|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1187 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1780 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the order, we propose to pass in this appeal, we deem it unncessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that insofar as the question of reconsideration of the matter on the question of classification is concerned, the scope of the remand may not be confined only to the parameters laid down in the impugned order and the parties may be permitted to urge before the adjudicating authority all the grounds, as may be available to them under the law. In light of the submission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the appeal with a direction that it will be open to both the parties to urge all the grounds as may be available to them in accordance with law which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication by the Commissioner on classification of the goods in question. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1778 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing on the basis of the objections filed, before finalising the assessment. It is evident from Ext. P3 impugned order that no such opportunity was afforded and no personal hearing was conducted before discarding the objections. Hence I am of the view that there is lack of proper compliance of the mandatory procedure and further I notice that the assessment was finalised in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence I am of the view that the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext. P3 is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and to pass orders after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be permitted to produce documents in support of his contentions. Fresh order of assessment shall be issued as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1777 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... peal therefrom were considered, the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction was not raised. But that does not mean that the defendants have waived the right to raise that contention in the written statement Therefore, I reject the plea of waiver raised by the plaintiff. The court below held in the order impugned that the suit as such is maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam. That finding is not correct in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside. The plaintiff is given liberty to amend the plaint, so that the suit will be maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. When an application is filed for amendment of the plaint, the court below shall consider the same on the merits, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both sides. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1776 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... im from doing and not to punish for having done something, it is imperative on the part of the Detaining Authority to be vigilant. An indifferent attitude on the part of the authority defeats the very purpose of the preventive action, which otherwise has serious consequences from the stand point of the person detained, for it deprives him of his personal liberty, which is impermissible except in accordance with the procedure established by law. 28. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be set aside. 29. Since we have accepted the four contentions of the learned counsel for the detenu, it is not necessary for us to deal with the other contentions mentioned in the grounds by the detenu and urged by him. 30. Consequently, we allow the writ-petition and quash further detention of the detenu under order dated 07.07.2010 and direct that he shall be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case. 31. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1775 - ITAT MUMBAI
Deduction u/s 80IB - AO disallowed the deduction claimed holding, the assessee was not eligible for deduction as it did not fulfill all the conditions as laid down u/s. 80IB - HELD THAT:- We find that by the order of Mumbai Tribunal ‘J’ Bench in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 and A.Y. 2004-05, the matter has been decided by CIT(A), where it was held that, "In our opinion, there is no clear finding by both the authorities on this issue. We, therefore, considered it fit to restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for verifying whether the assessee fulfils one of the conditions regarding area of the plot on which building ‘C’ has been constructed, as required u/s.80IB(10)."
Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for A.Yrs 2003-04 and 2004-05, we restore the issue to the file of the AO to follow the directions in the order of the Tribunal in AY 2003-04 - Matter restored back
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee’s claim of deduction was found to be not genuine in course of assessment proceeding and the claim of deduction was disallowed - CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO levying penalty at the maximum rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded - HELD THAT:- We find that the quantum appeal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 by ITAT ‘J’ Bench has set aside to the file of the AO and directions have been given by the Tribunal to the AO to be followed during the assessment proceedings, hence we deem it fit that the matter of penalty shall also be restored to the file of the AO to decide the same in accordance with law - Matter restored back.