dismissed on this score also. In our view, there is a merit in the above submissions of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and therefore, we hold that on the ground of tax effect also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Viewed from any angle, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. C.O.No.5(LKW)/2011 16. The grounds raised in the Cross Objection merely support the order of the ld.CIT(A) and the assessee has not claimed any effective relief therein. Hence, we dismiss the Cross Objection as infructuous. 17. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are dismissed. The order pronounced in the open Court on 22.3.11.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1819 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... aspect of matter has been decided by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in assessment year 1995-96 to 1998-99 and Ld. CIT(A) has followed this tribunal decision only. This tribunal decision in earlier years had been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and hence, these appeals of the revenue do not survive because this issue is now covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal decision as well as by the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi affirming the tribunal decision. Similarly, the issue raised by the assessee in the cross objections are covered against the assessee by the same tribunal decision and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court and hence, these appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are liable to be dismissed. We dismiss the same. 6. In the result, all the four appeals of the revenue as well as all the four cross objections of the assessee are dismissed. 7. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1818 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... rops which in total amounted to ₹ 1,99,500/-. Thus, the total net income of ₹ 6,21,270/- was shown in respect of land of 18.86 acres in Ratanpur area, Bhopal, yielding average rate of ₹ 33,000/- per acre. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) estimated ₹ 15,000/- per acre. Keeping in view the details furnished by the assessee as narrated by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in his order which has not been controverted, it would be most reasonable to estimate the income at ₹ 22,000/- per acre of land for computing the agricultural income shown by the assessee with respect to various crops. The Assessing Officer is directed to recomputed the agricultural income by taking the income of ₹ 22,000/- per acre of land. We direct accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part in terms indicated above. Order pronounced in open Court in the presence of learned representatives of both the sides on 28 March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1817 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ant, has admitted the case of Plaintiff in toto. The Appellant seeks to brush this aside by asserting active collusion between the Respondents and his brother. In the face of the admissions made by the Appellant himself which have been culled out from his pleadings and inferred therefrom, in my view, this assertion must fall to the ground. Consequently, looking at the matter from any angle, the judgment of the trial court deserves to be affirmed. 32. In the above view of the matter, it is deemed unnecessary to go into the question raised by the Respondents that the Appellant could have only taken the plea of adverse possession as a defence and that no declaration of the said right could be given in the suit to the Plaintiff and as such even the consequential relief of injunction could also not have been given to the Appellant. 33. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with the direction to send back the records to the trial court for adjudication on the aspect of mesne profits.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1816 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... quot;in connection with" are of the widest amplitude. These observations of the Supreme Court are sought to be relied upon to amplify the words ""all matters connected therewith" in Section 266. The words which have been used in Section 266 must receive interpretation in the context in which where they are used. In the context of the jurisdiction of the probate Court, it is a well settled principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court that the Court cannot go into questions as regards title or of the existence of a property bequeathed by the deceased. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the Respondents that the interpretation which is sought to be placed by the Appellant would travel beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the probate Court and would be contrary to legislative intent. 16. For these reasons, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1815 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... no. 2, under instructions from his client, have no objection in permitting the applicant to compound the offence for which the applicant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, applicant is permitted to compound the offence for which he is convicted and consequently the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court dated 12/07/2005 in Criminal Case No. 581/2002 and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 30/06/2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 26/2005 confirmed by this Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 619/2009 are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. With this, the present application is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. It is reported that the applicant has already surrendered pursuant to the earlier order of conviction, and, therefore, on the present application being allowed, the applicant shall be set at free unless required for in some other case. Direct service is permitted.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1814 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se, the Crime Branch, which is an authority under the State, had issued directions to the Bank. Because of that order, the Bank refused to clear the cheque and returned it unpaid. The order of attachment of the account was not passed at the behest of the accused nor he was competent to pass any such order. As he had no control over the Crime branch he could not stop the Crime Branch from passing any such order. If because of such attachment order passed by the Crime Branch, the account was attached and the cheques could not be cleared, it cannot be said that the cheques were returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds or sufficient arrangement. This very important ingredient of the offence under Section 138 is missing and therefore the Metropolitan Magistrate was justified in passing the order of acquittal. 7. In view of the above circumstances, I find no justification to grant leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore, the Application stands rejected.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1813 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... return under Section 139(5) of the Act claiming the deduction by mentioning specifically the provision of law under which he is entitled to the said deduction. No-doubt, such a revised return has to be filed within one year from the original return. Section 119(2)(B) of the Act provides for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the facts of the case, we are satisfied that though the assessee is entitled to the benefit of deduction, he as to be denied the said benefit for non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of law. However, the same would not come in the way of putting forth a claim by filing a revised return before the assessing authority and if such a claim is made, the assessing authority shall consider the said claim on merits and in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. For the reasons aforesaid, the substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1812 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onation of delay and the restoration of the claim petition to the file of the Tribunal shall be made, subject to condition. 16. For all the above reasons, the delay of 747 days in filing the application for restoration of the claim petition is condoned and the claim petition is restored to the file of the Tribunal to be heard and decided on merits. In the event the Tribunal passes an award in favour of the claimant, while granting interest the Tribunal shall take into consideration, the date of filing of the claim petition to 20.11.1995 and the date after which the claim petition is restored to the file of the Tribunal for the purpose of computing the period for which interest would be awarded. In other words, the period from 21.11.1995, till the date of restoration of the claim petition to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chingleput, shall stand excluded for the purpose of grant of interest. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1811 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... editiously as possible, preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 3. The case number referred to in the judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 was the petition filed by Ms. Dharam Devi and not the petition which was filed by the Appellant herein, which was given a separate number i.e. 219/89-C.A. The judgment dated 3rd September, 2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3650/2002 did not have the effect of setting aside the order dated 23rd April, 2002 of the Financial Commissioner in the petition filed by the Appellant herein bearing case No. 219/89-C.A. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has not been able to show, how and in what manner the order dated 3rd September, 2004, has the effect of reviving the petition filed by the Appellant herein, i.e. petition No. 219/89-C.A. which was decided on 23rd April, 2002 by the Financial Commissioner. The Appellant had accepted the order dated 23rd April, 2002. The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1810 - ITAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ee is dismissed. 8. As regards the provision for warranty is concerned, we find that as on 1/4/2004 the available provision was ₹ 19,24,354/- and the warranty expenses incurred in 2004-05 were ₹ 1,15,50,719/- and the warranty for the year is ₹ 96,26,365/- and the difference between these two is ₹ 19,24,354/-. The assessee has made a provision of ₹ 27,20,647/- during the relevant asst. year for the claims accepted but not settled as on 31.3.2005. As held by the CIT(A), the analysis of this fact demonstrates that a scientific basis is adopted to measure the future liability on account of warranty and the expenses actually incurred is corresponding to the provision made. Therefore, we confirm the order of the CIT(A) that the estimation is fair and reasonable and no interference in the said order is called for. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is also dismissed. The order pronounced on Monday, the 21st day of March, 2011 at Bangalore
-
2011 (3) TMI 1809 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... which the asset was held by the previous owner also has to be taken into account. It is not logical that the cost of acquisition and the period of holding is determined with reference to the previous owner and the indexation factor is determined with reference to the date ofacquisition by the assessee . Such an interpretation will lead to absurdity and unjust results and defeat the purpose of the concept of ‘indexed cost of acquisition’. In accordance with the principles of purposive interpretation of statutes, Expl. (iii) to s. 48 has to be read to mean that the indexed cost of acquisition has to be computed by taking into account the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner.” In view of the aforesaid decision we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Consequently the appeal by the revenue is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1808 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... technical services. The claim for depreciation made by the assessee does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in the aforesaid provision. Therefore, it is not possible to make the impugned disallowance by resorting to the provisions of section 40(ia) of the Act. The learned D.R. however submitted that provisions of Sec.40(a)(i) of the Act were held to apply even to capital expenditure by the ITAT Mumbai in Spaco Carburetors (I) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2005 (3) SOT 798 (Mum). We find that the said decision was rendered in the context of deduction of capital expenditure while computing income, claimed by an Assessee u/s.35AB of the Act. We therefore do not find any relevance to the said decision to the present case. In that view of the matter we direct that the disallowance made be deleted. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 9th day of March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1807 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ound on which renewal application is not granted, it would not be necessary to give any show cause notice to the Petitioners and asking explanation regarding Regulation 23 of the IRDA Regulations. The Petitioners may submit its appropriate explanation regarding Regulation 23 by giving written submission in writing. As pointed out earlier, if any additional ground on which the authority wants to rely and if there is any legal impediment in passing the order of renewal, the same may be brought to the notice of the Petitioners. Mr. Seervai submits that while taking such a decision, Advocates may be heard. We are not in a position to accede to the said request. However, if written submissions are given, the authority shall consider the same and appropriate decision may be taken within four weeks from today in accordance with law. We are sure the authority will not ask for further extension in this behalf. 33. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs
-
2011 (3) TMI 1806 - ITAT CUTTACK
... ...