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1774 - ITAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... self that the ld. CIT(A) has decided both the issues regarding entitlement of the assessee for 100% depreciation on Dies & Moulds and 100% depreciation on civil works connected with Reverse Osmosis Plant and TET Plant, after following the Tribunal order dated 22.5.2008 rendered in I.T.A.Nos.792 and 893/Mds/07 for assessment year 2003-04 which was followed by the Bench in the order passed on 22.12.2010. The ld.DR was given an opportunity to go through the Tribunal order and the case was adjourned to the next date. After going through the Tribunal order, the ld.DR has fairly conceded that the issues stand covered in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal orders filed before us. Accordingly, we hold that both the issues stand covered in favour of the assessee and hence, respectfully following the Tribunal order in question, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 16.3.2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1773 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in passing a final order when the two members of the Appellate Tribunal on the issue of validity of Circular No. 2 of 2002 without referring the issue to the third member of the Appellate Tribunal for a final decision ?” “Whether the Appellate Tribunal had the power under the Income-tax Act to decide on the validity of Circular No. 2 of 2002 of the CBDT or not ?” “Once it is held that Circular No. 2 of 2002 is valid, whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the income from interest of DDBs and OFCPNs would still taxed on cash basis even after the date of the issue of the Circular ?” “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was following cash system of accounting even when in the block assessment year the system of accounting had been shown as mercantile ?” To be heard with Tax Appeal No. 1442 of 2008.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1772 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the rate prevailing upto the date of the amendment and for the period subsequent to the amendment, the rate prevailing therein. By taking the taxable turnover for the whole year, as the taxable turnover attracted the charge, the necessity to pay the additional sales tax shall be at the relevant rate prevailing as per the unamended law upto the unamended period and post amendment period would be covered by the rate fixed under the amended law. Applying the said decision, the assessee's turnover for the entire year has to be first worked out and upto the cut-off period i.e., upto 31.7.2006, the applicable rate has to be worked out as per the unamended provision and beyond that, for the post-amendment period, the applicable rate under the amended provision has to be arrived at. In the light of the above facts, the writ petition is partly allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside, directing the Assessing Officer to work out the liability and pass orders thereon.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1771 - ITAT INDORE
... ...
... ... ..... uishable, in so far as Shri Keshrimal Jain, who had paid ₹ 30,000/- to the assessee firm is not a partner but an outsider, therefore, proposition laid down by High Court in the case of Mcman Industries (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case. However, on merit we found that Shri Kesarimal Jain was a Government employee retired in 1996 and getting pension. Amount of ₹ 4,000/- was withdrawn from Bank and ₹ 30,000/- was alleged to be received from the family members. Keeping in view the status of assessee and his family, we can reasonably hold that ₹ 20,000/- was given by his family members and ₹ 4,000/- was withdrawn by him from his Bank account. Thus, as per our considered view, the addition should be sustained to the extent of ₹ 10,000/-. 29. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove. This order has been pronounced in the open court on 31st March, 2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1770 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... amshedpur Beverages”, reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 7. To the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, no rejoinder is filed by the Revenue. We have, therefore, no reason to discard the averments made therein or to dispute the documents produced along with such affidavit. 8. Resultantly, we find that the issue involved is not a recurring one, so far as the present respondent is concerned. Further, the respondent has already paid more duty than demanded by the Department. Therefore, the entire issue being revenue neutral, while keeping the question open, present tax appeal can be disposed of. 9. In the result, in view of the above observations, keeping all the questions, raised by the respondent, open, to be judged in an appropriate proceeding, if need so arises in future, present Tax Appeal is Disposed of, making it clear that this order shall not be taken to mean our approval of the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1769 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y service tax under the category of ‘packaging service’. We have perused in depth again all the material and also taken into consideration the factual aspect, which is not much in dispute as already stated and prima facie we are in agreement with the conclusions as arrived at by the appellate tribunal. In this regard, it also amply makes clear by referring to Section 65 (23) of the Finance Act, 1994 in regard to the definition of ‘Cargo Handling Service. In view of the above findings of fact, which we are in entire agreement, it is not necessary to delve into any other aspects or various decisions cited across the Bar from both sides. Even though an attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to draw distinction, but, however the facts themselves speak and stare at the very activity, which conclude ultimately to the same effect with which we are in entire agreement. We do not find merits in the above appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1768 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... il to other accused persons in other criminal cases in the facts and circumstances of those cases by different courts are of no help to the Petitioner. It is true that liberty was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the Petitioner to renew his bail application after three months but, from the order sheet of trial court, it appears that Petitioner is trying to delay the trial on flimsy grounds. On the other hand, bail is prayed on the ground of the period of detention and the liberty given by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Prima facie, it is a case of loot and laundering of huge public money in which the Petitioner is also actively involved. After hearing the parties at length and considering the entire matter carefully, in my opinion, Petitioner does not deserve bail in this case in view of the seriousness of the charges, the materials available in support thereof, and the provisions of Money Laundering Act, as noticed above. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1767 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... company. However, the financial statements of the petitioner company as on 31st December 2009 are submitted with the said Additional Affidavit. Considering the aforesaid explanations and submissions, the observation of the Regional Director does not survive. 10. Considering the petition, the relevant documents on record and considering the submissions made at the time of hearing, I am satisfied that the observations made by the Regional Director do not survive and the scheme of arrangement would be in the interest of the companies and their members and creditors. Prayers in terms of paragraph 23 (a) are hereby granted. 11. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. So far as the costs to be paid to the Central Govt. Standing Counsel is concerned, the same is quantified at ₹ 5,000/per petition. The same may be paid to the learned advocate Shri M. Iqbal A. Shaikh. Cost of ₹ 4,500/may be paid to the Office of the Official Liquidator towards the cost of the petition.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1766 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... e allowed of such profits and gains as are derived by an undertaking from the export of such articles or things or computer software. By reading the section 29 of the Act read with section 28 of the Act, it is clear that income shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 30 to 43D of the Act. Hence, the profit of the undertaking in the present case has to be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 30 to 43D i.e., including the provisions of section 40a (ia) of the Act. In view of the above, in our considered opinion, exemption under section 10A has to be computed on the profits determined after taking into account the disallowance to be made under section 40a(ia) of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any infirmity in the order of the CIT (A) on this issue and accordingly his order is upheld. Hence, the ground raised on this issue is rejected. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 31-03-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1765 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ut of interest income earned by the assessee under Section 56 of the Act. Question of law (d) and (e) are specifically framed in this behalf. Because of this reason, in the present application it is stated that the said issue has not been taken care of in this appeal, on the contrary, Mr. Thadani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent assessee points out that in other appeal of the assessee i.e. ITA 308/2001 that issue is discussed though that does not arise in that year. This mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee is accepted by the learned counsel for the Revenue as well. In these circumstances, we modify the orders dated 18th February, 2011 with the following addition - “In so far as question no. (d) and (e) raised in the appeal are concerned, they are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (2007) 298 ITR 475.” This application is decided in the aforesaid terms.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1764 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 011, we delete the following portion from the orders dated 21st February, 2011 passed in this appeal as that does not arise for consideration in this appeal and in fact was a question of law in ITA 185/2011 - “In so far as question no. (d) is concerned, that is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri Ram Honda Power Equip (2007) 298 ITR 475.”
-
2011 (3) TMI 1763 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l be deprived of his property save by authority of law. 40. Right to property is no longer fundamental but it is a Constitutional right and Article 300A contains a guarantee against deprivation of property right save by authority of law. 41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents whether self acquired or ancestral. 42. For the reasons discussed above, we are constrained to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in Jinia Keotin (supra), Neelamma (supra) and Bharatha Matha (supra) on Section 16(3) of the Act. 43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1762 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1761 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aterials presently on record that though a Local Monitoring Committee has been constituted by the District Collector as per Ext.P3 order dated 28.11.2007 the Local Monitoring Committee has not periodically inspected the petitioner's quarry. In such circumstances even while declining to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that the Local Monitoring Committee constituted by the District Collector as per Ext.P3 order dated 28.11.2007 should conduct periodical inspections of the quarry run by the 5th respondent every month and ensure that the 5th respondent is running the quarry in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the No Objection Certificate. The District Collector, Thrissur shall take necessary steps to ensure that this direction is complied with and the Local Monitoring Committee inspects the quarry once a month and submits periodical reports to him. Subject to the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1760 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se the same would not come within the purview of section 138 of the Act." 11. In the instant case also, admittedly the cheques in question were issued by the petitioner from his personal account as a guarantee/security for the encashment of the cheque of 70 lakhs issued by M/s Mother India Logistics & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the respondent No.2 company. Those cheques were to be presented for encashment only in the event of the banker of the petitioner's company failing to honour the cheque of 70 lakhs issued by the aforesaid company in favour of respondent No.2. Thus, it is clear that the above referred three cheques of 25 lakhs each were issued by the petitioner from his personal account only as a security, as such Section 138 N.I. Act is not attracted in respect of said three cheques. 12. Under the circumstances, the petitions must succeed. The summoning orders dated 10.09.2009 in respect of complaints No.1594/2009, 3633/2007 and 3632/2007 are quashed.
........
|