... ... ..... within the same vicinity as enumerated in the impugned orders. The reason given by them to deviate those orders is not tenable under law. So also the reasons given by the Departmental authorities for not following the CBDT Circle No.29D(XIX-14) and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhullar Builders (2006) 286 ITR 686 (supra) is also not tenable under law. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the estimation of profit made by the learned CIT(A) against the assessee @5% of the gross receipts is not correct and hence, it is hereby substituted by Net profit of 3% as estimated by the learned CIT(A) in cases of other similar contractors in the same vicinity since the estimation of Net profit is determined @3%, no separate claim for depreciation need to be given as the Net profit is always after depreciation. We direct accordingly. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1805 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cannot ignore the fact that two contrary opinions have come into existence only in such circumstances. Applying the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court, the negative opinion given by the Chemical Examiner, Amritsar is preferred against the later report submitted by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court based on improper appreciation of evidence and the point of law are liable to be sat aside. 25. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The accused who is in custody be set at liberty, at once, if not required, in any other case. The contraband is ordered to be confiscated to the state. The truck be returned to the owner thereof on proper identification.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1804 - ITAT AGRA
... ...
... ... ..... neness of the activities of the assessee Trust, then it is not proper on behalf of the CIT, Agra to reject the application of the assessee for the benefit of exemption under section 80G(5) of the Act by holding that the activities of the assessee Trust are not genuine. We have also gone through the order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court (supra) and we are of the opinion that the facts of the present case are similar to the case cited supra. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the order dated 15.05.2009 passed by CIT-1, Agra under section 12AA in the case of the assessee Trust, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee Trust is entitled for the benefit of exemption under section 80G(5) of the Act and, therefore, we direct the CIT-1, Agra to grant exemption to the assessee under section 80G(5) of the Act. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.03.2011).
-
2011 (3) TMI 1803 - SUPREME COURT
Applications for reopening/recalling of evidence - Powers of the trial court or the High court for exercise of discretion u/s 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code - when the arguments were in progress, the appellant filed two applications. The first application was filed u/s 151 of the Code with a prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further cross-examination of Plaintiff (PW1) and the attesting witness (PW2). second application was filed under O18 R17 of the Code for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination. it was necessary to reopen the evidence and further cross-examine PW1 and PW2 with reference to the said admissions (electronically recorded evidence) to demonstrate that the agreement of sale was only a security for the loan. It is stated that the Compact Disc containing the recording of the said conversations was produced along with the said applications. The respondent resisted the said applications. The trial court held that as the evidence of both parties was concluded and the arguments had also been heard in part, the applications were intended only to delay the matter. Therefore, dismissed and HC on the same reasons given by trial court dismissed the said application. The said order is challenged in these appeals by special leave.
HELD THAT:- The appellant - defendant has taken a consistent stand in his reply notice, written statement and evidence that the agreement of sale was executed to secure a loan of ₹ 150,000, as the respondent insisted upon execution and registration of such agreement. If after the completion of recording of evidence, PW1 and PW2 had admitted during conversations that the amount paid was not advance towards sale price, but only a loan and the agreement of sale was obtained to secure the loan, that would be material evidence which came into existence subsequent to the recording of the depositions, having a bearing on the decision and will also clarify the evidence already led on the issues. According to the appellant, the said evidence came into existence only on 27.10.2008 and 31.10.2008, and he prepared the applications and filed them at the earliest, that is on 11.11.2008. As defendant could not have produced this material earlier and if the said evidence, if found valid and admissible, would assist the court to consider the evidence in the correct perspective or to render justice, it was a fit case for exercising the discretion u/s 151 of the Code.
In view of the above, these appeals are allowed in part. The orders of the High Court and Trial Court dismissing u/s 151 of the Code are set aside. The orders are affirmed in regard to the dismissal under O18 R17 of the Code.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1802 - ITAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mber of occasions earlier when either the assessee or the revenue sought adjournment. On 06.10.2010, the learned AR of the assessee had sought adjournment, which was granted to 22.03.2011. In absence of the assessee, the learned DR explained the facts of the case. However, he could not point to any error in the impugned order, which requires corrections from us. On perusal of the order, we find that section 155(11A) permits a mechanism to modify the order in case sale proceeds are not received in convertible foreign exchange in India within the prescribed time but are received after the expiry of the limitation. In view thereof, it would not be proper to allow deduction at lower amount and thereafter rectify the order to grant correct deduction u/s 155(11A). In view thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of learned CIT(A). 4. In result, the appeal is dismissed. This order was pronounced in open court on 22.03.2011 soon after conclusion of the hearing.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1801 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... but also filed their replies to the application and got the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their case and had not suffered any prejudice for non-compliance of the provisions of the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 7A of the Act or Rule 7 of the Rules. The High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the proceedings before the Special Tribunal in the present case on the ground that a notification or notice in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Rules had not been issued after the case was taking cognizance of by the Special Tribunal. 17. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for consideration whether in the facts of the two cases reference to the Mandal Revenue Officer was at all necessary to ascertain the truth of the statements made in the applications and to arrive at a just decision and for consideration of the Writ Petitions on merits. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
